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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on July 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 16-17 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 16 recites the limitations “the first portion of salt crystals” and “the second portion of salt crystals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17: A rate is a quantity per unit time; a percentage is not a rate. There is no unit of time, rendering claim 17 indefinite.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Radwanski (US 2002/0006887).
Claim 1: Radwanski discloses a method for forming a barrier configured to be placed between a first region and a second region to prevent passage of pathogens (¶¶ 15, 23). The method includes melt blowing a stream of polymer fibers onto a surface to form a non-woven fabric used to make the barrier (¶¶ 23, 55, 58); wherein the melt blowing includes introducing pathogenicidal components into the stream of polymer fibers (¶¶ 23, 35, 44, 56-58).
Claim 2: Radwanski discloses the polymer fibers include polyethylene (¶¶ 32, 55).
Claim 3: Radwanski discloses the pathogenicidal components include salt (calcium hypochlorite; ¶¶ 23, 44, 56).
Claim 4: Radwanski discloses a location of the introducing step (¶ 57).
Claim 5: Radwanski discloses the determining step is based on performing the introducing step when the polymer fibers are malleable such that the pathogenicidal components adhere to the stream of polymer fibers (¶¶ 23, 40, 57).
Claim 15: Radwanski discloses the non-woven fiber includes non-woven polymer fibers with porous openings (¶¶ 34, 37), wherein a first portion of the pathogenicidal components adhere to the non-woven polymer fibers and a second portion of the pathogenicidal components extend into the porous openings between adjacent polymer fibers in the non-woven fabric (¶¶ 34, 37, 40, 55). Where the prior art process and materials are the same as those claimed, the resulting structure is presumed to possess the same characteristics. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on 'inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on 'prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted]." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim 16: Radwanski discloses the pathogenicidal components include salt (calcium hypochlorite; ¶¶ 23, 44, 56). Where the prior art process and materials are the same as those claimed, the resulting structure is presumed to possess the same characteristics. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on 'inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on 'prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted]." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).
Claim 17: The recited virus kill rate is a property of the resulting web, not a further process step. Where the prior art process and materials are the same as those claimed, the resulting structure is presumed to possess the same characteristics. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on 'inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on 'prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted]." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radwanski (US 2002/0006887), as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Minto (US 5,720,832).
Claim 6: Radwanski is silent as to assessing that the pathogenicidal components with the particle size will not be filtered or removed from the stream of polymer fibers downstream of the location. However, Minto, in the same field of endeavor of introducing particulate into a melt-blown fiber stream, teaches that the particles are injected into an air stream prior to the air stream impinging on the fibers (claim 5), and that the velocity of the air stream is adjusted so that the majority of the particles are trapped by the melt blown fibers and do not pass through the fiber stream (claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have determined the introduction location and conditions in the method of Radwanski by assessing, as taught by Minto, whether particles of the selected size would be captured by, rather than removed from, the melt-blown fiber stream downstream of that location. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Radwanski’s entire objective is to adhere and retain the anti-microbial particles in the web so that “only a negligible amount of particles are lost” (¶ 60), and Minto teaches the very technique by which particle loss downstream is avoided, which includes matching the introduction point and air velocity to the particle size and weight.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radwanski (US 2002/0006887), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Erickson (US 2003/0234464).
Claim 7: Radwanski discloses extruding, from holes in a spinneret, polymer filament strands based on pressurized molten polymer received from the metering pump (¶¶ 55-56), attenuating, with air from an air manifold, the polymer filament strands into the stream of fibers that are directed onto a collector that defines the surface to form the non-woven fabric (¶¶ 55-58), wherein the introducing step is performed downstream of the extruder and upstream of the collector (¶¶ 56-58). Erickson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses melting, with an extruder, pellets to form pressurized molten polymer, and discharging, with a metering pump, a consistent flow of pressurized molten polymer received from the extruder (¶¶ 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have carried out the melt blowing of Radwanski on a conventional melt-blowing line as described by Erickson because Erickson identifies this as the typical and preferred arrangement for producing melt-blown nonwoven webs.
Claim 8-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radwanski (US 2002/0006887) in view of Erickson (US 2003/0234464), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Minto (US 5,720,832).
Claim 8: Modified Radwanski is silent as to introducing the pathogenicidal components into the air manifold used to attenuate the strands. However, in the same field of endeavor, teaches introducing the components into an air manifold used to attenuate the strands (col. 7, lines 6-14), and Erickson teaches that the attenuating air is delivered to the filaments from an air manifold attached to the side of the die body (¶ 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have introduced Radwanski’s anti-microbial partiles into the air manifold that supplies the attenuating air of the melt-blowing die taught by Erickson, rather than from a separate nozzle, because Minto teaches that injecting the particulate into an air stream before that air stream impinges on the filaments produces thorough mixing and a high capture percentage of the particulates by the microfiber (col. 7, lines 16-23).
Claim 9: Erickson discloses directing air from a primary air manifold into a gap between the spinneret and a die nosepiece to attenuate the strands, and wherein the components are introduced into the air from the primary air manifold (¶ 4).
Claim 10: Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza 245 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 11: Radwanski discloses the introducing step being performed with a device configured to evenly distribute the pathogenicidal components across a width of the non-woven fabric formed on the collector (¶¶ 40, 56, 60).
Claim 13: Radwanski discloses the device includes a hopper configured to gravity feed the pathogenicidal components into the air manifold (¶¶ 56-57). Minto also includes a hopper configured to gravity feed the components into the air manifold (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 30-35).
Claim 14: Minto discloses a vacuum to direct components back to the hopper (col. 4, lines 48-58).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radwanski (US 2002/0006887) in view of Erickson (US 2003/0234464) and Minto (US 5,720,832), further in view of Marrec (US 4,808,043).
Claim 12: Modified Radwanski is silent as to the claimed distributor geometry. However, Marrec, in the same field of endeavor, discloses the claimed geometry (fig. 1, claims 9, 18, 25; col. 3, lines 14-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have delivered the pathogenicidal components of Radwanski through a reverse manifold of the type taught by Marrec because Marrec teaches that a plain header gives poor cross-width uniformity whereas subdividing the primary pipe yields a uniform powder sheet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT 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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights