DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1, 56-62, 64 and 67-77 are pending in the application. Claims 2-55, 63 and 65-66 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1 and 77, filed on 12/10/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Reapplied Rejections
The pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 56-62, 64 and 67-77 over Gross (WO 2006/107847 A2), Iwata (JP 2003-301360 A) and Schmidt et al. (US 2004/0077247 A1) have been reapplied below to clearly indicate that the claimed limitation “a preformed fibrous web formed by needle-punching,” is met by Gross’ teaching that the scrim may be formed via the spunbond process, the melt-blown process, the spunlaced process, a carding process or a combination of any of these processes ([0102]; also see [078]). At the same time, the prior art has been reapplied below to amended claim 1, which no longer includes the limitation “and bicomponent fibers including polyethylene terephthalate.”
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. Cancelled claim 63 is not presently labeled as “63.”
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 56-60, 64, 67-68 and 75 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gross (WO 2006/107847 A2) in view of Iwata (JP 2003-301360 A, attached 9/10/2025) Schmidt.
Regarding claims 1, 56, 60, 64, 67-68 and 75, Gross teaches a nonwoven material having acoustical and thermal insulating properties ([014]). The nonwoven material could also be characterized as a composite fibrous material, pad, or batting ([014]). One of the advantages of the nonwoven structures is that they may be composed of material which permits the material to be molded into desired shapes (thermoformable as claimed) ([0127]). The core (a fiber layer as claimed) may have an auxiliary layer comprising a polymer film or a carrier sheet attached to an outer surface ([016]). Auxiliary layers (a preformed fibrous web and a film facing as claimed) may be added to the base pad (or core) on one or both major surfaces ([017] and [014]). In some instances, the terms carrier and scrim are interchangeable ([049]). In an embodiment, Gross teaches that of interest are useful materials such as those where the scrim is made of a polyester, such as, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (among others) [0102]). With regard to the claimed limitation “a preformed fibrous web formed by needle-punching,” Gross further teaches that, in general the scrim may be formed via the spunbond process, the melt-blown process, the spunlaced process, a carding process or a combination of any of these processes ([0102]; also see [078]). The examiner notes that the claimed limitation is a product-by-process limitation. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
With respect to the core (a fiber layer as claimed), preferred matrix fibers are cellulosic fibers, though matrix fibers may also be synthetic fibers or a mixture of cellulosic and synthetic fibers ([053]). Synthetic fibers suitable for use as a matrix fiber include cellulose acetate, polyolefins (including polyethylene and polypropylene), nylon, polyester (including polyethylene terephthalate (PET)), vinyl chloride, and regenerated cellulose such as viscose rayon, glass fibers, ceramic fibers, and the various bicomponent fibers known in the art ([059]). The matrix fibers desirably are present in the base pad in an amount of from about 30 percent by weight to about 95 percent by weight based on the total weight of the core or pad material 10 ([061]). The matrix fibers are held by a binder ([062]). The examiner notes that the binders may be various bicomponent binder fibers ([063]). A multi-component fiber with a PP (polypropylene) or modified PP or PE sheath or a combination of PP and modified PE as the sheath or a copolyester sheath wherein the copolyester is isophthalic acid modified PET (polyethylene terephthalate) typically with a PET or PP core, or a PP sheath - PET core and PE sheath - PP core and co-PET sheath fibers may be employed ([068]).
With regard to the claimed limitation, “wherein the…fibers are scattered and thermally bonded together through heating and compressing the short fibers,” the examiner notes that this is a product-by-process limitation and that the final product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. The examiner notes that the core layer may be an airlaid pad that defines a nonwoven, airlaid structure fabricated from matrix fibers and a core binder ([052]). In accordance with one aspect, the nonwoven material (comprising the core) is molded with an application of heat and pressure into a shape which is retained ([0130] and [097]). Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
The fibrous composite will typically have a caliper (a thickness) of from about 1 to about 150 mm or more, and a basis weight of about 200 gsm to 5700 gsm or more, with the core or base pad 10 typically having a basis weight of from about 200 gsm to about 3000 gsm, the carrier when present having a basis weight of from about 10 gsm to about 2000 gsm, and the auxiliary layer 11 when present having a basis weight of from about 50 gsm to about 400 gsm with no filler, or from about 50 gsm to about 700 gsm with filler to form heavy layer 12 ([095]; also see [074], [076] and [0122]).
As calculated by the examiner from paragraph [095], the weight percentage of the core (i.e., of the short fibers) in a three-layer nonwoven material comprising a core and two carrier layers would range from 4.8% to 99.3% (e.g., 3000 / [3000 + (2 x 10)] = 99.3%). In addition, or in the alternative, for a three-layer nonwoven material comprising a core and two auxiliary layers (noting that the auxiliary layer can be a carrier, and that the basis weight range disclosed for the auxiliary layer falls within the broader range disclosed for the carrier), gives a weight percentage of the core (i.e., of the short fibers) of 20% to 96.8% (see [016]-[017]).
As calculated by the examiner from the fibrous composite caliper and basis weight in [095], the bulk density of the nonwoven structure would range from about 1.3 to 5700 kg/m3 (e.g., 5700 gsm / 0.001 m = 5,700 kg/m3).
Gross does not explicitly disclose wherein the fiber layer is a short fiber layer of fibrous material processed into short fibers having an average length of about 3 mm or less.
However, Iwata teaches providing a mat having good bulkiness, bulk recovering properties and air permeability and composed of nonwoven fabric fragments (Abstract). The mat is composed of nonwoven fabric fragments comprising single fibers having 2-20 mm fiber length (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fibers in the core layer of Gross with a fiber length in the range of 2-20 mm in order to obtain a mat having improved bulkiness, bulk recovery and air permeability properties for use in a sound absorbing material, heat insulating material, cushioning material and the like, as suggested by Iwata (Abstract, [0015] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 57, as noted above, Gross teaches that, in general the scrim may be formed via the spunbond process, the melt-blown process, the spunlaced process, a carding process or a combination of any of these processes ([0102]). The examiner notes that a spunbond fabric comprises continuous fibers (longer fibers).
Regarding claim 58, Gross teaches that, for most applications, the side of the nonwoven material facing human occupation will be treated with any of a number of common fire retardant agents known in the art ([0114]).
Regarding claim 59, Gross does not explicitly disclose, in the embodiment applied above, wherein the nonwoven material has a selected air flow resistivity between about 275,000 Rayls/m and about 3,000,000 Rayls/m.
However, in an embodiment, Gross teaches an improved acoustically and thermally insulating nonwoven structure that can have an airflow resistance of from about 500 to about 3,000 Rayls, or to about 10,000 Rayls (see [0123]). The thickness of the nonwoven structure is from about 1mm to about 30mm, preferably from about 1 mm to about 3mm (see [0122]). Thus, as calculated by the examiner, for a thickness of 2mm, Gross teaches nonwoven structures having an airflow resistivity in the range of from about 250,000 Rayls/m to about 1,500,000 Rayls/m (e.g., 500Rayls / 0.002m = 250,000 Rayls/m).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the nonwoven materials of Gross with an airflow resistivity of from about 250,000 Rayls/m to about 1,500,000 in order to provide controlled airflow that is useful for acoustic insulation (Gross: [003], [0122]-[0123]).
Claims 61-62, 69-74 and 76-77 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gross (WO 2006/107847 A2) in view of Iwata (JP 2003-301360 A, attached 9/10/2025), further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 2004/0077247 A1).
Regarding claims 61-62, 69, 72-73 and 76-77, Gross in view of Iwata is applied in the same manner applied above to claims 1, 56, 60, 64, 67-68 and 75.
As applied above, with regard to the claimed limitation “a preformed fibrous web formed by needle-punching,” Gross teaches that, in general the scrim may be formed via the spunbond process, the melt-blown process, the spunlaced process, a carding process or a combination of any of these processes ([0102]). Therefore, the scrim of Gross may be formed by a combination of processes, such as a spunlaced process and a spunbond process, which meets the claimed limitation. In this regard, the examiner notes that the claimed limitation is a product-by-process limitation. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Gross in view of Iwata does not explicitly disclose wherein the preformed fibrous web comprises bicomponent binder fibers including polyethylene terephthalate.
However, Schmidt teaches a lofty spunbond laminate comprising first and second layers, wherein the second layer (also referred to as a high loft layer) contains thermoplastic multicomponent spunbond filaments (Abstract). A conjugate filament having two component polymers (bicomponent filaments) may have a side-by-side or eccentric sheath-core cross-sectional configuration ([0041]). The examiner notes that the polymers suitable for component polymers of the conjugate filaments include polyethylene terephthalate ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included bicomponent binder fibers comprising polyethylene terephthalate in the scrim (the preformed fibrous web) of Gross in view of Iwata in order to provide interfiber bonds at cross-over contact points in the web while maintaining the physical and dimensional integrity of the web, while also providing a web that is suitable for use in thermal or acoustical insulation material, as suggested by Schmidt (see Abstract, [0001] and [0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 70, Gross teaches that, for most applications, the side of the nonwoven material facing human occupation will be treated with any of a number of common fire retardant agents known in the art ([0114]).
Regarding claim 71, as noted above, Gross teaches that, in general the scrim may be formed via the spunbond process, the melt-blown process, the spunlaced process, a carding process or a combination of any of these processes ([0102]). The examiner notes that a spunbond fabric comprises continuous fibers (longer fibers).
Regarding claim 74, Gross does not explicitly disclose, in the embodiment applied above, wherein the nonwoven material has a selected air flow resistivity between about 275,000 Rayls/m and about 3,000,000 Rayls/m.
However, in an embodiment, Gross teaches an improved acoustically and thermally insulating nonwoven structure that can have an airflow resistance of from about 500 to about 3,000 Rayls, or to about 10,000 Rayls (see [0123]). The thickness of the nonwoven structure is from about 1mm to about 30mm, preferably from about 1 mm to about 3mm (see [0122]). Thus, as calculated by the examiner, for a thickness of 2mm, Gross teaches nonwoven structures having an airflow resistivity in the range of from about 250,000 Rayls/m to about 1,500,000 Rayls/m (e.g., 500Rayls / 0.002m = 250,000 Rayls/m).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the nonwoven materials of Gross with an airflow resistivity of from about 250,000 Rayls/m to about 1,500,000 in order to provide controlled airflow that is useful for acoustic insulation (Gross: [003], [0122]-[0123]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that outside of using hindsight and cherry-picking fiber length, there is no evidence one skilled in the art would have considered or consulted Iwata or why it would be combined with Gross (or how such alleged combination would have resulted in the claimed teachings).
Regarding this contention, Iwata teaches that if the average fiber length deviates significantly from the range of 2 to 20 mm, good compressibility and bulk recovery of the mat cannot be obtained ([0015]). Iwata further teaches that, due to improved bulkiness, bulk recovering and air permeability characteristics, the obtained mat is suitably used as a sound absorbing floor material, a heat insulating material and the like ([0035]). Therefore, as applied above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have provided the fibers in the core layer of Gross with a fiber length in the range of 2-20 mm in order to obtain a mat having improved bulkiness, bulk recovery and air permeability properties for use in a sound absorbing material, heat insulating material, cushioning material and the like, as suggested by Iwata (Abstract, [0015] and [0035]).
Applicant contends the following: “The present claims do not include a scrim formed via spunbond process. The present claims make no mention of spun bond materials. Thus, it is unclear how or why the Office uses such an explanation in an attempt to explain why Schmidt is used at all. If the link between Gross and Schmidt is a teaching of spunbond materials, this is completely irrelevant to the present claims and is insufficient evidence one skilled in the art would have arrived at the present claims based on the alleged combination.”
Regarding this contention, claims 1 and 69 recite the limitation “a preformed fibrous web formed by needle-punching.” Gross teaches that, in general the scrim may be formed via the spunbond process, the melt-blown process, the spunlaced process, a carding process or a combination of any of these processes ([0102]). Therefore, the scrim of Gross, which may be formed by a combination of processes including a spunlaced process and a spunbond process, meets the claimed limitation. In this regard, the examiner notes that the claimed limitation is a product-by-process limitation. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights