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 .
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 1 and dependent claims 2-14 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 1 recites a mass-related specific surface area. It is not clear if this measurement is made by a special measurement or is a standard surface area. Clarification is required.
Claim 2 is indefinite for having a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation residual crimp does not exceed 1.7, and the claim also recites preferably between 1.1 and approximately 1.7 and in particular 1.3 and 1.7 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation filament titer of 8 denier and 30 denier, and the claim also recites preferably 9 denier and 30 denier and more preferentially between 10 and 20 denier which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 and 7 recites the broad recitation titer is at most 0.1, and the claim also recites titer is preferably 0.05 to 0.01 maximum which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation titer of 200 denier and at most 4000 denier, and the claim also recites at least 250 denier and at most 2500 denier which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 is 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 6 has a 4000 denier that is equated with 4.444 date however 4000 denier is equivalent to 4444.4 date. Additionally the 2500 denier is noted as 2.777 but should be 2777.7 date. Clarification is required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation filter rod of diameter between 8 mm, and the claim also recites particularly 7.8 mm or 5.35 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation compression depth of less than 0.9 mm, and the claim also recites less than 0.85 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation compression depth of less than 0.90, and the claim also recites in particular less than 0.85 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation plasticizer content of 2% to 15%, and the claim also recites preferably 4-10% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation total titer between 4000 denier to 40000, and the claim also recites 6000 to 30000 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teufel et al (WO 0128369) in view of Bundren et al (US 20140026910) and Keith et al (US 4283186).
Teufel is directed to a high performance cigarette filter (Title). The filter is based on cellulose ester fibers or filaments. Cellulose ester filaments are cellulose-2,5-acetate filaments that are endless tow and crimped in stuffer box. The filament titer is 1 to 20 tex. The residual crimp does not exceed 1.45 (ABST), (pg 4; pg 5). The filaments can be a cross-sectional shape is “Y” (pg 13).
Teufel differs and does not teach the density of the cellulose acetate filament nor the surface area of the tow material.
Bundren is directed to tri-arc filaments for filters for smoking devices (ABST). Bundren teaches the tri-arc filaments are made into a Y shape and made from cellulose acetate [0061]. Bundren teaches the cellulose acetate filaments have a density is 300 kg/m3 (0.3 mg/mm3) [0084].
The combination of Teufel and Bundren would provide for at least 0.016 mg2xmm6 as input into the formula of claim 1 wherein.
A= (0.3 mg/mm3)2 * 1.45 = 0.1305 which is greater than 0.0016 mg2xmm6.
Teufel and Bundren differs and does not teach the surface area of the tow material.
Keith is directed to a method of forming a cigarette filter material. A non-woven cellulose ester fibrous filter sheet material comprising cellulose ester staple fibers and cellulose ester fibrets which exhibits improved filtration properties and the method of its preparation (ABST). This invention there is provided a high surface area cohesive, nonwoven cellulose ester fibrous sheet-like structure which maintains its fiber orientation in the absence of a binder and which exhibits high filtration efficiencies at an acceptable draw. This filter material comprises a web of cellulose ester staple fibers and from about 5 to about 35 percent, based on the weight of staple, high surface area, fibrillar cellulose ester material termed "fibrets" (col. 3, lines 3-11). The phrase "high surface area" as employed herein identifies materials having a surface area in excess of one square meter per gram. Surface areas may be placed in proper perspective by noting that paper suitable for filter applications has a surface area of 1.2 to 3.2 square meters per gram while 1/4 inch cellulose acetate staple having a denier per filament of 1.8, 3.0 and 8.0 has a surface area of 0.35, 0.26 and 0.20 square meters per gram respectively (col. 3, lines 27-35).
A surface area of 0.2 square meters per gram is substantially the same as 0.15 m2/g.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a cigarette filter from a cellulose acetate filament that is Y shaped motivated to achieve the desired surface area and residual crimp related density.
As to claim 2, Teufel teaches the residual crimp does not exceed 1.45 (ABST), (pg 4; pg 5) which is in the range of 1.1 to 1.7.
As to claim 3, Teufel teaches the fiber weight can be a maximum of 10 mg/mm filter length (page 11).
As to claim 4, Teufel teaches a filter element. Teufel teaches the filament denier is 1 to 20 date (page 11).
As to claim 5 and 7, Teufel does not measure the coefficient of variation of the filament titer is 0.1 and preferably 0,05 to 0.01 max. As Teufel teaches the same filament produced by substantially the same method it is reasonable to presume the coefficient of variation is inherently present. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 6 and 14, Teufel does not teach the size or weight of the tow band.
Bundren teaches the tow bands can be higher denier (date) weights. Some embodiments of the present invention may include forming tow bands from a plurality of tri-arc filaments of the present invention. In some embodiments, a tow band comprising a plurality of tri-arc filaments of the present invention may be about 200,000 total denier or less. In some embodiments, a tow band comprising a plurality of tri-arc filaments of the present invention may be about 100,000 total denier or less. In some embodiments, a tow band comprising a plurality of tri-arc filaments of the present invention may be about 20,000 total denier or less. In some embodiments, tow bands comprising a plurality of tri-arc filaments of the present invention may have a total denier ranging from a lower limit of about 1,000 total denier, 5,000 total denier, 10,000 total denier, 20,000 total denier, or 50,000 total denier to an upper limit of about 200,000 total denier, 150,000 total denier, 100,000 total denier, 50,000 total denier, 20,000 total denier, 10,000 total denier, or 9,000 total denier, and wherein the total denier may range from any upper limit to any lower limit and encompass any subset therebetween. In some embodiments, tow bands comprising a plurality of high doff tri-arc filaments (e.g., 10 doff or higher) of the present invention may advantageously have a total denier ranging from a lower limit of about 1,000 total denier, 1,500 total denier, 2,500 total denier, or 5,000 total denier to an upper limit of about 20,000 total denier, 15,000 total denier, 10,000 total denier, or 9,000 total denier, and wherein the total denier may range from any upper limit to any lower limit and encompass any subset therebetween. Bundren teaches tow bands that overlap the claimed range [0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ tow bands of the claimed denier motivated to produce a cigarette filter.
As to claim 8 and 9 and 10, Teufel teaches a fleece produced from the filament tows is wrapped in paper and cut into a filter rod of length 126 mm and diameter of 7.8 mm. Teufel teaches a cylindrical rod with 12 mm diameter presses vertically with a load of 300 g on horizontally positioned filter. Teufel teaches the ration of the compressed diameter to the initial diameter gives the Filton hardness (page 14). Teufel is not specific with regard to compression depth but does the same test. As Teufel teaches the same materials and structure and test method, it is reasonable to presume that the compression depth is inherent or obvious over Teufel. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 12, Teufel teaches the Filton hardness is 90% (ABST) (page 14).
As to claim 13, Teufel teaches a plasticizer and the amount of plasticizer is 1 to 40% by weight. Teufel teaches the type of plasticizer is Tri ethylene glycol diacetate (page 12 and 13).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teufel et al (WO 0128369) in view of Bundren et al (US 20140026910) and Keith et al (US 4283186) and in further view of Taniguchi et al (US 20120103352)
As to claim 11, Teufel, Bundren and Keith fail to teach or suggest a hollow or tubular filament.
Taniguchi is directed to a cigarette filter comprising a cellulose ester tow and cellulose ester particles in the tow (ABST). Taniguchi teaches the shape at cross section in the monofilament is not particularly limited to a specific one, and may for example be any form such as an irregular form (e.g., Y-shaped form, X-shaped form, I-shaped form, R-shaped form, and H-shaped form) or a shape at cross section of hollow fiber. The shape at cross section is preferably a polygonal irregular form such as Y-shaped form, X-shaped form, I-shaped form, R-shaped form, or H-shaped form. The monofilament is preferably a crimped fiber [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a hollow cellulose ester filament motivated to produce a cigarette filter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights