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 Objections
Claims 1, 5-10, 12-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: the aforesaid claims contain the transitional phrase “characterized in” which is synonymous with “characterized by” and “comprising”. MPEP 2111.03.I. The phrase “belonging to the family consisting of” is synonymous with “the group consisting of”. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used. MPEP 2117.I. for the purposes of examination characterized in will be understood as open ended and comprising.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: the aforesaid claims contain the transitional phrase “characterized in” it should be changed to “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-10, 12-23 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.
In Claim 1, there are limitations to the measure of linear density. This is not clear and rendered indefinite. "Linear density" of a yarn is a measurement of the mass of a known length of yarn. As best understood it appears Applicant means mesh count [number of threads/cm, see ¶¶ 0075-0077 and 0098 of Applicant’s published disclosure]. Since claim 1 does not clearly define the "linear density", the subject matter of the claim is unclear and indefinite.
In claim 1 and those that depend from it, the term "open-mesh" is not clear and rendered indefinite. A mesh is inherently open so clarity is required.
In Claim 8 requires that the polymer is a “technopolymer?” This is not a term of art. Please clarify what is meant by technopolymer. For the purposes of examination, the limitation of claim 8 will be met if any of the following compositions are found: polyesters, polyamides, polyaryletherketones, polyparaphenylene sulphide, polypropylenes, perfluorocarbons, polyurethanes, or polyvinyl chlorides.
In Claim 9 recites an artificial polymer and then lists cellulose or viscose. Cellulose qualifies as a polymer because it consists of long chains of repeating monomers, but it is natural, not synthetic or artificial. Viscose is a semisynthetic fiber, not a fully synthetic polymer, because its base material is natural cellulose.
In Claim 12, what does “of a different nature” mean? Please provide clarity.
Claims 1 and 5-23 do not start with an article. The MPEP requires every patent claim to be written as a single sentence, beginning with “I claim,” “The invention claimed is,” or an equivalent phrase, and ending with a single period and beginning with an Article such as “a, and or the,” MPEP §608.01(m) specifies that each claim must be the object of one grammatically complete sentence. This rule ensures clarity, uniformity, and compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), which requires claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-23 provide for “the use of” , since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claims 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner,
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 5-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 4-8 of copending Application No. 19/114,811 [USPUB 20260001014A1]. Claims sated 09/08/26 were used for analysis. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the embodiment of the instant claims would be rendered obvious by the embodiments of claims 1 and 4-8 of 19/114,811.
Both the instant claims and those of 19/114,811 require an open mesh having warp and weft threads; same composition of the threads; mesh openings with overlapping ranges; overlapping thread diameter and linear densities; differing size and direction of the linear densities; both require monofilaments; and lastly the same ended end use and as such would be obvious variants of one another.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107268119 A issued to Sumei et al. in view of USPUB 2014/0034580 A1 issued to Chen.
Regarding Claim 1, 5-8 and 11-12: Sumei et al., teaches an industrial filter cloth for removing particulate matter of various kinds from liquids. Sumei et al., teaches an industrial filter cloth is made from synthetic monofilaments [combining polyethylene, polypropylene and PET] to create an open-mesh filter fabric having an asymmetrical construction with spaced apart threads and with a diameter that can be crossed by a flow of fluid with the movement in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the fabric itself [see the first paragraph under the heading background of technology.] The warp thread diameter is 0.15-0.18 mm and the weft thread diameter is 0.2-0.3 mm; the warp density after weaving is 20-23 pieces / cm and the weft density is 7-1 0 pieces / cm. [see description under Step 6]
Taking into account the above values, the ratio between the linear densities/cm of the warp threads and of the weft threads of 20/10 = 2.0 or 23/10 = 2.3 both below 2.5, thus within the claimed range, when selecting the upper limit of the weft range.
The ratio between the diameter of the warp threads and the diameter of the weft threads as disclosed by Sumei et al., is 0.15/0.2=0.75 or 0.18/0.2=0.9, 0.15/0.3=0.5 and
0.18/0.3=0.6, all the values falling within the claimed range.
Sumei et al., further teaches the diameter of the warp threads is different from the diameter of the weft threads (P4/“the wire diameter is 0.15-0.18mm (150-180 microns); the weft wire diameter is after 0.2-0.3mm”); and, the ratio between the diameter of the warp threads and the diameter of the weft threads is in the range between 0.5:1 and 0.9:1, which anticipates the claimed range of 0.5:1 and 2:1.
Sumei et al., does not disclose that the diameter of the threads ranges from 10 µm to 90 µm both in the warp and weft directions.
This is remedied by the teachings of Chen
Chen is from the same art of endeavor of filters.
Chen teaches an apparatus and method for removing contaminants from industrial fluid [title, Figs.] including a synthetic (made of e.g. polyester; [¶ 0075] monofilament [abstract] open-mesh filter fabric [abstract] with a structure having spaced threads or yarns [spaced apart pore openings; abstract], characterized in that it has a linear density/cm of the warp threads different from a linear density/cm of the weft threads [e.g. a 18x14 per square inch mesh or 7x6 per linear cm; [¶ 0066]; and wherein the ratio between the linear densities/cm of the warp threads and of the weft threads in their respective directions is 1.17:1, which overlap with the range of between 0.4: 1 and 2.5: 1; a thread diameter of e.g. 0.0007 inches (or about 18 microns), anticipating the claimed range of from 10 μm to 90 μm both in the warp and weft directions.
Chen teaches their filter is durable and efficient [¶ 0015].
Therefore, a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to have modified the filter of Sumei et al., with the claimed fiber diameter range of Chen. One would have motivated by the reasoned expectation of optimizing the filter for finer filtration characteristics including a durable and efficient filter. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of separations.
Regarding claim 13 -Sumei et al., teaches a filter (title) and thus capable of the intended use of as an acoustical component of consumer electronic devices, characterized in that it consists of a micro-speaker for smartphone, tablet and the like.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107268119 A issued to Sumei et al. in view of USPUB 2014/0034580 A1 issued to Chen and USPUB 20120234748 issued to Little et al.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Sumei/Chen et al., teaches what is set forth above but neither reference teaches the use of cellulose or viscose.
This is remedied by the teachings of Little et al. They are from the same art of endeavor as they both teach filtration.
Little et al., teaches a high temperature treated media including a filter media (abstract) comprising synthetic fibers comprising e.g. polyester and/or viscose [¶ 0066]. Little et al., viscose fiber is an art-recognized equivalent of polyester fiber for the same purpose and thus establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have found it obvious to have modified the filter of Sumei et al., and Chen to include viscose fibers as a known alternative to polyester as is known in the art.
Little et al. also teaches applying a dispersion (coating) which can be hydrophilic or hydrophobic. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have used a coating on textile of Sumei/Chen et al. one would have been motivated to do so to add the added benefit of the overall composite being hydrophilic or hydrophobic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPUB 20150373439A1 issued to Mori teaches waterproof sound-transmitting membrane (1) of the present invention includes a porous membrane (11) containing polytetrafluoroethylene as a main component and a supporting member (12) that supports the porous membrane (11). The supporting member (12) is joined to the porous membrane (11) placed thereon and is not subjected to stretching after the porous membrane (11) is placed thereon. The supporting member (12) is a mesh or a net having a fiber diameter of 45 to 60 μm and an opening size of 700 to 1100 μm across the supporting member (12). The waterproof sound-transmitting membrane (1) has a water entry pressure of 20 kPa or more as measured according to the method B (high hydraulic pressure method) of JIS L 1092.
JP 2005310827A1 teaches a protective material for aperture of electronic apparatus housing, having concurrent dust-proof properties and electromagnetic wave shielding properties, without deterioration of sound transferring property. The protective material for the aperture of electronic apparatus housing, a metal film is formed on a fiber surface of a mesh-type fabric which is formed of synthetic fiber filament threads, the diameter of the synthetic fiber filament thread forming the mesh type fabric is preferably 20 to 500 μm, the longitude thread density and latitude thread density of the mesh-type fabric are 50 to 500 threads/inch, the outermost surface of the metal film is black, and a low surface energy compound film is laminated on the upper part of the metal film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
