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 18-19, 22-25 and 29 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.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation of melted polymer particles in line 8 is confusing. The claim is directed to a flexible non-woven fabric, i.e. a finished product. Naturally the polymer particles have solidified in the finished product since the melting points of polymers disclosed by Applicant are well above room temperature. This limitation appears to be directed to a process step in which the polymer particles are melted to enhance tension resistance (see Applicant’s published application, paragraph 18). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the polymer particles to remain melted for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 23, “comprising” does not recite a closed list. Accordingly, it is unclear what other alternatives are encompassed by the claim. The examiner suggests --selected from the group consisting of--.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 22, parent claim 18 indicates the consolidated veil is free of low melting point fibers. Original claim 1 indicates low melting point fibers are those which are activated at 100 to 200°C. However dependent claim 22 improperly includes fiber materials which are activated in this range, including polyolefins, polylactic acid, and low melting point polymers. Thus claim 22 fails to include all of the limitations of parent claim 18 because it includes fiber materials which correspond to low melting point fibers.
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 18-19, 22-25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deblander (US 8424262) in view of Gross (US 7878301), optionally further in view of Nakayama (US 4702940), and optionally further in view of Buck (US 4050977).
Regarding claim 18, Deblander teaches a flexible non-woven fabric comprising a consolidated veil made with fibers obtained from polymers of different chemical nature (column 6, lines 49-57; column 9, lines 22-25 and 60-67; column 10, lines 1-9; column 11, lines 9-37). The fibers comprise a mixture of fine fibers having a denier of 0.2 to 1.4 (5 to 12 µm diameter, assuming a density of 1.38 g/cm3 which is the density of the polyester PET; column 6, line 57; column 9, lines 1-31), and coarse fibers having a denier ranging from 3 up to 17 (20-50 µm diameter, assuming a density of 0.94 g/cm3 which is the approximate density of polyolefins; 3-20 denier assuming a density of 1.15 g/cm3 which is the approximate density of polyamides; 4-24 denier assuming a density of 1.38 g/cm3 which is the approximate density of polyesters; column 6, lines 58-67; column 7, lines 1-17; column 9, lines 1-17). It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Deblander indicates the veil is sufficiently flexible to be rolled (column 11, lines 32-37), which satisfies the claimed flexible nonwoven.
Deblander differs from claim 18 in that:
i. Deblander does not teach melted polymer particles incorporated throughout said consolidated veil by saturating said consolidated veil with a thermally sensitive polymer resin suspension to provide the flexible non-woven fabric with a higher tension resistance than said veil, wherein the mixture of fine fibers and coarse fibers creates structures and spaces that break up sound waves, provide high acoustic absorption, promote separation of micrometric particles in an air flow and provide high filtration, cleaning, comfort and thermal insulation properties.
ii. Deblander does not teach the consolidated veil is free of low melting point fibers.
(i) Deblander is directed to a fiber insulation material having thermal insulation and acoustic damping properties (Abstract; column 3, lines 9-12). Deblander consolidates the veil by thermal bonding using binder fibers. In an acoustically and thermally insulating nonwoven material, Gross suggests thermoplastic resin latex impregnation and thermal activation to soften and fuse the binder and bond the nonwoven, and further indicates that such bonding may be provided as an alternative to binder fiber bonding. The binder is introduced so as to effect a substantially uniform impregnation. See Gross (Abstract; column 13, lines 35-67; column 14, lines 1-27; column 22, lines 50-65; column 24, lines 12-26; column 25, lines 4-23). It is clear from Gross that the binder resin provides the desired fiber bonding and nonwoven consolidation. Additionally, the binder resin enables a desired level of stiffness to be achieved (column 22, lines 50-64), while still being sufficiently flexible to be rolled (column 25, lines 4-23). It is noted that a latex is a dispersion of polymer particles in water. Accordingly, such application and thermal activation as suggested by Gross naturally satisfies the claimed melted particles. The claimed product is not limited to a particular method of manufacture, but rather is only limited to the structure implied by limitations associated with a method of manufacture. See MPEP § 2113.
Alternatively, Gross is not limited to particular forms of the binder and suggests thermoplastic binder in latex or emulsion form (column 13, lines 35-67). Nakayama teaches that thermoplastic binders for nonwovens applied by impregnation may be in emulsion form or alternatively in the form of a suspension comprising thermoplastic resin dispersed in a dispersing medium (column 2, lines 62-68). Naturally such a dispersion comprises thermoplastic particles dispersed in the dispersing medium, such that subsequent thermal activation as suggested by Gross would provide the claimed melted particles. Nakayama is only applied here as an alternative suitable form for the binder which yields the claimed melted particles upon thermal activation as suggested by Gross.
As to melting of the polymer particles, as noted above, the claimed product is not limited to a particular method of manufacture, but rather is only limited to the structure implied by limitations associated with a method of manufacture. See MPEP § 2113. To the extent that this limitation provides any structural distinction over the thermal activation suggested by Gross, it is noted that Gross suggests softening and fusing of the polymer particles (column 24, lines 12-26; column 25, lines 4-23), but does not explicitly recite melting. In related art, Buck teaches heating to soften and melt polymer particles to achieve desired nonwoven fabric bonding (column 4, lines 24-55).
While the claimed product is not limited to a particular method of manufacture, it is reasonably clear from Gross, or the combined teachings of Gross and Nakayama, that impregnating the nonwoven uniformly with a thermoplastic binder latex or suspension would provide the claimed melted particles upon thermal activation, as detailed above. Further, as detailed above, Buck is also optionally applied to explicitly suggest the particles would be melted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Deblander with the claimed melted polymer particles incorporated throughout said consolidated veil because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably provide the desired fiber bonding and consolidation, and/or to achieve a desired level of stiffness while maintaining sufficient flexibility for rolling in accordance with the above noted teachings of Gross, optionally further in view of the teachings of Nakayama, and optionally further in view of the teachings of Buck.
Naturally, in the modified nonwoven web of Deblander, the claimed higher tension resistance is achieved and the mixture of fine fibers and coarse fibers creates structures and spaces that break up sound waves, provide high acoustic absorption, promote the separation of micrometric particles in an air flow, and provide high filtration, cleaning, comfort and thermal insulation properties. The modified nonwoven web of Deblander has the same structure as claimed and suggests fibers having deniers in the claimed range. Accordingly it is reasonable to expect the modified nonwoven web of Deblander has these same broadly recited properties. Additionally, Deblander’s nonwoven web clearly possesses high thermal insulation properties (Abstract).
(ii) Deblander is directed to a fiber insulation material having thermal insulation and acoustic damping properties (Abstract; column 3, lines 9-12). Deblander uses binder fibers which are excluded by the claimed limitation of being free of low melting point fibers. Although Deblander does provide such binder fibers, a focus of Deblander is to use a mixture of fibers having a particular average fiber diameter in order to achieve a balance between desired insulation, loft and compression recovery (column 8, lines 8-67). Deblander does not teach that particulate binders are unacceptable. In related art, Gross makes it clear that bonding may be achieved by thermoplastic particle binders as an alternative to binder fibers (column 13, lines 35-67). Accordingly, Applicant has simply used an art recognized suitable alternative binder, i.e. a polymer particle binder rather than binder fibers. Only the expected result of bonding the veil has been achieved. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Deblander because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable binder in view of the teachings of Gross, for the reasons provided above.
As to using fibers obtained from polymers of different chemical nature which are not low melting point fibers, Deblander teaches the use of one or more thermoplastic polymers for the fibers and recites polyethylene terephthalate (PET, a polyester), which is high melting. In an acoustically and thermally insulating nonwoven material, Gross suggests PET and additionally suggests acrylic and polyamide as suitable fiber polymers (column 11, lines 51-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide such fibers in Deblander because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to known suitable fiber materials in an acoustically and thermally insulating nonwoven material, as evidenced by Gross.
Regarding claim 19, Deblander teaches a thermal conductivity of 0.03 to 0.05 W/m·K (30-50 mW/m·K; Abstract). Deblander teaches a thickness of 25 to 300 mm and a density of 5 to 15 kg/m3 (column 9, lines 60-67; column 10, lines 10-18). The basis weight is readily calculated by multiplying the density by the thickness. This corresponds to a basis weight of about 125 to 4500 g/m2, which substantially overlaps with the claimed range. Deblander’s most preferred ranges of density (7-13 kg/m3) and thickness (75 to 200 mm) correspond to a basis weight of about 525 to 2600 g/m2. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 22 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 23, the thermally activated resin suggested by Gross satisfies thermal bonding.
Regarding claim 24, Gross teaches the thermally sensitive resin may be a latex resin or acrylic resin (column 13, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 25, the PET fibers of Deblander satisfy the fibers made of polymers of the same chemical nature, i.e. a plurality of PET fibers comprise fibers made of polymers of the same chemical nature (column 6, line 57).
Regarding claim 29, Gross teaches the thermally sensitive latex or vinyl resin may further include surfactant (column 13, lines 57-61).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deblander in view of Gross, and optionally further in view of Buck.
Regarding claim 30, Deblander teaches a flexible non-woven fabric comprising a consolidated veil made with fibers obtained from polymers such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET, a polyester), which is high melting (column 6, lines 49-57; column 9, lines 22-25 and 60-67; column 10, lines 1-9; column 11, lines 9-37). The fibers may comprise a mixture of such PET fibers (column 6, lines 49-57; column 9, lines 1-31). The PET fibers may have a denier of 0.2 to 1.4 (5 to 12 µm diameter, assuming a density of 1.38 g/cm3 which is the density of PET; column 9, lines 1-17), or a denier ranging from 4 up to 24 denier (20-50 µm diameter, assuming a density of 1.38 g/cm3; column 9, lines 1-17). It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Deblander indicates the veil is sufficiently flexible to be rolled (column 11, lines 32-37), which satisfies the claimed flexible nonwoven.
Deblander differs from claim 18 in that:
i. Deblander does not teach the consolidated veils is free of low melting point fibers.
ii. Deblander does not teach melted polymer particles incorporated throughout said consolidated veil to provide the flexible non-woven fabric with a higher tension resistance than said veil, wherein the mixture of fibers creates structures and spaces that break up sound waves, provide high acoustic absorption, promote separation of micrometric particles in an air flow and provide high filtration, cleaning, comfort and thermal insulation properties.
(i) Deblander is directed to a fiber insulation material having thermal insulation and acoustic damping properties (Abstract; column 3, lines 9-12). As noted above Deblander provides high melting PET fibers, but Deblander also uses binder fibers which are excluded by the claimed limitation of being free of low melting point fibers. Although Deblander does provide such binder fibers, a focus of Deblander is to use a mixture of fibers having a particular average fiber diameter in order to achieve a balance between desired insulation, loft and compression recovery (column 8, lines 8-67). Deblander does not teach that particulate binders are unacceptable. In related art, Gross makes it clear that bonding may be achieved by thermoplastic particle binders as an alternative to binder fibers (column 13, lines 35-67). Accordingly, Applicant has simply used an art recognized suitable alternative binder, i.e. a polymer particle binder rather than binder fibers. Only the expected result of bonding the veil has been achieved. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Deblander because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable binder in view of the teachings of Gross, for the reasons provided above.
(ii) In an acoustically and thermally insulating nonwoven material, Gross suggests thermoplastic particulate polymer binder and thermal activation to soften and fuse the binder and bond the nonwoven. The binder is introduced so as to effect a substantially uniform impregnation. See Gross (Abstract; column 13, lines 35-67; column 14, lines 1-27; column 22, lines 50-65; column 24, lines 12-26; column 25, lines 4-23). Accordingly, such application and thermal activation as suggested by Gross naturally satisfies the claimed melted particles. The claimed product is not limited to a particular method of manufacture, but rather is only limited to the structure implied by limitations associated with a method of manufacture. See MPEP § 2113.
As to melting of the polymer particles, as noted above, the claimed product is not limited to a particular method of manufacture, but rather is only limited to the structure implied by limitations associated with a method of manufacture. See MPEP § 2113. To the extent that this limitation provides any structural distinction over the thermal activation suggested by Gross, it is noted that Gross suggests softening and fusing of the polymer particles (column 24, lines 12-26; column 25, lines 4-23), but does not explicitly recite melting. In related art, Buck teaches heating to soften and melt polymer particles to achieve desired nonwoven fabric bonding (column 4, lines 24-55). Thus it is reasonably clear from Gross, or the combined teachings of Gross and Buck, that the particles would be melted. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Deblander with the claimed melted polymer particles incorporated throughout the fibers of said consolidated veil because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably provide the desired fiber bonding and consolidation in accordance with the above noted teachings of Gross, optionally further in view of the teachings of Buck.
Naturally, in the modified nonwoven web of Deblander, the claimed higher tension resistance is achieved and the mixture of fibers creates structures and spaces that break up sound waves, provide high acoustic absorption, promote the separation of micrometric particles in an air flow, and provide high filtration, cleaning, comfort and thermal insulation properties. The modified nonwoven web of Deblander has the same structure as claimed. Accordingly it is reasonable to expect the modified nonwoven web of Deblander has these same broadly recited properties. Additionally, Deblander’s nonwoven web clearly possesses high thermal insulation properties (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 September 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the melted particles are clear because they are directed to a product-by-process type limitation. However, there is no recited product-by-process limitation. Only melted polymer particles are recited, which naturally are not part of the finished product. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the recitation of melted polymer particles is confusing.
The argument directed to the scope of low melting point fibers was persuasive. This ground of rejection has been withdrawn.
The additional arguments are drawn to the new limitation of being free of low melting point fibers in claim 18. This new limitation has been addressed in the new grounds of rejection applied above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached on (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745