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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3232183 hereinafer'183, in view of JP 2019-115868A hereinafter '868 and JP 2018-193420 hereinafter '420.
With regards to Claim 1-4 ‘183 teaches:
A self-adhesive dust-proof nonwoven fabric that can be attached to the surface of various objects to prevent dirt and dust from adhering thereto, which reads on applicant's claimed filter structure for filtering a gas passing therethrough by being attached to an object. (See ‘183 paragraph 0001) The nonwoven fabric body has a sheet-like structure which reads on applicant's claimed a filter layer made of a sheet-like member having air permeability. An adhesive layer provided on the application surface to give the nonwoven fabric body self-adhesive properties which reads on applicant's claimed an adhesive layer formed on at least a part of one surface of the filter layer and configured to attach to the object. (See ‘183 paragraph 0006) The nonwoven fabric body has flame-retardant properties and meets the flame retardant standard specified in CNS-10285A1. (See ‘183 Paragraph 0014)
‘183 does not explicitly teach:
(Claim 1) The adhesive layer contains 3 wt% or more of a flame retardant.
(Claim 2) The flame retardant is an organic non-halogen flame retardant.
(Claim 3) The flame retardant is contained in the adhesive layer in a range of 10 wt% or more and 30 wt% or less.
(Claim 4) At a location on the filter layer where the adhesive layer is formed, the adhesive layer is formed in a range of 5 g/m2 or more and 50 g/m2 or less with respect to the filter layer.
‘868 teaches:
It is known to apply an adhesive to nonwoven fabric ventilation filter comprising a flame retardant to help prevent the risk of fire. Particularly a phosphorous-based flame retardant which reads on applicant's claimed organic non-halogen flame retardant. (See ‘868 Paragraph 0007) The amount of adhesive applied is about 3 to 30 g/m2 which reads on applicant's claimed 5 to 50 g/m2. (See ‘868 Paragraph 12)
‘183 in view of ‘868 teaches that the adhesive coated on the nonwoven fabric can comprise a non-halogen flame retardant at an appropriate level. ‘868 does not explicitly teach that the percentage of the adhesive which comprises the flame retardant.
‘183 teaches the claimed invention except for the amount of adhesive applied to the nonwoven filter is not explicitly taught in terms of grams per meter squared. ‘868 teaches that an amount of adhesive which is applied to the nonwoven is a known result effective variable with a range of 3 to 30 g/m2 which reads on applicant's claimed range of 5 to 50 g/m2 for the adhesive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the amount of sprayed adhesive of ‘183 as taught by ‘868 in order to ensure the parts stick to the object but do not blind over the filtration as discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a known result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further in cases where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside of prior art ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05
‘420 teaches:
Flame retardancy is also required not only for members, but also for pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes for fixing members to each other and for pressure-sensitive adhesive sheets such as pressure-sensitive labels to be affixed to members. The pressure-sensitive adhesive resin composition of the present invention includes a pressure-sensitive adhesive, a phosphorus-based flame retardant, and a bromine-based flame retardant which reads on applicant's claimed adhesive comprising an organic non-halogen flame retardant. (See ‘420 pg. 2 lines 36-37) “The resin composition of the present invention can be produced by adding a phosphorus flame retardant and a brominated flame retardant to a pressure sensitive adhesive and reacting with a crosslinking agent. The content of the phosphorus flame retardant in the adhesive resin composition is from 10 to 50 parts by mass, preferably from 20 to 40 parts by mass, as a dry mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the dry mass of the adhesive. The content of the brominated flame retardant in the adhesive resin composition is from 5 to 30 parts by mass, preferably from 10 to 20 parts by mass, as a dry mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the adhesive dry mass. Examples of the phosphorous flame retardant include phosphoric acid ester flame retardants, ammonium polyphosphate flame retardants, melamine phosphate flame retardants, phosphoric acid amide flame retardants, phosphazene compound based flame retardants and the like, but phosphorus Acid ester type flame retardants are preferred.” (See’420 pg. 2 lines 36-49) The phosphorous flame retardant comprises 9 wt% to 28 wt% of the adhesive, the brominated flame retardant comprises 4 wt% to 17 wt% of the adhesive. This reads on applicants claims of greater than 3 wt % and in a range of 10 wt% or more and 30 wt% or less.
‘183 in view of ‘868 teaches the claimed invention except for the percentage of flame retardant in the adhesive is not explicitly disclosed. ‘420 teaches that the percentage of flame retardant is a known result effective variable with a range of 9 to 28 wt% plus 4 to 17 wt% of one or more flame retardants which reads on applicant's claimed range of greater than 3 wt% and in a range of 10 wt% to 30 wt% for flame retardant in an adhesive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize amount of flame retardant in the adhesive spray of ‘183 and ‘183 in view of ‘868 as taught by ‘420 in order to provide an appropriately flame retardant article for the purposes of using as an adhered filter in a range hood setting as discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a known result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further in cases where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside of prior art ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05
With regards to Claim 5 ‘183 further teaches:
The adhesive layer is formed by spray coating. (See ‘183 Paragraph 0009)
With regards to Claim 6 ‘183 further teaches:
The nonwoven fabric body has flame-retardant properties and meets the flame retardant standard specified in CNS-10285A1. (See ‘183 Paragraph 0014)
‘183 in view of ‘868 and ‘420 as detailed above discloses the claimed invention except ‘183 does not teach testing results according to a flammability test, specifically JIS L1091A-1 method (45˚ burner method). This factor does not appear to be a result effective variable and does not structurally differentiate the claimed structure from structure disclosed in ‘183 in view of ‘868 and ‘420. As such, unless Applicant shows that this test result is a result effective variable and provides unexpected results which differentiate the claimed structure from the prior art structure this test result is not being given patentable weight. This test result is considered an inherent result of testing the structure, and thus does not differentiate the claimed product from ‘183 in view of ‘868 and ‘420 as they are otherwise structurally identical and would be expected to behave identically when tested. See MPEP 2112(III)
With regards to Claim 7 ‘183 further teaches:
The filter is attached to a range hood which reads on applicant's claimed the object is a range hood. (See ‘183 Paragraph 0014)
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIT E ANBACHT whose telephone number is (571)272-9876. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, R, F 11 am - 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9876.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIT E. ANBACHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
BRIT E. ANBACHT
Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights