DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending
Claims 1-10 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4-5 state “each of the meltblown fibers” and instead should state “each of the plurality of meltblown fibers” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “of the meltblown fibers” and instead should state “of the plurality of meltblown fibers” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “of the meltblown fibers” and instead should state “of the plurality of meltblown fibers” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a roller temperature” on lines 2-3. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘a roller temperature’ as recited on lines 8-9 of claim 1, or a different roller temperature?
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a roller temperature” on lines 2-3. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘a roller temperature’ as recited on lines 8-9 of claim 1, or a different roller temperature?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEMMEL et al. (U.S. 2020/0398200 A1) (hereinafter “Demmel”) in view of Rock et al. (U.S. 2009/0186548 A1) (hereinafter “Rock”) and further in view of Bansal et al. (U.S. 2002/0034909 A1) (hereinafter “Bansal”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Demmel teaches a manufacturing method of a meltblown fiber membrane (see paragraphs 1, 9, 21-23, 28 and 36), comprising:
passing a meltblown film to perform a calendering process on the meltblown film (see paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25 and 27-28 further describing a nonwoven layer comprising a plurality of fibres) (see paragraph 36 further describing a calendaring process), wherein the meltblown film comprises a plurality of meltblown fibers (see paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25 and 27-28 further describing a nonwoven layer comprising a plurality of fibres), each of the meltblown fibers comprises a high-fluidity polyester and a modified polyester (see paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25 and 27-28 further describing high-fluidity polyester and modified polyester fibres), and operating at temperatures under 230°C, specifically ranging from 100°C to 155°C (see paragraphs 12 and 63).
Demmel does not explicitly teach passing a meltblown film between a first pressing roller and a second pressing roller to perform a calendering process on the meltblown film, a melt index of the high-fluidity polyester under a temperature of 230°C ranges from 350 g/10min to 550 g/10min, a melt index of the modified polyester under a temperature of 230°C ranges from 200 g/10min to 400 g/10min, and a roller temperature of each of the first pressing roller and the second pressing roller ranges from 100°C to 155°C, as recited in independent claim 1.
Rock further teaches passing a meltblown film between a first pressing roller and a second pressing roller to perform a calendering process on the meltblown film (see Rock paragraphs 49-50 further describing passing a film between heated rolls 102 to perform a calendering process).
Bansal further teaches a metblown fiber system and method including a melt index of at least 10 g/10 min at temperatures ranging from 120°C to 140°C (see Bansal paragraphs 20-21, 34-35 and 46).
Demmel and Rock are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a fiber system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the manufacturing method of a meltblown fiber membrane of Demmel to include a step of passing a film between multiple rollers to perform a calendering process, as taught by Rock, in order to effectively and efficiently create a meltblown fiber membrane with optimized characteristics (see Rock paragraphs 49-50 further describing passing a film between heated rolls 102 to perform a calendering process).
Demmel, Rock and Bansal are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a fiber system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the manufacturing method of a meltblown fiber membrane of Demmel, as modified by Rock, to include a melt index parameter operating at a specific temperature, as taught by Bansal, for optimization purposes of the meltblown fiber membrane (see Bansal paragraphs 20-21, 34-35 and 46).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Demmel, Rock and Bansal teaches the manufacturing method of the meltblown fiber membrane of claim 1, wherein Rock further teaches a roller distance between the first pressing roller and the second pressing roller ranges from 0.05 mm to 0.10 mm (see Rock paragraphs 49-50 further describing passing a film between heated rolls 102 to perform a calendering process).
Demmel, Rock and Bansal are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a fiber system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the manufacturing method of a meltblown fiber membrane of Demmel, as modified by Bansal, to include a step of passing a film between multiple rollers to perform a calendering process, as taught by Rock, in order to effectively and efficiently create a meltblown fiber membrane with optimized characteristics (see Rock paragraphs 49-50 further describing passing a film between heated rolls 102 to perform a calendering process).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Demmel, Rock and Bansal teaches the manufacturing method of the meltblown fiber membrane of claim 1, wherein Demmel further teaches the high-fluidity polyester is polybutylene terephthalate (see Demmel paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25 and 27-28 further describing high-fluidity polyester and modified polyester fibres), and the roller temperature of each of the first pressing roller and the second pressing roller ranges from 130°C and 155°C (see Demmel paragraphs 12 and 63).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Demmel, Rock and Bansal teaches the manufacturing method of the meltblown fiber membrane of claim 1, wherein the high-fluidity polyester is a thermoplastic polyester elastomer (see Demmel paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25 and 27-28 further describing high-fluidity polyester and modified polyester fibres), and the roller temperature of each of the first pressing roller and the second pressing roller ranges from 100°C and 115°C (see Demmel paragraphs 12 and 63).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Demmel, Rock and Bansal teaches the manufacturing method of the meltblown fiber membrane of claim 1, wherein Demmel further teaches a linear pressure of each of the first pressing roller and the second pressing roller ranges from 50 kg/cm to 70 kg/cm (see Demmel paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25, 27-28 and 36).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Demmel, Rock and Bansal teaches the manufacturing method of the meltblown fiber membrane of claim 1, wherein Demmel further teaches more than 50% of a quantity of the meltblown fibers has a fiber diameter ranging from 0.5 µm to 1.5 µm (see Demmel paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25, 27-28 and 36).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Demmel, Rock and Bansal teaches the manufacturing method of the meltblown fiber membrane of claim 1, wherein Demmel further teaches more than 75% of a quantity of the meltblown fibers has a fiber diameter ranging from 0.5 µm to 1.0 µm (see Demmel paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25, 27-28 and 36).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Demmel, Rock and Bansal teaches the manufacturing method of the meltblown fiber membrane of claim 1, wherein Demmel further teaches the modified polyester comprises a soft-chain polyester, and the soft-chain polyester has a monomer represented by formula (1) (see current claim set) (see Demmel paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25 and 27-28 further describing high-fluidity polyester and modified polyester fibres).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Demmel, Rock and Bansal teaches the manufacturing method of the meltblown fiber membrane of claim 1, wherein Demmel further teaches the modified polyester comprises a soft-chain polyester, and the soft-chain polyester has a monomer represented by formula (2) (see current claim set) (see Demmel paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25 and 27-28 further describing high-fluidity polyester and modified polyester fibres).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Demmel, Rock and Bansal teaches the manufacturing method of the meltblown fiber membrane of claim 1, wherein Demmel further teaches the modified polyester comprises a soft-chain polyester, and the soft-chain polyester has a monomer represented by formula (3) (see current claim set), wherein X is a positive integer ranging from 1 to 12, and y is a positive integer ranging from 1 to 12 (see Demmel paragraphs 1, 9, 21-25 and 27-28 further describing high-fluidity polyester and modified polyester fibres).
Other References Considered
Park (U.S. 2008/0241297 A1) (hereinafter “Park”) teaches an electric spinning apparatus for mass-production of nano-fiber.
XUE et al. (U.S. 2021/0171707 A1) (hereinafter “Xue”) teaches polyesters with ultra-high flowability and superior stability and meltblown fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights