Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 11/4/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-13 are cancelled. New claims 23-33 are added. Claims 14-33 are pending.
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 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, line 2: replace “the first pressure to the first gas stream” with “the first pressure of the first gas stream”.
Claim 16, line 2: replace “the second pressure to the second gas stream” with “the second pressure of the second gas stream”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 14-17, 19-20, 22-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BENJAMIN (US-2019/0040547), hereinafter BENJAMIN, in view of RENEKER (US 6,520,425), hereinafter RENEKER. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claims 14 and 27-28, BENJAMIN discloses A process for forming a nonwoven web {[abstract], [0002] note non-woven forms or web, [0006] note the process of supplying polymer to produce the non-woven forms} comprising:
forming two rows of fibers from a molten polymer material {[0005], [FIG. 4] 121 is one row that has plurality of nozzle, [FIG. 15A] 121 is the first row of nozzles and 123 is the second row of nozzle};
contacting the fibers with a plurality of gas streams for attenuating the fibers, the gas streams including a first gas stream that impinges on a first row of fibers from a first side, a second gas stream that impinges on a second row of fibers from a second side, and a third gas stream that is directed between and impinges on the first row of fibers and the second row of fibers {[0038] note attenuation of the polymer fibers by the gas streams, [0006], [FIG. 4], [FIG. 15A] 141c is the first air flow path, 144c is the second air flow path and 142c is the third air flow path, 141c is near the first outer edge of the first row of polymer nozzle 121, 144c is near the second outer edge of the second row of polymer nozzle 123, 142c is between 121 and 123},
the first gas stream being emitted by a first air flow path at a first pressure, the second gas stream being emitted by a second air flow path at a second pressure, and the third gas stream being emitted by a third air flow path at a third pressure {[FIG. 15A] note the path of each stream and stream has a pressure},
and depositing the attenuated fibers onto a forming surface for forming a nonwoven web {[0002] note making the non-woven form that indicates deposition of the attenuated fibers}.
BENJAMIN, however, is silent on the relation of the third pressure with regard to the first and second pressure and that it is greater than the first and the second pressure or the last limitation of claim 14: “and wherein the third pressure is greater than the first pressure and the second pressure” and claims 27-28 limitations that are related to this third pressure.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to spinning and depositing fiber, RENEKER discloses and wherein the third pressure is greater than the first pressure and the second pressure (rest of claim 14), further comprising maintaining gas pressure through the third air flow path above a pressure of a gas exiting the first air flow path and of a gas exiting the second air flow path (claim 27), wherein the gas pressure through the third air flow path is maintained via a fluid flow regulator in communication with the gas flow path to the third air flow path {[claim 11], [C6, L40-45] note the teaching that center tube gas pressure or the third pressure is greater that the shroud (or the two sides) pressures that corresponds to the first and second pressure, [C11, L23-27] note teaching on manipulating the pressure that requires a fluid flow regulator, [C12, L48-49] note the valve for fluid flow control}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of RENEKER in the process of BENJAMIN and have set the third pressure greater than the first and the second pressure using a flow regulator. As disclosed by RENEKER, the advantage of a higher center flow or a higher third pressure is to help carry the fiber forming material {[C10, L17-19]}.
Regarding the limitation of claims 15-16: “wherein the third pressure of the third gas stream is at a pressure ratio of the first pressure to the first gas stream of from about 1.05:1 to about 2:1 (claim 15), wherein the third pressure of the third gas stream is at a pressure ratio of the second pressure to the second gas stream of from about 1.05:1 to about 2:1 (claim 16)”, as discussed above under claim 14, RENEKER discloses that the third pressure is higher, However, RENEKER is silent on the quantitative ratios of these pressures.
However, RENEKER discloses that the third pressure should be sufficiently high so as to carry the fiber material {[C10, L17-19]} and further discloses that the pressure of gas moving through any of the columns may need to be manipulated based on the fiber-forming material that is being employed {[C11, L24-27]}. Therefore, RENEKER recognizes the extent of all pressures as result-effective variables affecting the movement of fibers based on their nature.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the effect of pressure on optimizing the product) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}. At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the first, second and third pressures which are result-effective variables through routine experimentation to have determined the appropriate pressure ratios to obtain an optimum product that in certain circumstances will lead to the claimed ratios.
Regarding claim 17, RENEKER discloses wherein the polymer material comprises a polyolefin polymer {[C4, L7]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the generic polymer of BENJAMIN with the polyolefin as taught by RENEKER. It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the skills of an artisan {see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)}. Predictable results will be obtained since both arts are in the same filed of endeavor and that the polymer is used for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 19, BENJAMIN discloses wherein the two rows of fibers are parallel {[FIG. 15A]}.
Regarding the last limitation claim 19, RENEKER discloses the process further comprising the step of contacting the two parallel rows of fibers with a liquid absorbent material prior to the fibers being deposited onto the forming surface for forming a coform web {[C12, L39-44]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of RENEKER in the method of BENJAMIN and have contacted the two parallel rows of polymer fibers of BENJAMIN with textile fibers as taught by RENEKER to prepare a coform. As disclosed by RENEKER, the advantage of this method is to create protective clothing {[C12, L39-44]},
Regarding claim 20, BENJAMIN discloses wherein the two rows of fibers are emitted via a die head having a length and a width, the die head comprising a first row of polymer nozzles and a second row of polymer nozzles, wherein the first row of fibers are emitted from the first row of polymer nozzles and the second row of fibers are emitted from the second row of polymer nozzles and wherein the first row of polymer nozzles and the second row of polymer nozzles are each positioned at an angle towards each other, wherein the die head includes a vertical axis that extends from a top of the die head to a bottom of the die head and includes a horizontal axis that is perpendicular to the vertical axis and wherein the first row of polymer nozzles are positioned at an acute angle relative to the vertical axis and the second row of polymer nozzles are positioned at an acute angle relative to the vertical axis {[FIG. 1A] 8 is the die head that has a length and a width, [0005], [FIG. 4], [FIG. 15 A] note the angel between 501 and 503, also note that vertical axis is from left to right and the horizontal axis is from top to bottom, note bevel 70 that defines these angles}.
Regarding claim 22, RENEKER discloses wherein the attenuated fibers deposited onto the forming surface have a fiber diameter of less than about 5 microns {[C2, L14] note less than 3 micron}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of RENEKER in the method of BENJAMIN and have produced these nanofibers of this size. As disclosed by RENEKER, such approach is advantageous in the area of nano-fiber technology (see the background section).
Regarding claim 23, BENJAMIN discloses wherein the two rows of fibers are emitted via a die head having a length and a width, the die head comprising a first row of polymer nozzles and a second row of polymer nozzles, wherein the die head includes a fiber dispensing surface, the first row of polymer nozzles and the second row of polymer nozzles being disposed along the fiber dispensing surface, similarly, the first air flow path, the second air flow path, and the third air flow path are also disposed along the fiber dispensing surface, the fiber dispensing surface having a V-shape defining an apex, and wherein the first row of polymer nozzles and the second row of polymer nozzles are positioned to emit polymer fibers adjacent to the apex of the fiber dispensing surface {[FIG. 1A] 8 is the die head that has a length and a width, [0005], [FIG. 4], [FIG. 15 A] note the angel between 501 and 503, also note that vertical axis is from left to right and the horizontal axis is from top to bottom, note the V-shape at the exit of air and molten polymers, [0035] note the apex}.
Regarding claim 24, BENJAMIN discloses wherein the first air flow path and the second air flow path are each positioned at an angle towards each other {[FIG. 15 A] note bevel 70 that defines these angles}.
Regarding claim 25, BENJAMIN discloses wherein the two rows of fibers are emitted via a die head having a length and a width, the die head comprising a first row of polymer nozzles and a second row of polymer nozzles, wherein the die head includes a vertical axis that extends from a top of the die head to a bottom of the die head and includes a horizontal axis that is perpendicular to the vertical axis and wherein the first air flow path is positioned at an acute angle relative to the horizontal axis and the second air flow path is positioned at an acute angle relative to the horizontal axis {[FIG. 1A] 8 is the die head that has a length and a width, [0005], [FIG. 4], [FIG. 15 A] note the angel between 501 and 503, also note that vertical axis is from left to right and the horizontal axis is from top to bottom, note bevel 70 that defines these angles}.
Regarding claim 26, BENJAMIN discloses wherein the third air flow path is positioned to emit a gas in a downward, vertical direction {[FIG. 15A] note 142c is downward since vertical axis is from right to left}.
Regarding claim 29, BENJAMIN discloses wherein the two rows of fibers are emitted via a die head having a length and a width, the die head comprising a first row of polymer nozzles and a second row of polymer nozzles, wherein the first air flow path and the first row of polymer nozzles are symmetrical to the second air flow path and the second row of polymer nozzles with respect to a vertical axis of the die head {[FIG. 1A] 8 is the die head that has a length and a width, [0005], [FIG. 4], [FIG. 15 A] note the symmetry}.
Regarding claim 30, BENJAMIN discloses wherein the two rows of fibers are emitted via a die head having a length and a width, the die head comprising a first row of polymer nozzles and a second row of polymer nozzles, wherein the first and second air flow paths comprise slots that extend along the length of the die head or comprise a row of apertures that extend along the length of the die head {[FIG. 1A] 8 is the die head that has a length and a width, [0005], [FIG. 4] note 14 are the air slots, [FIG. 15A] note the aperture}.
Regarding claim 31, BENJAMIN discloses wherein the first air flow path is in fluid communication with a first air chamber, the second air flow path is in fluid communication with a second air chamber, and the third air flow path is in fluid communication with a third air chamber, the first, second and third air chambers being isolated from each other, each of the first, second and third air chambers being in communication with a pressurized gas source for providing a pressurized gas to each of the first, second and third air flow paths {[FIG. 5] note each U-shape 14 and its tube-like entrance can be considered separate chambers, [0005] note air compressor}.
Regarding claim 33, BENJAMIN discloses A process for forming a nonwoven web {[abstract], [0002] note non-woven forms or web, [0006] note the process of supplying polymer to produce the non-woven forms} comprising:
forming two rows of fibers from a molten polymer material {[0005], [FIG. 4] 121 is one row that has plurality of nozzle, [FIG. 15A] 121 is the first row of nozzles and 123 is the second row of nozzle};
contacting the fibers with a plurality of gas streams for attenuating the fibers, the gas streams including a first gas stream that impinges on a first row of fibers from a first side, a second gas stream that impinges on a second row of fibers from a second side, and a third gas stream that is directed between and impinges on the first row of fibers and the second row of fibers {[0038] note attenuation of the polymer fibers by the gas streams, [0006], [FIG. 4], [FIG. 15A] 141c is the first air flow path, 144c is the second air flow path and 142c is the third air flow path, 141c is near the first outer edge of the first row of polymer nozzle 121, 144c is near the second outer edge of the second row of polymer nozzle 123, 142c is between 121 and 123},
the first gas stream being emitted by a first air flow path, the second gas stream being emitted by a second air flow path, and the third gas stream being emitted by a third air flow path {[FIG. 15A] note the path of each stream};
and depositing the attenuated fibers onto a forming surface for forming a nonwoven web {[0002] note making the non-woven form that indicates deposition of the attenuated fibers}.
BENJAMIN, however, is silent on the relation of the third pressure with regarding to the first and second pressure and that it is greater than the first and the second pressure and maintaining it.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to spinning and depositing fiber, RENEKER discloses maintaining gas pressure through the third air flow path above a pressure of a gas exiting the first air flow path and of a gas exiting the second air flow path, wherein the gas pressure through the third air flow path is maintained via a fluid flow regulator in communication with the gas flow path to the third air flow path {[claim 11], [C6, L40-45] note the teaching that center tube gas pressure or the third pressure is greater that the shroud (or the two sides) pressures that corresponds to the first and second pressure, [C11, L23-27] note teaching on manipulating the pressure that requires a fluid flow regulator, [C12, L48-49] note the valve for fluid flow control}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of RENEKER in the process of BENJAMIN and have set the third pressure greater that the first and the second pressure. As disclosed by RENEKER, the advantage of a higher center flow or a higher third pressure is that to help carry the fiber forming material {[C10, L17-19]}.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BENJAMIN and RENEKER as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of BROWN (US-2015/0322592), hereinafter BROWN.
Regarding claim 18, combination of BENJAMIN and RENEKER discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the polymer material being biodegradable.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to non-woven web, BROWN discloses wherein the polymer material comprises a biodegradable polymer {[0035]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the generic polymer of BENJAMIN with the biodegradable polymer as taught by BROWN. It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is withing the skills of an artisan {see MPEP 2143 (I)(B)}. Predictable results will be obtained since both arts are in the same filed of endeavor and that the polymer is used for the same purpose.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BENJAMIN and RENEKER as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of RUDISILL (US 6,773,531), hereinafter RUDISILL.
Regarding claim 21, combination of BENJAMIN and RENEKER discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on maintaining all the pressures below 10 psi.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to spinning filaments to produce a web, RUDISILL discloses wherein the first pressure, the second pressure, and the third pressure are all maintained below about 10 psi {[C6, L13]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of RUDISIL in the method of BENJAMIN and RENEKER and have set all these pressures as claimed. As shown by RUDISILL in its example 1 {[C5-6]}, a successful product is obtained with uniformity when using this pressure.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BENJAMIN and RENEKER as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of HAYNES (US 6,117,379), hereinafter HAYNES.
Regarding claim 32, combination of BENJAMIN and RENEKER discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on placing a wedge-shape flow control device in the third air flow path to prevent turbulence or the limitation “wherein the third air flow path is in fluid communication with a wedge-shaped flow control device for directing flow of a gas through the third air flow path while preventing turbulence”.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to nonwoven filament, HAYNES discloses that use of flow control device, namely gas diffusers is known for the purpose of reducing gas velocity and turbulence {[C1, L41-43]}. These devices include screens, perforated plates and as such {[C1, L28-30] note that they can be considered wedge since they wedge the flow}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of HAYNES in the combination method of BENJAMIN and RENEKER and have placed a wedge-shape control device in the third air flow path. As disclosed by HAYNES, the advantage of this device is that it introduces a more tranquil, laminar flow having less tendency to disturb or break the filament {[C1, L44-45]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights