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 Claims
Claims 1-10 and 12-31 are pending in the application. Claim 11 has been cancelled. Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10, 15, 24-27 and 29-31, filed on 4/20/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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 3, 10, 12-18, 26 and 30-31 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the CD rod patterns.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the CD rod patterns have a length that is about 1.5 to 10x the width.” It is unclear what it means for the CD rod patterns to have the claimed length to width ratio. There is also insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the CD rod patterns.” Claims 12-18 are rejected because they depend from claim 10.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “wherein the CD rod patterns have a length that is about 1.5 to 10x the width.” It is unclear what it means for the patterns to have the claimed length to width ratio. There is also insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the CD rod patterns.”
Claim 30 recites the limitation “wherein the CD rod patterns have a length that is about 1.5 to 10x the width.” It is unclear what it means for the CD rod patterns to have the claimed length to width ratio. There is also insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the CD rod patterns.” Claim 31 is rejected because it depends from claim 30.
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 negatived 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 25-28 and 30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mehta (US 2006/0183860 A1) in view of Farukh (“Meso-scale deformation and damage in thermally bonded nonwovens,” attached).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 25, Mehta teaches homogeneous polymer blends and articles made therefrom including fibers, nonwovens, fabrics, films, and molded parts ([0002] and [0038]). Mehta teaches homogeneous blends comprising 1) from 60 to 99 weight percent of one or more semi-crystalline polymers (based upon the weight of the semicrystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), each semi-crystalline polymer comprising propylene and from 0 to 5 weight % alpha-olefin comonomer, and 2) from 1 to 40 weight% of one or more semi-amorphous polymers (based upon the weight of the semi-crystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), each semi-amorphous polymer comprising propylene and from 5 to 12 weight % of one or more C2 and or C4 to C10 alpha-olefin comonomers (Abstract). Mehta teaches that a miscible blend is homogeneous, while an immiscible blend is heterogeneous ([0029] and [0084]). With regard to the semi-crystalline polymer, Mehta teaches that, in a preferred embodiment, preferred propylene polymers include those produced by metallocene catalyst systems ([0057]). In certain embodiments, the blends of the invention may also comprise a third polymer component ([0090]). In these embodiments, the third polymer component (TPC) comprises low density polyethylene (density 0.915 to less than 0.935 g/cm3), linear low density polyethylene, ultra low density polyethylene (density 0.85 to less than 0.90 g/cm3), very low density polyethylene (density 0.90 to less than 0.915 g/cm3), medium density polyethylene (density 0.935 to less than 0.945 g/cm3), high density polyethylene (density 0.945 to 0.98 g/cm3), or combinations thereof ([0090]).
Mehta does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibers have been calendered bonded with a bonding pattern consisting of rod shaped bonds that extend in the cross direction (CD) of the web.
However, Farukh teaches that thermal bonding is the fastest and the cheapest technique for manufacturing nonwovens (Abstract). During thermal bonding, fibers are passed through hot calendar rolls with smooth or embossed surface design (see the last paragraph on page 2334). Bonding occurs at raised areas of the embossed calender under pressure and high temperature by partial melting and subsequent solidification of fibers (same section). This process results in two distinct regions, namely, bond points and a fiber matrix, as shown in Fig. 1 (same section). FIG.1 is an SEM image of 30 g/m2 PP fiber nonwoven (see the caption). The examiner notes that rod shaped bond points can be seen in FIG. 1 extending in the CD.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fabrics of Mehta with a bonding pattern consisting of calendered, rod shaped bond points extending in the CD in order to obtain nonwovens that can sustainably be produced at a high rate using widely known techniques with better control over the fibrous network, so as to attain performance characteristics tailored for a specific product, as suggested by Farukh (see the first paragraph under “Introduction,” and FIG. 1).
With regard to the claimed toughness properties, it is the position of the Office that the nonwoven fabric of Mehta in view of Farukh would have the claimed properties as Mehta in view of Farukh teaches the same materials and composition as those claimed and as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach the same or similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the claimed limitation would be met by the nonwoven of Mehta in view of Farukh. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 3-4, Mehta in view of Farukh remains as applied above. In addition, the examiner notes that, in FIG. 1 of Farukh, rod shaped bond points can be seen extending in the CD direction with length to diameter ratios between 1.5 and 10. Farukh also teaches that fabrics were produced with fibers of 18 µm in diameter with approximately 14% area covered by bond points (see the “Experimental work/Materials” section on page 2335). The examiner notes that “approximately 14%” would overlap with the claimed range of from “about 8 to 12%.” In addition, or in the alternative, the dimensions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition, in an embodiment, Mehta teaches wherein a web is passed through compression rolls and then between heated calender rolls, where the raised lands on one roll bond the web at points covering 10% to 40% of its area to form a nonwoven fabric ([0153]).
Regarding claim 5, Mehta teaches non-woven articles formed from one or more of the blends where the blend has a permanent set of greater than 65% ([0156] and [0087]).
Regarding claim 7, Mehta teaches homogeneous polymer blends and articles made therefrom including fibers, nonwovens, fabrics, films, and molded parts ([0002] and [0038]). Therefore, Mehta meets the claimed “monocomponent fibers” limitation. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fibers as monocomponent fibers in the absence of a teaching in Mehta of multi-component fibers.
Regarding claim 9, Mehta teaches that the blends can be used in application areas requiring soft films, such as those used in health-care applications and diapers ([0124]).
Regarding claims 26-28 and 30, Mehta in view of Farukh is applied in the same manner applied to claim 1 above. In addition, the examiner notes that, in FIG. 1 of Farukh, rod shaped bond points can be seen extending in the CD direction with length to diameter ratios between 1.5 and 10. Farukh also teaches that fabrics were produced with fibers of 18 µm in diameter with approximately 14% area covered by bond points (see the “Experimental work/Materials” section on page 2335). In addition, in an embodiment, Mehta teaches wherein a web is passed through compression rolls and then between heated calender rolls, where the raised lands on one roll bond the web at points covering 10% to 40% of its area to form a nonwoven fabric ([0153]).
With regard to the claimed MD elongation properties in claims 26 and 30, it is the position of the Office that the nonwoven fabric of Mehta in view of Farukh would have the claimed properties as Mehta in view of Farukh teaches the same materials and composition as those claimed and as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach the same or similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the claimed limitations would be met by the nonwoven of Mehta in view of Farukh. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 6, 8, 10, 12-18, 24, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mehta (US 2006/0183860 A1) in view of Farukh (“Meso-scale deformation and damage in thermally bonded nonwovens,” attached), as applied to claims 1, 27-28 and 30 above, further in view of Newkirk (US Patent No. 6,417,121).
Regarding claim 6, Mehta in view of Farukh remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Mehta in view of Farukh does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibers are multicomponent fibers having a sheath/core arrangement in which the sheath comprises polyethylene and the core comprises said polymeric blend.
However, Newkirk teaches multicomponent fibers that include at least two polymer components arranged in structured domains, wherein at least one of the polymer components is formed of a select blend of specific grades of polyethylene and polypropylene (col. 3 lines 16-25). At least one polymer domain is formed of a polymer blend, and other of the polymer domains of the fibers can be formed of a single polymer or of a polymer blend (col. 7 lines 43-55). Newkirk teaches that a preferred embodiment of the invention is a sheath/core bicomponent fiber in which the sheath is formed of a polymer blend, but that other of the polymer domains can also be formed of a polymer blend (for example, the core and/or both the sheath and core) (same paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the polymer blend of Mehta in view of Farukh in a core and/or a sheath of a multi-component fiber in order to obtain fibers that can exhibit desirable yet contradictory properties, such as softness and abrasion resistance, or desirable hand with good elongation, as suggested by Newkirk (cols. 11-12 lines 40-2).
Regarding claims 8 and 24, as applied to claim 1 above, Mehta teaches homogeneous blends comprising 1) from 60 to 99 weight percent of one or more semi-crystalline polymers such as propylene polymers produced by metallocene catalyst systems (based upon the weight of the semicrystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), and 2) from 1 to 40 weight% of one or more semi-amorphous polymers comprising propylene (based upon the weight of the semi-crystalline and semi-amorphous polymers) (Abstract).
Mehta in view of Farukh does not explicitly disclose wherein the blend (or the fibers) comprise 1 to 10 percent of the polyethylene component.
However, Newkirk teaches that preferred multicomponent fibers may have at least one polymer domain comprising greater than 50 percent by weight polypropylene, 1 to 10 percent polyethylene, and 10 to 40 percent of a third polymer (col. 10, lines 8-12). Suitable additional third polymers include polypropylene copolymers and terpolymers such as the commercially available Catalloy® copolymers available from Montell (col 10, lines 12-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included the polyethylene in the blend (or the fibers) of Mehta in view of Farukh in amounts of 1 to 10 percent in order to obtain nonwoven fabrics having desirable combinations of properties, such as soft webs with high extensibility, or in order to provide particularly advantageous extensibility or elongation properties (Newkirk: see cols. 9-10, lines 65-15; and col. 10, lines 29-31; also see col. 7, lines 56-65 and col. 8, lines 16-29).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mehta is applied in the same manner applied above to claim 8, teaching the claimed components in the claimed amounts. In addition, in an embodiment, Newkirk teaches a linear low density polyethylene having a density of 0.90-0.945 g/cc and a melt index of greater than 25 g/10 minutes (col. 4, lines 4-8). The examiner also notes that, in FIG. 1 of Farukh, rod shaped bond points can be seen extending in the CD direction with length to diameter ratios between 1.5 and 10. Farukh teaches that fabrics were produced with fibers of 18 µm in diameter with approximately 14% area covered by bond points (see the “Experimental work/Materials” section on page 2335). In an embodiment, Mehta teaches wherein a web is passed through compression rolls and then between heated calender rolls, where the raised lands on one roll bond the web at points covering 10% to 40% of its area to form a nonwoven fabric ([0153])..
With regard to the claimed toughness properties, it is the position of the Office that the nonwoven fabric of modified Mehta would have the claimed properties as modified Mehta teaches the same materials and composition as those claimed and as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach the same or similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the claimed limitations would be met by the nonwoven of modified Mehta. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 12, Mehta teaches non-woven articles formed from one or more of the blends where the blend has a permanent set of greater than 65% ([0156] and [0087]).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, modified Mehta is applied in the same manner applied to claim 6 above. Newkirk teaches that at least one polymer domain is formed of a polymer blend, and other of the polymer domains of the fibers can be formed of a single polymer or of a polymer blend (col. 7 lines 43-55). A preferred embodiment is a sheath/core bicomponent fiber in which the sheath is formed of a polymer blend, but other of the polymer domains can also be formed of a polymer blend (for example, the core and/or both the sheath and core) (same paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Mehta teaches homogeneous polymer blends and articles made therefrom including fibers, nonwovens, fabrics, films, and molded parts ([0002] and [0038]). Therefore, Mehta meets the claimed “monocomponent fibers” limitation. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fibers of modified Mehta as monocomponent fibers in the absence of a teaching in Mehta of multi-component fibers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fibers of modified Mehta as either monocomponent or multicomponent fibers.
Regarding claim 16, Mehta teaches that the term "nonwoven" or "nonwoven fabric" refers to any material made from the aggregation of fibers fabricated by methods such as, for example, spunbonding, melt blowing, thermobonding, or combinations thereof ([0038]-[0039], [0049] and [0098]).
Regarding claims 17-18, Mehta teaches that the blends can be used in application areas requiring soft films, such as those used in health-care applications and diapers ([0124]).
Regarding claims 29 and 31, in an embodiment, Newkirk teaches a linear low density polyethylene having a density of 0.90-0.945 g/cc and a melt index of greater than 25 g/10 minutes (col. 4, lines 4-8).
