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 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 4-5 and 11-12 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.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 11-12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-2, 7-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Laleg et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0285156.
Regarding claim 1, Laleg teaches a method for producing a filtering material [0008] comprising a cellulosic material and a positively charged polyelectrolyte comprising polyvinylamine (PVAm) [0065], wherein said method comprises at least the steps of:
- providing a stock comprising said cellulosic material comprising cellulose fibers [0023 and 0036];
- adding said polyvinylamine to said stock [0065] such that a concentration of PVAm in the stock is in an interval of 0.5-2.0 wt-% (0.1-10 wt % [0132] the Examiner considered the encompassing range to read on the claimed range) of a dry weight of cellulose fibers in the stock, and
- allowing said cellulosic material to adsorb said polyvinylamine [0195].
In the alternative, if Applicant wishes to argue that the encompassing range lacks a specific specificity as stated in MPRP 2131.03, The Examiner wishes to make an alternative obviousness statement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it ahs been held that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Laleg further teaches wherein said method further comprises the following steps:
- Forming a wet web of said stock comprising said cellulosic material and said polyvinylamine ([0107 and 0196] teaches forming a web form the fibrillated cellulose with the PVAm included);
- Dewatering said wet web by pressing (compressing [0135-0139]);
- Drying said wet web [0196].
Regarding claim 7, Laleg further teaches that said cellulosic material is selected from non-wood pulps, wood pulps, mechanical pulp, refiner mechanical pulp (RMP), thermomechanical pulp (TMP), chemi- thermomechanical pulp (CTMP), defibrated fiber-material, high temperature chemi-thermomechanical pulp (HTCTMP), chemimechanical pulp (CMP), stone groundwood pulp (SGW) and pressure groundwood pulp (PGW), kraft pulp, sulphate pulp, sulphite pulp, recycled paper and board, broke, nanopulp, dissolving pulp, deinked pulp, regenerated fibers or mixtures thereof [0036].
Regarding claim 8, Laleg remains as applied above and further teaches that said filtering material is a filtering material web, a sheet-shaped filtering material or a molded three-dimensional filtering material (a web [0139 and 0196]).
Regarding claim 9, Laleg further teaches that said filtering material is lipophilic and hydrophobic [0043] (hydrophobic substances and oil resistance agents).
Regarding claim 10, Laleg further teaches that said cellulosic material is selected from non-wood pulps, wood pulps, mechanical pulp, refiner mechanical pulp (RMP), thermomechanical pulp (TMP), chemi- thermomechanical pulp (CTMP), defibrated fiber-material, high temperature chemi-thermomechanical pulp (HTCTMP), chemimechanical pulp (CMP), stone groundwood pulp (SGW) and pressure groundwood pulp (PGW), kraft pulp, sulphate pulp, sulphite pulp, recycled paper and board, broke, nanopulp, dissolving pulp, deinked pulp, regenerated fibers or mixtures thereof [0036].
Regarding claim 11, Laleg further teaches that the PVAm is a homopolymer which is being considered to read on unmodified [0065]
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Laleg teaches that the highly refined materials produced in the method can be used in the making of micro filters [0008]. While Laleg does not further detail the shape and intended use of the filters, it is the Examiner’s stance that the discloser to use it as a filter provided sufficient teaching for a showing of a filtering system of a filter with the intended use of being an air ventilation or face mask.
In the alternative, the average artisan would have found ti obvious to use the material of Laleg which is taught to be used as a filter [0008] as a filter that can be used in either an air ventilation or face mask as this is just eh intended use of the filter without any specific structural limitations.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laleg et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0285156 in view of Pierce, US Patent Publication 2021/0269983.
Regarding claim 3, Laleg does not teach the act of wet molding the material after formation only teaches so general web formation steps.
In the same field of endeavor, Pierce teaches the conventional wet molding steps that utilize a vacuum based forming tool to shape a 3D structure out of the desired pulp material.
Pierce teaches:
- Providing a three-dimensionally (3D) shaped forming tool comprising a forming portion [0101] (see figures);
- Bringing said 3D shaped forming tool comprising a forming portion into contact with the stock [0101-0108];
- Apply means of vacuum suction such that the stock is drawn onto the forming portion and a 3D filtering material of desired thickness is being formed on said forming portion[0101-0108 and 0123-0124];
- Removing said 3D filtering material from said forming portion (see figures), and
- Dewatering of said 3D filtering material by pressing and/or drying, whereby a molded 3D filtering material is formed [0123-0124].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the 3D formations stages as taught by Pierce in the Laleg method as it would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another (wet forming vs sheet forming) to arrive at a predictable end result.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laleg et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0285156 in view of in view of Ottenhall et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0284558.
Regarding claims 4-6, Laleg teaches raising the pH [0110], but is silent to what the values are. Laleg is also silent to the specific order of operations of adding NaCl prior to the addition of the PVAm and pH adjustments.
In the same field of endeavor of treating cellulosic fibers with PVAm [0049], Ottenhall teaches that the pulp material is first adjusted to have a NaCl concentration of 100 mM (which equals 0.58 wt%), then the pH adjustment to 9.5 under constant stirring, before an addition of .1 g/l of PVAm [0046] for the benefit of improving the absorption of the polyelectrolyte into the cellulosic material [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the amounts and addition of NaCL with a pH adjustment when adding the PVAm to the cellulose material for the benefit of improving the absorption of the polyelectrolyte.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laleg et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0285156 in view of Daniel et al, US Patent Publication 2016/0199235.
Regarding claim 12, Laleg further teaches that said polyelectrolyte is PVAm [0065] and said cellulosic material is HYP, preferably CTMP [0036], but is silent to what the dry weight is.
In the same field of endeavor of making a filter material [0145] of a pulp [0150] and PVAm [0181] that produces a material of a basis weight of 25-70 gsm [0159].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize Daniels teachings of a conventional basis weight of a pulp and PVAm material intended for the same use as a filter material [0145] in the Laleg reference for the benefit of utilizing a known and conventional value of a property that the primary reference is merely silent on.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights