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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 5, and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, “a percent penetration” in line 1 should be recited as “the percent penetration”.
Regarding claim 3, “a percent penetration” in line 1 should be recited as “the percent penetration”.
Regarding claim 5, “charged nanofiber a basis weight” in lines 1-2 should be recited as “charged nanofiber has a basis weight”.
Regarding claim 12, “a percent penetration” in line 1 should be recited as “the percent penetration”.
Regarding claim 13, “a percent penetration” in line 1 should be recited as “the percent penetration”.
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 1-20 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.
The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 5 mmH2O”, “about 50%”, and “about 80%” as “5 mmH2O”, “50%”, and “80%”.
The term “about” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 40%” as “40%”.
The term “about” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 30%” as “30%”.
The term “about” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 0.7 gsm” as “0.7 gsm”.
The term “about” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 0.5 gsm” as “0.5 gsm”.
The term “about” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 30 gsm” as “30 gsm”.
The term “about” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 50%” as “50%”.
The term “about” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 5 mmH2O”, “about 50%”, and “about 80%” as “5 mmH2O”, “50%”, and “80%”.
The term “about” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 40%” as “40%”.
The term “about” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 30%” as “30%”.
The term “about” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 0.7 gsm” as “0.7 gsm”.
The term “about” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 30 gsm” as “30 gsm”.
The term “about” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 5 mmH2O”, “about 40%”, and “about 80%” as “5 mmH2O”, “40%”, and “80%”.
The term “about” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As no explicit definition is given, the examiner has defined “about 50%” as “50%”.
Claims 6-7, 15, and 19-20 are rejected for depending on a previously rejected 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, 6-7, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Soliman et al. (referred to as “Soliman”) (WO 2023/060027 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Soliman discloses an electrospun web (see [0059], [0064], [0084] and [0103]; an electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane may be directly laminated onto a nonwoven fabric for use as a facemask/respirator to form an electrospun web, as the applicant’s specification describes a “web” as “a mass of nonwoven…fibers that are bonded to each other sufficiently that the mass of fibers has sufficient mechanical integrity to be handled as a self-supporting layer” on page 3 lines 10-13) comprising:
a carrier substrate (see [0084] which discusses how the nanofibrous polymer membrane may be directly electrospun onto nonwoven fabrics, and thus the nonwoven fabric is a carrier substrate as it is a layer that carries the nanofibrous polymer membrane); and
an electrostatically charged nanofiber (see [0086] which discusses how the nanofibrous polymer membrane is triboelectrically charged, and thus is an electrostatically charged nanofiber);
wherein the electrospun web has a pressure drop of about 5 mmH2O or less (see [0131] and Table 3 which shows a few samples of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane for use in personal protective equipment applications, such as a facemask, and shows samples with a pressure drop of about 5 mmH2O or less, such as sample no. MXF011,MXF012, and MX013), a percent penetration of about 50% or less (see [0067] and [0103] which discusses the filtering efficiency percent of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane is at least 95% and thus the percent penetration = 100% - percent efficiency, and thus the percent penetration is 5%, and thus is less than 50%), and a clarity of about 80% or more (see [0068]; the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane may have a transparency of at least 80%).
Regarding claim 2, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Soliman further discloses having a percent penetration of about 40% or less (see [0067] and [0103] which discusses the filtering efficiency percent of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane is at least 95% and thus the percent penetration = 100% - percent efficiency, and thus the percent penetration is 5%, and thus is less than 40%).
Regarding claim 3, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Soliman further discloses having a percent penetration of about 30% or less (see [0067] and [0103] which discusses the filtering efficiency percent of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane is at least 95% and thus the percent penetration = 100% - percent efficiency, and thus the percent penetration is 5%, and thus is less than 30%).
Regarding claim 6, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Soliman further discloses wherein the carrier substrate is one of a nonwoven, a mesh, or a perforated film (see [0084] which discusses how the nanofibrous polymer membrane may be directly electrospun onto nonwoven fabrics, and thus the nonwoven fabric is the carrier substrate and is a nonwoven film).
Regarding claim 7, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Soliman further discloses wherein the carrier substrate is a spundbond nonwoven substrate (see [0084] which discusses how the nanofibrous polymer membrane may be directly electrospun onto nonwoven fabrics, such as a nonwoven spunbond Bico material, and thus this material is a spunbond nonwoven substrate or layer).
Regarding claim 10, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Soliman further discloses wherein the electrospun web is used as a filtration media (see [0064]-[0065] and [0103] which discusses how the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane may be used as a filtration media via a facemask/respirator or air filters for HVAC systems).
Regarding claim 11, Soliman discloses a filtration media (see [0064]-[0065] and [0103] which discusses how the polymer membrane material disclosed may be used as a filtration media via a facemask/respirator or air filters for HVAC systems, and thus is a filtration media) comprising:
a carrier layer (see [0084] which discusses how the nanofibrous polymer membrane may be directly electrospun onto nonwoven fabrics, and thus the nonwoven fabric is a carrier layer as this nonwoven fabric layer carrier the nanofibrous polymer membrane); and
an electrospun nanofiber layer (see [0084] which discusses how the nanofibrous polymer membrane may be directly electrospun onto the nonwoven fabric layer, and thus is an electrospun nanofiber layer),
wherein the filtration edia has a pressure drop of about 5 mmH2O or less (see [0131] and Table 3 which shows a few samples of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane for use in personal protective equipment applications, such as a facemask, and shows samples with a pressure drop of about 5 mmH2O or less, such as sample no. MXF011,MXF012, and MX013), a percent penetration of about 50% or less (see [0067] and [0103] which discusses the filtering efficiency percent of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane is at least 95% and thus the percent penetration = 100% - percent efficiency, and thus the percent penetration is 5%, and thus is less than 50%), and a clarity of about 80% or more (see [0068]; the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane may have a transparency of at least 80%).
Regarding claim 12, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 11. Soliman further discloses having a percent penetration of about 40% or less (see [0067] and [0103] which discusses the filtering efficiency percent of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane is at least 95% and thus the percent penetration = 100% - percent efficiency, and thus the percent penetration is 5%, and thus is less than 40%).
Regarding claim 13, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 11. Soliman further discloses having a percent penetration of about 30% or less (see [0067] and [0103] which discusses the filtering efficiency percent of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane is at least 95% and thus the percent penetration = 100% - percent efficiency, and thus the percent penetration is 5%, and thus is less than 30%).
Regarding claim 15, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 11. Soliman further discloses wherein the carrier layer is one of a nonwoven, a mesh, or a perforated film (see [0084] which discusses how the nanofibrous polymer membrane may be directly electrospun onto nonwoven fabrics, and thus the nonwoven fabric or carrier layer is a nonwoven film).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman in view of Czado (EP 1795248 B1) (translation provided).
Regarding claim 4, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Soliman is silent on wherein the electrostatically charged nanofiber has a basis weight of about 0.7 gsm or less.
However, Czado teaches an analogous electrostatically charged nanofiber (see [0029] of Czado translation which discusses a fine filter layer in the form of a layer of nanofibers that is electrostatically chargeable), and wherein the electrostatically charged nanofiber has a basis weight of about 0.7 gsm or less (see [0029] of translation which discusses how the electrostatically chargeable nanofiber layer has a basis weight between 0.01 to 2 g/m2 or gsm, and thus can be 0.7 gsm or less), providing a lightweight material that allows for better air permeability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the basis weight of the electrostatically charged nanofiber in the device of Soliman to be about 0.7 gsm or less as taught by Czado to have provided an improved electrospun web that is lightweight allowing for better air permeability.
Regarding claim 5, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Soliman is silent on wherein the electrostatically charged nanofiber has a basis weight of about 0.5 gsm or less.
However, Czado teaches an analogous electrostatically charged nanofiber (see [0029] of Czado translation which discusses a fine filter layer in the form of a layer of nanofibers that is electrostatically chargeable), and wherein the electrostatically charged nanofiber has a basis weight of about 0.5 gsm or less (see [0029] of Czado translation which discusses how the electrostatically chargeable nanofiber layer has a basis weight between 0.01 to 2 g/m2 or gsm, and thus can be 0.5 gsm or less), providing a lightweight material that allows for better breathability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the basis weight of the electrostatically charged nanofiber in the device of Soliman to be about 0.5 gsm or less as taught by Czado to have provided an improved electrospun web that is lightweight allowing for air permeability.
Regarding claim 14, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 11.
Soliman is silent on wherein the electrospun nanofiber layer has a basis weight of about 0.7 gsm or less.
However, Czado teaches an analogous electrostatically charged nanofiber (see [0029] of Czado translation which discusses a fine filter layer in the form of a layer of nanofibers that is electrostatically chargeable), and wherein the electrostatically charged nanofiber has a basis weight of about 0.7 gsm or less (see [0029] of Czado translation which discusses how the electrostatically chargeable nanofiber layer has a basis weight between 0.01 to 2 g/m2 or gsm, and thus can be 0.7 gsm or less), providing a lightweight material that allows for better air permeability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the basis weight of the electrospun nanofiber layer in the device of Soliman to be about 0.7 gsm or less as taught by Czado to have provided an improved electrospun web that is lightweight allowing for better air permeability.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman in view of Gopal et al. (referred to as “Gopal”) (US 2021/0322908 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 7.
Soliman is silent on wherein the spunbond nonwoven substrate has a basis weight of about 30 gsm or less.
However, Gopal teaches an analogous spunbond nonwoven substrate (see [0121] which discusses how a first layer or substrate is made up of a spunbond nonwoven fabric), wherein the spunbond nonwoven substrate has a basis weight of about 30 gsm or less (see [0121] which discusses how the first layer or substrate made up of the spunbond nonwoven fabric has a basis weight of 15 to 20 g/m2 or gsm, and thus has a basis weight of less than 30 gsm), providing a lightweight breathable material that also allows for better airflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spunbond nonwoven substrate in the device of Soliman to have a basis weight of about 30 gsm or less as taught by Gopal to have provided an improved electrospun web that provides a lightweight breathable material that also allows for better airflow.