Claims 8, 10, 12, 14, 16-18, 24, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mehta (US 2006/0183860 A1) in view of Farukh (“Meso-scale deformation and damage in thermally bonded nonwovens,” attached), as applied to claims 1, 27-28 and 30 above, further in view of Quantrille (WO 96/16216 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 24, as applied to claim 1 above, Mehta teaches homogeneous blends comprising 1) from 60 to 99 weight percent of one or more semi-crystalline polymers such as propylene polymers produced by metallocene catalyst systems (based upon the weight of the semicrystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), and 2) from 1 to 40 weight% of one or more semi-amorphous polymers comprising propylene (based upon the weight of the semi-crystalline and semi-amorphous polymers) (Abstract).
Mehta in view of Farukh does not explicitly disclose wherein the blend (or the fibers) comprise 1 to 10 percent of the polyethylene component.
However, Quantrille teaches a composite nonwoven fabric with a superior combination of extensibility, tensile properties and abrasion resistance (Abstract). The composite nonwoven fabric (10) comprises at least one layer containing multipolymer fibers, with a plurality of bonds (B) bonding the fibers together to form a coherent extensible nonwoven web (11) (Abstract). Preferred multipolymer fibers may comprise greater than 50 percent by weight propylene polymer, 1 to 10 percent polyethylene, and 10 to 40 percent of the third polymer (page 11, lines 9-16). Suitable additional third polymers include propylene copolymers and terpolymers such as the commercially available Catalloy™ copolymers available from Montell (page 11, lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included the polyethylene in the blend (or the fibers) of Mehta in view of Farukh in amounts of 1 to 10 percent in order to obtain nonwoven fabrics having desirable combinations of properties, such as soft webs with extremely high extensibility (Quantrille: see page 11, lines 8-16).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mehta is applied in the same manner applied above to claim 8, teaching the claimed components in the claimed amounts. In addition, in an embodiment, Newkirk teaches a linear low density polyethylene having a density of 0.90-0.945 g/cc and a melt index of greater than 25 g/10 minutes (col. 4, lines 4-8). The examiner also notes that, in FIG. 1 of Farukh, rod shaped bond points can be seen extending in the CD direction with length to diameter ratios between 1.5 and 10. Farukh teaches that fabrics were produced with fibers of 18 µm in diameter with approximately 14% area covered by bond points (see the “Experimental work/Materials” section on page 2335). In an embodiment, Mehta also teaches wherein a web is passed through compression rolls and then between heated calender rolls, where the raised lands on one roll bond the web at points covering 10% to 40% of its area to form a nonwoven fabric ([0153]).
With regard to the claimed toughness properties, it is the position of the Office that the nonwoven fabric of modified Mehta would have the claimed properties as modified Mehta teaches the same materials and composition as those claimed and as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach the same or similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the claimed limitations would be met by the nonwoven of modified Mehta. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 12, Mehta teaches non-woven articles formed from one or more of the blends where the blend has a permanent set of greater than 65% ([0156] and [0087]).
Regarding claim 14, Mehta teaches homogeneous polymer blends and articles made therefrom including fibers, nonwovens, fabrics, films, and molded parts ([0002] and [0038]). Therefore, Mehta meets the claimed “monocomponent fibers” limitation. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fibers of modified Mehta as monocomponent fibers in the absence of a teaching in Mehta of multi-component fibers.
Regarding claim 16, Mehta teaches that the term "nonwoven" or "nonwoven fabric" refers to any material made from the aggregation of fibers fabricated by methods such as, for example, spunbonding, melt blowing, thermobonding, or combinations thereof ([0038]-[0039], [0049] and [0098]).
Regarding claims 17-18, Mehta teaches that the blends can be used in application areas requiring soft films, such as those used in health-care applications and diapers ([0124]).
Regarding claims 29 and 31, in an embodiment, Quantrille teaches that, preferably, LLDPE should have a melt index of greater than 10, and more preferably 15 or greater for spunbonded filaments (pages 13-14, lines 37-2) . Particularly preferred are LLDPE polymers having a density of 0.90 to 0.945 g/cc and a melt index of greater than 25 (page 14, lines 2-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12-18 and 24-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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