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 .
Claims 47-66 are pending.
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.
Claim 56 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.
It is unclear of “the percentage vacuum is 80 to 100%” is directed to the vacuum pressure or to the percentage of the collection surface.
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.
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.
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) 47-54, 57-62, and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POURDEYHIMI (US 2017/0137970 A1).
Re 47, POURDEYHIM teaches of a method for producing a nonwoven fabric loaded with particles (see [0001, 0006, 0008], the method comprising:
directing a first filament stream comprising a first plurality of meltblown fibers towards a web collection surface (see Fig. 2, and Examples, see die 1 and die 2 of the two streams towards the collection surface, see also [0081], Fig. 6, die 62, second die 64, drum collector 66);
directing a second filament stream comprising a second plurality of meltblown fibers towards the web collection surface (see second die, see Figs. 2 and 6, and [0081]), wherein the second filament stream is at least partially offset from the first filament stream, and wherein a first die discharges the first filament stream and a second die discharges the second filament stream, the first die and the second die being arranged in a non-axisymmetrical configuration (see Fig. 6, see dies 62, 64, and collector 66);
introducing a plurality of particles between the first filament stream and the second filament stream, wherein the plurality of particles are continuously fed in between the first filament stream and the second filament stream as the first and second filament streams move toward the web collection surface to form an at least partially commingled web (see introduction of particles in [0085] to the streams); and
collecting the first filament stream, the second filament stream, and the plurality of particles on the web collection surface as a commingled web to form a hybrid nonwoven fabric (see drum collector 66).
POURDEYHIMI does not specifically state that the method taught is of forming non-shedding hybrid nonwoven fabric, though, the claimed steps are the same and as further, as seen in MPEP 2111.02 (II), regarding the preamble limitation, and wherein the teaching of the
Re 48 (upon 47), wherein the die-to-collector distance (DCD) for both the first die and the second die was in the range of 27 cm to 37 cm (see in POURDEYHIMI Tables of the die to collector distances which fall within the claimed ranges, see Tables, 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8).
Re 49 (upon 47), wherein the air pressure of the first die and the second die is in the range of 8 to 10 psi (see in POURDEYHIMI teaching of air pressure that includes within the claimed range, see 8 psi, see Tables 1, 3, 6).
Re 50 (upon 47), wherein in POURDEYHIMI the first filament stream, the second filament stream, and the plurality of particles converge prior to collection on the moving surface (see Fig. 6 of the converge prior to the collection surface).
Re 51 (upon 47), wherein in POURDEYHIMI the first filament stream, the second filament stream, and the plurality of particles converge prior to collection on the web collection surface (see Fig. 6 of the converge prior to the collection surface).
Re 52 (upon 47), wherein the first filament stream and the plurality of particles converge prior to converging with the second filament stream (see in POURDEYHIMI Fig. 6 of the converging of h).
Re 53 (upon 52), wherein the plurality of particles converge with the first filament stream at a distance in the range of about 1 inch to about 20 inches prior to the first filament stream converging with the second filament stream (see in POURDEYHIMI distance between the dies being 8 cm, whereby, the 3 inches being within the claimed ranges of claim 53)
Re 54 (upon 53), wherein the plurality of particles converge with the first filament stream at a distance in the range of about 1 inch to about 5 inches prior to the first filament stream converging with the second filament stream (see in POURDEYHIMI distance between the dies being 8 cm, whereby, the 3 inches being within the claimed ranges of claim 54).
Re 57 (upon 47), wherein the plurality of particles are not heated before said introducing step. Wherein, the teaching of POURDEYHIMI does not teach of heating the particles, thereby implied that POURDEYHIMI as it does not teach of such step.
Re 58 (upon 47), wherein the web collection surface is a moving surface comprising a rotating drum or a moving belt, POURDEYHIMI teaches of a drum collector 66.
Re 59 (upon 47), wherein the plurality of particles are selected from the group consisting of carbon black, activated carbon, and impregnated activated carbon, see in POURDEYHIMI [0104] of activated carbon, wherein the particles are comingled into the streams.
Re 60 (upon 47), wherein the first plurality of meltblown fibers and the second plurality of meltblown fibers comprise a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyesters, polyamides, elastomers, polyolefins, polyacrylates, and thermoplastic liquid crystalline polymers, see in POURDEYHIMI [0082], of polyesters, polyamides, polyolefins, polyamides, polyacrylates, thermoplastic liquid crystalline polymers.
Re 61 (upon 47), wherein the hybrid nonwoven fabric does not contain adhesive or binder, implied that POURDEYHIMI as it does not teach of adhesive or binder.
Re 62 (upon 47), wherein the nonwoven fabric has a generally uniform concentration of the plurality of particles through its z-direction. Wherein, the property of the formed fabric would inherently have the same claimed features from the teaching of the POURDEYHIMI teaching as in claim 47 above.
Re 66 (upon 47), wherein the hybrid nonwoven fabric retains more than 95.5% of the plurality of particles when exposed to a residual shedding test. Wherein, the property of the formed fabric would inherently have the same claimed features from the teaching of the POURDEYHIMI teaching as in claim 47 above.
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POURDEYHIMI as applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of KADOMA (US 2020/0002857 A).
Re 55 (upon 52), wherein POURDEYHIMI does not specifically teach of the plurality of particles are gravity-fed into contact with the first filament stream.
See teaching by KADOMA teaches of particles that are gravity fed into a stream of filaments, see [0027]. This being a known manner of feeding the particles in a filament stream and thereby known in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of POURDEYHIMI with the gravity feeding of the particles as taught by KADOMA, as per KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, see combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POURDEYHIMI as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of EATON (US 2011/0250378 A1).
Re 56 (upon 47), wherein a vacuum is applied to the web collection surface, and the percentage vacuum is 80 to 100%.
EATON teaches known of collector surface for the spun nonwoven fabrics, and wherein, the collector surface includes vacuum, see [0009, 0067] in capturing the filaments. In regards to the percentage vacuum, the amount is a result effective variable for the modification in regards to the vacuum pressure for the desired effect upon the collection of the formed filaments.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process of POURDEYHIMI with the collector surface with vacuum as taught by EATON, as per KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, see combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 63-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POURDEYHIMI as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of BRAUN (US 3971373 A).
Re 63 (upon 47), wherein the hybrid nonwoven fabric comprises the plurality of particles in an amount of about 50% to about 99% by mass, based on the total weight of the hybrid nonwoven fabric.
Re 64 (upon 47), wherein the hybrid nonwoven fabric comprises the plurality of particles in an amount of about 90% to about 99% by mass, based on the total weight of the hybrid nonwoven fabric.
Re 65 (upon 47), wherein the plurality of particles are at least partially enwrapped by the first plurality of meltblown fibers and the second plurality of meltblown fibers.
The teaching of POURDEYHIMI fails to teach of the particular amount of the particles by mass in the fabric and of specific statement of enwrapping the particles.
Wherein, the teaching in BRAUN concerns of forming microfiber sheets with solid particles uniformly dispersed (see abstract, Col. 2, lines 6-41), the particles include carbon particles, and see in Tables XI-XII, example nos. 30-38 of the mass% of carbon particles (calculated as weigh carbon particles divided by total weight of carbon particles and microfibers) that are in the range of 98-99 mass% (see Examples 31 and 35), and wherein, the particles are entangled which would encompass the claimed enwrapped limitation. The BRAUN teaching of the same field endeavor as the POURDEYHIMI reference in regards of the production of a nonwoven sheet using dies and particles, see BRAUN, Col. 4, lines 15-45, of two dies 10, 11, and a particle stream 20.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified POURDEYHIMI with the teachings of particular mass% of the fiber and particles, and of the enwrapping of the particles as taught by BRAUN as known formation composition of the fiber production, as per KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, see combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights