DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged. Regarding applicant’s allegation that joinder of these distinct inventions would not present a serious burden to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, such allegations rely on the unsupported assumption that the search and the examination of both inventions would be coextensive. However, the issues raised in the examination of apparatus claims are divergent from those raised in the examination of process claims. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the two inventions, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be identical. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining both distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Midkiff USPN 5,667,562.
Regarding claim 1, Midkiff discloses a nonwoven fabric comprising a nonwoven material having a first surface and an opposing second surface (Abstract), wherein the first surface has a first average surface charge and the second surface has a second average surface charge, the first average surface charge being different from the second average surface charge (column 8, lines 5-28: at least after the initial positive and negative charge the two surfaces would have a different charge), wherein the nonwoven material comprises a first plurality of fibers comprising a first polymer and a second plurality of fibers comprising a second polymer different from the first polymer (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Midkiff discloses that the first average surface charge is positive and the second average surface charge is negative (column 8, lines 5-28: at least after the initial positive and negative charge the one surface would have a positive charge and the other surface would have a negative charge).
Regarding claim 11, Midkiff discloses that the first plurality of fibers and the second plurality of fibers are continuous filament fibers (column 2, lines 41-67).
Regarding claim 13, Midkiff discloses that the nonwoven fabric comprises an air filter (Abstract).
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff USPN 5,667,562.
Midkiff is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 8, Midkiff discloses at least partially fibrillated bicomponent filaments formed from bicomponent fibers having an external fiber component comprising the first polymer and an internal fiber component comprising the second polymer, wherein the external fiber component at least partially enwraps the internal fiber component (column 3, lines 39-67), but does not disclose that the external fiber component is 5% to 25 wt. % of the bicomponent filament. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the amounts of the various fibers is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal filtration. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Midkiff discloses that the bicomponent fibers are selected from: a. islands-in-the-sea fibers having about 20 to about 100 islands; b. segmented pie fibers having about 2 to about 64 segments; c. tipped multilobal fibers having about 3 to about 24 tips; d. side-by-side fibers; and e. sheath-core fibers (column 3, lines 39-57).
Claims 3-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff USPN 5,667,562 in view of Tsai USPN 5,401,446.
Midkiff is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 10, Midkiff does not disclose that the absolute potential difference in volts between the first average surface charge and the second average surface charge is about 40 V or higher, about 60 V or higher, about 80 V or higher, or about 40 V or higher after aging at 75° C. and 20% RH following ASTM F1980-07 (reapproved 2011). Mifkiff discloses that one technique for adding a charge is found in Tsai USPN 5,401,446 (column 8, lines 5-28). Tsai discloses various voltages having various filtration ability (see Tsai Tables). Therefore, the exact voltage of the two surfaces is deemed to be a result effective variable with regard to the filtration. It would require routine experimentation to determine the optimum value of a result effective variable, such as voltage differences, in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed fabric. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Tsai to optimize the voltage differences in Midkiff in order to optimize filtration efficiency.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff USPN 5,667,562 in view of Pike USPN 5,721,180.
Midkiff is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 6, Midkiff discloses various polymers but does not disclose the first polymer is an aliphatic polyester and the second polymer is an aromatic polyester or a polyolefin, or the first polymer is a polyolefin and the second polymer is a polyamide. Pike discloses a similar invention where the first polymer is polyolefin and the second polymer is a polyamide (see Pike column 4, lines 46-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Midkiff to utilize polyolefin-polyamide, as disclosed by Pike, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff USPN 5,667,562 in view of Creagan USPA 2001/0041876 A1.
Midkiff is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 12. Midkiff does not disclose that the first plurality of fibers and the second plurality of fibers are discontinuous fibers having a length ranging from 3 mm to 150 mm. Creagan discloses a similar invention where the fibers are cut to such lengths (see Creagan paragraph 15). Therefore, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the fiber length is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal filtration. MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Midkiff so that the fibers are discontinuous and have a length ranging from 3 mm to 150 mm, as disclosed by Creagan, as is known in the art to be useful for certain uses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: although polyactic acid along with polytrimethylene terephthalate or polypropylene are known to be used in the realm of nonwovens (e.g. USPA 2013/0149926 A1), there is nothing in the prior art that would motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Midkiff to utilize polyactic acid as the first polymer and polytrimethylene terephthalate or polypropylene as the second polymer. The nonwoven of claim 7, utilizing these two polymers along the limitations of claim 1 including the different charged surfaces is not taught or made obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights