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.
Claim 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites each of said squares having preferably a dimension as claimed. The recitation of “preferably” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if the dimension is necessarily required or merely recited as preferred embodiment which is not required by the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,792,242 to Haskett.
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, 12, and 13, Haskett teaches a nonwoven filter formed with a nonwoven web of fibers needle-punched to an open scrim support, such as a scrim support between two outer nonwoven filter layers (Haskett, Abstract, column 3 line 50 to column 4 line 2). Haskett teaches that the fibers include thermoplastic polymers including polyesters (Id., column 4 lines 30-49).
Regarding the claimed superimposed scrim layers, Haskett teaches that additional porous layers can be attached to the filter, such as reinforcing support scrims, which should be sufficiently open (Haskett, column 4 lines 50-57). Haskett teaches that the scrim support should be an extremely open material having a large number of discrete open areas, which open areas pass through the scrim from one face to the opposite face (Id., column 2 line 52 to column 3 line 13). It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the additional scrim support may be placed between the two outer layers to provide additional support. Additionally, since the layers are joined by needlepunching it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the open areas are aligned.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nonwoven filter of Haskett, and additionally including a reinforcing support scrim between the two outer nonwoven filter layers, such that the scrim layers are aligned as claimed, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven filter having predictably improved support suitable for the intended application.
Regarding the claimed basis weights, Haskett teaches that the fibrous filter web layer or layers can have a total basis weight ranging from 100 to 400 grams/M2 (Haskett, column 3 lines 42-49). Haskett teaches exemplary filter webs having basis weights of 35 g/m2 (Id., Example 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nonwoven filter of Haskett, and adjusting and varying the basis weight of the scrim layers and the total weight, such as within the claimed ranges, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven filter having the desired properties based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding the preamble, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Since Haskett teaches a substantially similar structure as claimed, the invention of Haskett appears capable of the claimed use.
Regarding claim 2, Haskett teaches that the scrim material can be formed of any suitable material, such as a thermoplastic polymer (Haskett, column 3 lines 14-24). Additionally, since Haskett teaches that the scrim comprises open areas having an average cross-sectional area of at least 0.25 mm2, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the areas are square.
Claims 4-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,792,242 to Haskett, as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 12, and 13, in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0214489 to Porter.
Regarding claims 4-6, Haskett does not appear to teach the claimed properties. However, Porter teaches a similar composite sheet material suitable for filtration, including a first outer layer, a reinforcing layer, and a second outer layer sandwiching the reinforcing layer, wherein the reinforcing layer is a scrim or mesh (Porter, Abstract, paragraph 0021, claims 1-7). Porter taches that the outer layers are nonwovens such as polyester, and that the reinforcing layer comprises polyester fibers (Id., paragraphs 0043-0044). Porter teaches that the preferred mechanical properties include a tensile strength of preferably >250 N/5 cm, an elongation of >20%, and a tear resistance of >100 N/5 cm (Id., Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nonwoven filter of Haskett, and adjusting and varying the tensile strength, elongation and tear resistance, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Porter, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven filter having known and desirable properties suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claim 11, Haskett does not appear to teach the claimed thickness. However, Porter teaches that the preferred nonwovens and reinforcing layer are bonded together to form a single composite, wherein the resulting composite has a thickness of preferably about 3-100 mils (Porter, paragraph 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nonwoven filter of Haskett, and adjusting and varying the thickness, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Porter, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven filter having thickness known in the art as being suitable for the filtration applications.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,792,242 to Haskett, as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 12, and 13, in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0241745 to Bansal.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Haskett teaches that the fibrous filter web layers can be formed by conventional nonwoven techniques including melt blowing, spin bonding or the like (Haskett, column 3 lines 25-41), wherein the fibers are polyester fibers (Id., column 4 lines 30-49). Haskett does not appear to teach polyester/polyamide filaments and the claimed thickness. However, Bansal teaches webs of spunbond fibers having reduced diameter, which can be multicomponent fibers, such as poly(ethyleneterephthalate) alternating with polyamide (Bansal, Abstract, paragraph 0034). Bansal teaches that the filaments preferably have an average filament diameter less than about 10 micrometers (Id., paragraph 0039). Bansal teaches that the spunbond webs have a softer, more pliable hand than other spunbond webs (Id., paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nonwoven filter of Haskett, substituting the polyester fibers with the multicomponent spunbond fibers having a filament diameter, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Bansal, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven filter having a softer, more pliable hand suitable for the intended application.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,792,242 to Haskett, as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 12, and 13, in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0274312 to Schelling.
Regarding claim 9, Haskett teaches that the layers are needlepunched, but does not appear to teach hydroentangling. However, Schelling teaches a similar filter composite of at least one substrate layer and at least one nanoweb bonded thereto (Schelling, Abstract). Schelling teaches that the substrate layer can be a non-woven comprising fibers including polyesters (Id., paragraphs 0026-0027), and that the web comprises a scrim (Id., paragraph 0018). Schelling teaches that the scrim can be positioned between the nanoweb and the substrate (Id., claim 10). Schelling teaches that needlepunching or water-jet processing is performed to manufacture the filter (Id., paragraphs 0033, 0035, claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nonwoven filter of Haskett, wherein the layers are alternatively hydroentangled, as taught by Schelling, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven filter formed in a manner known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for forming layered filter composite comprising a scrim.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,792,242 to Haskett, as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 12, and 13, in view of USPN 5,725,119 to Bradford.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Haskett does not appear to teach the claimed container. However, Bradford teaches a collapsible container for holding product therein during shipment, wherein pliable pouches are suspended in the container (Bradford, Abstract). Bradford teaches that the pouches made be made of a fabric or cloth material, such as polyester (Id., column 9 lines 13-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nonwoven of Haskett, for use as pouches suspended in a container, as taught by Bradford, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine a suitable end-use for a polyester fabric based on the known and suitable uses for such a fabric.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights