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 .
Drawings
Figures 1, 2 and 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4 and 7 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 4 recites the limitation "the gas inlet" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the gas inlet" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buehning (U.S. Patent No. 4,818,463 A).
Regarding claim 1, Buehning (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 14-18; col. 3, lines 46-49; col. 4, lines 9-18 and 54-68; col. 7, lines 39-47; col. 7, line 60 to col. 8, line 21; col. 11, lines 25-27; col. 12, lines 64-68; col. 13, lines 20-23; col. 14, lines 10-19; Figures 1-4) teaches a melt-blowing apparatus (see col. 1, lines 14-18 (melt-blowing die) of Buehning), including (a) a die including a die inlet end to receive molten polymer from a polymer source, a cavity located downstream from the die inlet end through which the molten polymer flows, and a die outlet end to receive the molten polymer from the cavity and deliver to outlet orifices at the die outlet end (see Figures 1, 2 and 4; col. 4, lines 16-18 (melt-blowing die 14); col. 4, lines 9-15 (inlet passage or hole 42); col. 4, lines 55-57 (cavity 86); col. 4, lines 58-68 (extrusion orifices or holes 90) of Buehning); and (b) a fluid supply including a fluid inlet and a fluid channel connected with the fluid inlet and extending to the die outlet end so as to deliver fluid to the die outlet end to attenuate fibers formed from molten polymer emerging from the die outlet (see Figures 1 and 2; col. 3, lines 46-49 (a compressed inert gas such as air is fed into manifolds 16 from sources indicated by arrows 28, gas flows in a path shown by arrows towards die exit); col. 12, lines 64-68 (gas stream attenuates the polymer into fibers) of Buehning); wherein (b)(1) the fluid supply provides fluid at a temperature T2 that differs from a temperature T1 of the molten polymer within the cavity, and the melt-blowing apparatus is configured to independently maintain the molten polymer within the cavity at a temperature T1 during operation of the melt-blowing apparatus (see Figure 2; col. 7, lines 39-47 (dead air space 178 between die body 20 and air chamber 34 thermally isolates attenuating air from die body 20); col. 7, line 60 to col. 8, line 21 (dead air space 198, dead air space 204); col. 14, lines 10-19 (resin temperature and air temperature are considerably different) of Buehning).
Regarding claim 2, see col. 11, lines 25-27 (air temperature of 610-620°F) of Buehning.
Regarding claim 3, see Figure 4; col. 4, lines 58-68 (tens or hundreds of extrusion orifices or holes) of Buehning.
Regarding claim 6, see col. 4, lines 18-27 (die tip 50 integrated with die body halves 22); col. 6, lines 1-20 (die tip 50 attached with mounting screws 120) of Buehning.
Regarding claim 7, see Figure 1; col. 3, lines 46-49 (air manifolds 16) of Buehning.
Regarding claim 8, see Figure 2 of Buehning.
Claim(s) 10-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buehning (U.S. Patent No. 4,818,463 A).
Regarding claim 10, Buehning (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 14-18; col. 3, lines 46-49; col. 4, lines 9-18 and 54-68; col. 7, lines 39-47; col. 7, line 60 to col. 8, line 21; col. 10, lines 52-68; col. 11, lines 25-27; col. 12, lines 64-68; col. 13, lines 20-23; col. 14, lines 10-19; Figures 1-4) teaches a melt-blowing process (see col. 1, lines 14-18 (melt-blowing fibers) of Buehning), including (a) directing molten polymer within a die of a melt-blowing apparatus through a plurality of orifices at a die outlet, the molten polymer having a temperature T1 (see Figures 1, 2 and 4; col. 4, lines 16-18 (melt-blowing die 14); col. 4, lines 9-15 (inlet passage or hole 42); col. 4, lines 55-57 (cavity 86); col. 4, lines 58-68 (extrusion orifices or holes 90); col. 13, lines 20-23 (polymer temperature of 350-900°F) of Buehning); and (b) directing a fluid to contact the molten polymer emerging from the die outlet to form fibers from the polymer emerging from the die outlet, the fluid having a temperature T2 that differs from the temperature T1 (see Figures 1 and 2; col. 3, lines 46-49 (a compressed inert gas such as air is fed into manifolds 16 from sources indicated by arrows 28, gas flows in a path shown by arrows towards the die exit); col. 12, lines 64-68 (gas stream attenuates the polymer into fibers); col. 11, lines 25-27 (air temperature of 610-620°F) of Buehning); wherein (b)(1) the molten polymer within the die is maintained at a temperature T1 when the polymer emerges from the die outlet and contacts the fluid (see col. 13, lines 20-23 (polymer temperature of 350-900°F) of Buehning).
Regarding claim 11, see col. 11, lines 25-27 (air temperature of 610-620°F) and col. 13, lines 20-23 (polymer temperature of 350-900°F) of Buehning.
Regarding claim 12, see col. 6, lines 46-49 (a compressed inert gas such as air) of Buehning.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, see col. 14, lines 10-19 (temperature difference of more than 100°F) of Buehning.
Regarding claim 15, see Figures 2 and 3; col. 4, lines 18-27 (die tip 50 integrated with die body halves 22); col. 6, lines 1-20 (die tip 50 attached with mounting screws 120) of Buehning.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, see col. 10, lines 52-68 (thermoplastic materials); col. 11, lines 25-27 (air temperature of 610-620°F) and col. 13, lines 20-23 (polymer temperature of 350-900°F) of Buehning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehning (U.S. Patent No. 4,818,463 A) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-8 above, and further in view of Chen et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0038304 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Buehning does not teach (1) a channel having an L/D ratio of at least 50:1. Chen et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraph [0093]) teaches an apparatus (see paragraph [0093] (melt-blowing system) of Chen et al), including a channel having an L/D ratio of at least 50:1 (see paragraph [0093] (length/diameter (L/D) flow channel ratios of 20:1-1,000:1) of Chen et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a flow channel an L/D ratio of at least 50:1 in the apparatus of Buehning in view of Chen et al in order to provide even polymer flow distribution (see paragraph [0093] of Chen et al).
Regarding claim 5, see Figure 2 of Buehning.
Regarding claim 9, the die cavity volume would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the apparatus of Buehning in view of Chen et al in order to manufacture a desired number of melt-blown fibers.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehning (U.S. Patent No. 4,818,463 A) as applied to claims 10-16 and 20 above, and further in view of Li et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,663,517 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Buehning et al does not teach (1) an additive having a decomposition temperature of no greater than 245°C. Li et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 4, lines 38-44; col. 8, lines 3-8; col. 16, lines 49-56) teaches a process (see col. 4, lines 38-44 (process of making fibers by melt-blowing) of Li et al), including an additive having a decomposition temperature of no greater than 245°C (see col. 8, lines 3-8 (resin compositions may include conventional stabilizer co-additives) and col. 16, lines 49-56 (basic co-stabilizers, including magnesium stearate) of Li et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additive having a decomposition temperature of no greater than 245°C in the process of Buehning in view of Li et al in order to stabilize the resin composition for melt-blowing.
Regarding claim 18, see col. 16, lines 49-56 (basic co-stabilizers, including magnesium stearate) of Li et al.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buehning (U.S. Patent No. 4,818,463 A) as applied to claims 10-16 and 20 above, and further in view of Nagano et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0233894 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Buehning does not teach (1) a molten polymer having a melt flow index of at least about 8 grams/10 minutes. Nagano et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0022] and [0061]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (process of making fibers by melt-blowing) of Nagano et al), including a molten polymer having a melt flow index of at least about 8 grams/10 minutes (see paragraphs [0022] (thermoplastic resin such as polypropylene, polyester, polyethylene or polyamide) and [0061] (polypropylene having a melt flow rate of 1,200 grams/10 minutes) of Nagano et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a molten polymer having a melt flow index of at least about 8 grams/10 minutes in the process of Buehning in view of Nagano et al in order to provide a thermoplastic resin having desired flow and/or viscosity to manufacture fibers by melt-blowing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742