Regarding claim 16, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 11. Solian further discloses wherein the carrier layer is a spunbond nonwoven substrate ((see [0084] which discusses how the nanofibrous polymer membrane may be directly electrospun onto nonwoven fabrics, such as a nonwoven spunbond Bico material, and thus this material is a spunbond nonwoven substrate or layer).
Soliman is silent on the spunbond nonwoven substrate having a basis weight of about 30 gsm or less.
However, Gopal teaches an analogous spunbond nonwoven substrate (see [0121] which discusses how a first layer or substrate is made up of a spunbond nonwoven fabric), wherein the spunbond nonwoven substrate has a basis weight of about 30 gsm or less (see [0121] which discusses how the first layer or substrate made up of the spunbond nonwoven fabric has a basis weight of 15 to 20 g/m2 or gsm, and thus has a basis weight of less than 30 gsm), providing a lightweight breathable material that also allows for better airflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spunbond nonwoven substrate in the device of Soliman to have a basis weight of about 30 gsm or less as taught by Gopal to have provided an improved electrospun web that provides a lightweight breathable material that also allows for better airflow.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman in view of Zhu et al. (referred to as “Zhu”) (CN 112275045 B) (translation provided).
Regarding claim 9, Soliman discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Soliman is silent on wherein the carrier substrate has a porosity of about 50% or greater.
However, Zhu teaches an analogous carrier substrate (21) (see Pg. 6 of Zhu translation and the highlighted portion which discusses how the nonwoven fabric 21 is arranged on one side of the electrospun nanofiber fabric 22 to support the electrospun nanofiber fabric 22, and thus nonwoven fabric 21 is a carrier substrate or layer), and wherein the carrier substrate (21) has a porosity of about 50% or greater (see Pg. 6 of Zhu translation which discusses how the nonwoven fabric 21 which is the analogous carrier substrate has a porosity of 80% which is greater than 50%), providing to reduce flow resistance and maintain a lightweight breathable material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porosity of the carrier substrate in the device of Soliman to be about 50% or greater as taught by Zhu to have provided an improved electrospun web that reduces flow resistance and maintains a lightweight breathable material.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman in view of Reese (US 2016/0151650 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Soliman discloses a mask (see [0103] which discusses how a facemask or respirator is made from the disclosed nanofibrous polymer membrane material) comprising:
wherein the mask has a pressure drop of about 5 mmH2O or less (see [0131] and Table 3 which shows a few samples of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane material for use in personal protective equipment applications, such as a facemask, and shows samples with a pressure drop of about 5 mmH2O or less, such as sample no. MXF011,MXF012, and MX013), a filtration efficiency of about 40% or greater (see [0067] and [0103] which discusses the filtering efficiency percent of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane material that makes up the mask is at least 95% is greater than about 40%), and a clarity of about 80% or more (see [0068]; the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane material that makes up the facemask may have a transparency of at least 80%).
Soliman is silent on an electrostatically charged spunbond nonwoven.
However, Reese teaches an analogous mask (see Fig. 2A) comprising an electrostatically charged spunbond nonwoven (see Fig. 7 and [0072] which discusses how a filtering media of the facemask may be multi-layered and include nonwoven spunbond materials which may additionally be electrostatically charged), providing a durable material that protects a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mask in the device of Soliman to further comprise an electrostatically charged spunbond nonwoven material as taught by Reese to have provided an improved mask that provides a durable material that protects a user.
Regarding claim 18, Soliman in view of Reese discloses the invention as discussed in claim 17. Soliman in view of Reese further discloses having a percent penetration of about 50% or less (see [0067] and [0103] of Soliman which discusses the filtering efficiency percent of the electrospun nanofibrous polymer membrane material that makes up the facemask and is at least 95% and the percent penetration = 100% - percent efficiency, and thus the percent penetration is 5%, and thus is less than 50%).
Regarding claim 19, Soliman in view of Reese discloses the invention as discussed in claim 17. Soliman in view of Reese further discloses wherein the mask comprises nanofibers (see [0103] of Soliman which discusses how the facemask is made from the disclosed nanofibrous polymer membrane material of Soliman, and thus the mask comprises nanofibers).
Regarding claim 20, Soliman in view of Reese discloses the invention as discussed in claim 19. Soliman in view of Reese further discloses wherein the nanofibers are made from fluorinated polymers (see [0074] of Soliman which discusses how the nanofibrous polymer membrane material may be made from polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or thermoplastic polyurethanes (TPU) which are fluorinated polymers, as disclosed in applicant’s specification, see Pg. 4 lines 3-7 of applicant’s specification).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBIN HAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9-5 PM EST.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/ROBIN HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/MICHELLE J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786