DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 June 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 18 and 30, these claims are directed to a flexible nonwoven fabric which comprises a consolidated veil and polymer particles, the consolidated veil being free of bonding materials. It is noted that only the consolidated veil is recited as being free of bonding materials. This does not require the flexible nonwoven fabric is free of bonding materials. In particular, the thermally sensitive polymer resin particles which increase the tension resistance of the veil would have been understood by the person of ordinary skill in the art as a bonding material. However, the examiner’s position is that it is reasonable to interpret the polymer particles as an additional component of the flexible non-woven fabric and not as a component of the claimed consolidated veil.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-19, 22-25 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 18 and 30, the examiner does not find any teaching in the original disclosure or claims of excluding all materials which fall with in the scope of “bonding materials” from the consolidated veil. Applicant previously excluded low melting point fibers from the consolidated veil, which was supported by the original disclosure and claims for the reasons argued by applicant in the response filed 04 October 2023. However, the fact that low melting point fibers comprise a bonding material is not sufficient to establish possession of excluding all “bonding materials” from the consolidated veil because excluding all bonding materials is significantly broader than excluding low melting point fibers. Additionally, the term “bonding material” is not found in the original disclosure or claims. For these reasons, Applicant was not in possession of the limitation of the consolidated veil being free of bonding materials at the time the application was filed.
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 18-19, 22-25 and 29-30 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 claims 18 and 30, these claims indicate the consolidated veil is free of bonding materials. However dependent claim 22 indicates the fibers of the consolidated veil include polyester, polyamide, acrylic, and rayon, all of which are thermoplastic and can be thermally bonded by heating to the softening or melting temperature thereof. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect such thermoplastic materials to fall within the scope of “bonding materials” for this reason. Accordingly, the scope of “bonding materials” is unclear, and it is unclear which materials are excluded from the consolidated veil by the claimed limitation of the consolidated veil being free of bonding materials. Although there is no claim similar to claim 22 which is dependent on claim 30, the above noted issue of clarity with respect to “bonding materials” is still considered to be present in claim 30. The current record makes it unclear what falls within the scope of “bonding materials” for the reasons provided above, and this unclear term is used in claim 30.
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 bonding materials. However dependent claim 22 indicates the fibers of the consolidated veil include polyester, polyamide, acrylic, and rayon, all of which are thermoplastic and can be thermally bonded by heating to the softening or melting temperature thereof. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect such thermoplastic materials to fall within the scope of “bonding materials” for this reason. Accordingly, claim 22 improperly fails to further limit parent claim 18 by removing the claimed limitation of the consolidated veil being free of bonding materials.
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), and optionally further in view of Nakayama (US 4702940).
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 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 bonding materials.
(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 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 provides the claimed particles suggested by Gross.
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 particles, as detailed above. 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 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, and optionally further in view of the teachings of Nakayama.
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 bonding materials. 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.
Three issues of claim interpretation are noted here. First, as noted in the claim interpretation section above, only the consolidated veil is recited as being free of bonding materials. The claimed nonwoven fabric does not exclude bonding materials. Accordingly, the particles provided to a consolidated veil are not excluded even if they are bonding materials. Second, as to consolidating prior to bonding, such is taught by Gross (column 25, lines 4-9). While the claims are directed to a product rather than a process, to the extent providing the polymer particles to a consolidated veil produces a structure different than consolidation of the veil only after providing the polymer particles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide such structure of a pre-consolidated veil because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide this structure to suitably provide the desired bonded nonwoven fabric, as suggested by the teachings of Gross. Third, Applicant’s claim 22 indicates the consolidated veil includes high melting thermoplastic fibers such as polyester, polyamide, acrylic and rayon. While this raises issues of clarity detailed above in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, here these high melting fiber materials are not considered to fall within “bonding materials”. This interpretation is provided in the interest of compact prosecution because the examiner believes Applicant did not intend to exclude such materials from the consolidated veil in view of claim 22.
As to using fibers obtained from polymers of different chemical nature which are not bonding materials, 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.
Regarding claim 30, Deblander and Gross are applied as above in the rejection of claims 18-19, 22-25 and 29. Nakayama is not applied here because a suspension is not recited in claim 30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Deblander teaches away from the use of polymer particles. The examiner respectfully disagrees, because there is no explicit teaching in Deblander to avoid polymer particles. Moreover, the rejection is based on a combination of references. Gross was applied to show it is known the related art to use a particle binder on a consolidated veil instead of using binder fibers as in Deblander. The examiner maintains that Applicant has simply used an art recognized suitable alternative binder, i.e. a polymer particle binder provided to a consolidated veil rather than binder fibers.
Applicant argues teaches the loft and recovery desired by Deblander might suffer when using particle binder instead of binder fibers. Applicant notes that only the lower melting binder portion is softened in Deblander. In response, when using particle binder, Gross also teaches the fibers themselves do not melt during bonding (column 10, lines 20-35). Rather, the binder is heated to soften and fuse (column 24, lines 12-30; column 25, lines 4-9). Thus Gross also seeks to avoid melting of the fibers, which would naturally result in a loss of loft. Moreover, Gross and Deblander are both drawn to acoustically and thermally insulating nonwoven materials. Accordingly, it is reasonably clear that Gross provides a suitable binder for such materials.
The newly claimed limitation of being free of bonding materials is addressed in the grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights