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 1-19 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.
Claims 1, 7, and 17 recites “mean fiber size”, and ¶0025 also refers to “mean fiber size” and further included “a fiber diameter”. However, the specification does not specify the clear definition of what “mean fiber size” could be (e.g. length, width, diameter…). For purpose of examining, the “mean fiber size” will construed to be “average diameter size”.
Claims 2-6, 8-16, and 18-19 are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (Patent No. US 11697896 B2) in view of Min et al. (Non-patent Literature)
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada et al. teach a nonwoven fabric comprising at least one fiber layer (I) containing a polylactic acid-based polymer (C18/5-10 “polylactic acid-based polymer…can be used for the material if the nonwoven fabric”) with a mean fiber size of 10 μm to 30 μm (C8/L41-47, “The average fiber diameter of the nonwoven fabric molded body… more preferably 15 μm to 30 μm”).
Yamada et al. does not teach wherein in measurement of the fiber layer (I) by polarized Raman spectroscopy, the ratio of the peak intensity I∥ at 872 cm.sup.−1 in the Raman spectrum measured with polarized light parallel to the fiber axes, with respect to the peak intensity I⊥ at 872 cm.sup.−1 in the Raman spectrum measured with polarized light perpendicular to the fiber axes (value I∥/I⊥), is 1.80 or lower (Claim 1), 1.40 or lower (Claim 2), or 1.08 or higher (Claim 3 and Claim 13). However, Yamada et al. teach the importance of controlling the mobility and orientation of the amorphous portion of the reason in order to obtain a nonwoven fabric having superior spread-ability, techniques were conventionally employed in which the degree of crystallinity and degree of orientation of the fibers were lowered immediately after spinning (Yamada et al., C12/L5-25). Yamada et al. further teaches when the degree of crystallinity is not excessively low, there is no distortion of the shape of the molded body as a result of contraction of the fabric when removed from the mold during the molding processing (Yamada et al., C8/45-50).
Min et al. teaches wherein in measurement of the fiber layer (I) by polarized Raman spectroscopy, where I⊥ and I∥ represent the Raman scattering intensities when the polarization direction of analyzer is perpendicular and parallel to that of the incident beam, respectively (Pg. 2122). Min et al. gives evidence that drawing changes molecular orientation and polarized Raman response, including nearby 873 cm-1 peak intensity (which correspond to the claimed 872 cm-1 peak intensity).
Both Yamada et al. and Min et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they both teaches PLA fiber (a fiber is a type of fabric/textile). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the nonwoven fabric of Yamada et al. to control the draw/stretch ratio based on at 873 cm-1 as taught by Min et al. in order to characterize the orientation degree of crystalline chains and amorphous changes separation at an assigned Raman band (Min et al., see §5. Conclusions). Therefore it would have been obvious to optimize the ratio of II/I, including a ratio within the claimed range of equal to or less than 1.80, equal to or less than 1.40 and equal to or greater than 1.08 and (as required by claims 1-3 and 13) based on at 873 cm-1 of the nonwoven fabric of Yamada because it is desirable in Yamada to adjust spinning speed to control drawing and orientation of the amorphous portion in order to obtain a nonwoven fabric having superior spread-ability (Yamada, see C12/L5-25) with a reasonable expectation of success that the resulting fibers at a desirable draw/stretch ratio and spinning condition would meet the claimed Raman interval. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (Min et al., Pg. 2120).
Claims 4-7, 9-13, 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (Patent No. US 11697896 B2) in view of Min et al. (Non Patent Literature).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Yamada et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric according to Claim 1, wherein the crystallinity of the fiber layer (I) determined by differential scanning calorimetry is 20% or greater (C8/L23-30, “the degree of crystallinity of the biodegradable nonwoven fabric … is preferably 30% to 70%”, Yamada et al. discloses a crystallinity range of 30% to 70% which falls in the Claimed ranged of 20% or greater.
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Yamada et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric according to Claim 1, wherein the basis weight of the nonwoven fabric is 10g/m2 to 50g/m2 (C24/L59-65, “the basis weight of the nonwoven fabric molded body... preferably 12g/m2 to 200g/m2… if basis weight of the nonwoven fabric is within these ranges contents can be retained as a container”, the examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 12-200 g/m2 overlaps the claimed range of 10-50 g/m2. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Yamada et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric according to Claim 1, wherein the nonwoven fabric is obtained by thermocompression bonding (C34/L28-30), with a bonding area of 5% to 40% (C34/L28-30, “The embossing rollers used had a compression bonding area ratio of 14%”).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Yamada et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric according to Claim 1m which further comprises at least one fiber layer (II) having a mean fiber size of 0.3 μm to 7.0 μm (C2/L51-55, “wherein the average fiber diameter of the nonwoven fabric is 1 μm to 40 μm” the range disclosed by Yamada et al. overlap with the claimed range of 0.3 μm to 7.0 μm, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Yamada et al. teaches a filter material includes a nonwoven fabric (C43/L1-15, “the biodegradable nonwoven fabric of the present invention… can be used in a wide range of fields… filter applications”).
Regarding Claims 10-12, Modified Yamada et al. teaches a food filter comprising a filter material (Claim 10), an air filter comprising a filter material according to Claim 9 (Claim 11), a mask comprising a filter material according to Claim 9 (Claim 12). Regarding the “food filter” preamble recited in Claim 10, “an air filter” preamble recited in Claim 11, “mask” preamble recited in Claim 12. Since the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, and since these preambles do not impute a specific structure absent from the prior art, the invention of Kimura appears to be capable of the Claimed intended use recited, including food filter (Claim 12), an air filter (Claim 11) (Yamada et al. C43/L7-15). See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Yamada et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric according to Claim 2, wherein the crystallinity of the fiber layer (I) determined by differential scanning calorimetry is 20% or greater (C8/L23-30, “the degree of crystallinity of the biodegradable nonwoven fabric … is preferably 30% to 70%”, Yamada et al. discloses a crystallinity range of 30% to 70% which falls in the Claimed ranged of 20% or greater. Regarding “determined by differential scanning calorimetry”, refer to a method of measuring unrelated to the apparatus, therefore deem no patentable weight).
Regarding Claim 15, Modified Yamada et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric according to Claim 2, wherein the basis weight of the nonwoven fabric is 10g/m2 to 50g/m2 (C24/L59-65, “the basis weight of the nonwoven fabric molded body... preferably 12g/m2 to 200g/m2… if basis weight of the nonwoven fabric is within these ranges contents can be retained as a container”, the examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 12-200 g/m2 overlaps the claimed range of 10-50 g/m2. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Yamada et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric according to Claim 2, wherein the nonwoven fabric is obtained by thermocompression bonding (C34/L28-30), with a bonding area of 5% to 40% (C34/L28-30, “The embossing rollers used had a compression bonding area ratio of 14%”).
Regarding Claim 17, Modified Yamada et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric according to Claim 2, which further comprises at least one fiber layer (II) having a mean fiber size of 0.3 μm to 7.0 μm (C2/L51-55, “wherein the average fiber diameter of the nonwoven fabric is 1 μm to 40 μm” the range disclosed by Yamada et al. overlap with the claimed range of 0.3 μm to 7.0 μm, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding Claim 19, Modified Yamada et al. teaches a filter material which includes a nonwoven fabric according to Claim 2 (C43/L1-15, “the biodegradable nonwoven fabric of the present invention… can be used in a wide range of fields… filter applications”).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (Patent No. US 11697896 B2) in view of Min et al. (Non Patent Literature) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura (JP 2000336570 A, machine translated).
Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 18, Modified Yamada et al. discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above. However, Yamada et al. is silent to wherein the air permeability of the nonwoven fabric is 400 cc/cm2/sec or lower.
Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 18, Kimura teaches the air permeability of the nonwoven fabric is 400 cc/cm2/sec or lower (¶0018, “the present invention must have an air permeability of 10 to 250 cm3/cm2/second”).
Modified Yamada et al. and Kimura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of biodegradable nonwoven fabric comprising of polylactic acid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air permeability of Yamada et al. to have the air permeability of 400 cc/cm2/sec or lower of Kimura because if the air permeability of the sheet material exceeds 250 cc/cm2/sec, sufficient filter effect cannot be obtained (Kimura ¶0020).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH HUYNH NGOC BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-5588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
/A.H.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights