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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira et al. (US 6,001,751) in view of Fors et al. (WO 2014/076353), Meece et al. (US 2001/0008675), Topolkaraev et al. (US 2008/0150185) and Motomura et al. (US 2008/0038982).
Regarding claim 1, Pereira teaches a nonwoven fabric to come into contact with the skin of the user comprising a mixture of two sets of fibers (“a nonwoven fabric”) (Col. 1, Lines 6-15). One set of fibers have a length that differs from the other set of fibers by at least 2 mm (“a first set of fibers comprising multiple fibers having a first average length and a second set of fibers comprising multiple fibers having a second average length” & “wherein said first average length is shorter than said second length”) (Col. 1, Lines 55-58). The fibers have lengths in the range of 10 to 80 mm and, most preferably, 15 to 40 mm so long as the difference of lengths between the two sets of fibers is at least 2 mm (“said second average length of the fibers of said second group of fibers is above 30 mm”) (Col. 2, Lines 44-49). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to the limitation of the different between the first average length and the second average length being at least twice the standard deviation of the second group of fibers, as discussed above, the difference between the two groups of fibers is at least 2 mm which includes any number of fiber differences above 2 mm (i.e., 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 mm). Furthermore, Pereira teaches each set of fibers in a set of fibers having 55% to 99% of the fibers being within 1% of the average fiber length of the set of fibers (Col. 2, Lines 54-64). Additionally, as discussed above, the fibers may have lengths of up to 40 mm. Therefore, a set of fibers with up to 99% of the fibers with fiber lengths of 40 mm, being the second group of fibers, within 1% (which resultantly is 0.4 when the lengths are 40 mm) would have two standard deviations of 0.8 mm. The resulting 2 mm difference between the two groups of fibers is greater than this 0.8 mm two standard deviations value, overlapping with the instantly claimed range.
Pereira is silent with respect to the first group of fibers having a first length variance greater than a second length variance of the second group of fibers.
Fors teaches a composite product and a use of a composite product (Pg. 1, Lines 6-8). The composite product comprises a matrix material and a fiber material including a first fiber fraction and a second fiber fraction wherein the fiber fractions differ from each other either chemically or dimensionally and the length of the first fiber fraction is less than 0.9 times the length of the length of the second fiber fraction (Pg. 1, Lines 28-34). The shorter fibers provide for high fiber content, easier processing, improved stiffness and strength whereas the longer fibers provide for further improving the strength and stiffness while enabling higher impact and melt strength (Pg. 10, Lines 29-33). Figure 5 shows an embodiment in which there is a combination of short and long fibers (Pg. 29, Lines 29-35). As shown in the figure, the variance of the first fiber fraction, containing shorter fibers, is greater than the second fiber fraction, containing longer fibers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the mixtures of set of fibers taught by Pereira such that the shorter fibers have a greater variance than the longer fibers in that the shorter fibers provide for high fiber content, easier processing, improved stiffness and strength whereas the longer fibers provide for further improving the strength and stiffness while enabling higher impact and melt strength as taught by Fors.
Pereira is silent with respect to the fibers of the nonwoven fabric being oriented in primarily the same direction. As discussed above, Pereira teaches the non-woven fabrics being used for disposable articles which come into contact with a user’s skin (Col. 1, Lines 6-15).
Meece teaches elasticized fabrics for use in disposable articles (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0001]). The articles include a nonwoven web made from fibers that are substantially oriented in one direction (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the nonwoven fabrics of Pereira such that the fibers are oriented in substantially the same direction as taught by Meece such that both Pereira are directed towards nonwoven webs for use in disposable articles.
Pereira is silent with respect to the nonwoven fabric being formed by hydroentanglement. Pereira does teach any known conventional method in order to form the non-woven fabrics, including spunlace processes which includes the mixture of different fibers through a series of high-pressure water jets (Col. 5, Lines 21-26).
Topolkaraev teaches a method of forming fabrics by hydroentanglement which results in the fabrics having superior strength and reduced necking (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the nonwoven fabrics of Pereira, which already appreciate a spunlace process using water jets, by the methods of hydroentanglement of Topolkaraev such that the methods result in superior strength and reduced necking.
Pereira further teaches sets of fibers including mixtures of polypropylene and polyester fibers (Col. 3, Lines 55-60).
Pereira is silent with respect to the nonwoven comprising 50% PP fibers.
Motomura teaches nonwoven fabrics having excellent elasticity, softness, water resistance, fuzz resistance and curl resistance while having less stickiness (Pg. 11, Paragraph [0001]). The nonwoven comprises a layer of mixed fibers including 10-90% of a first fiber and 10-90% of a second fiber (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0013]). The first fibers may be formed from polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate, and the second fibers may be formed from polypropylene (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0034]; Pg. 3, Paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the sets of fibers of Pereira such that they are formed from 10-90% weight of polyester fibers such as polyethylene terephthalate and 10-90% polypropylene fibers in order to provide excellent elasticity, softness, water resistance, fuzz resistance and curl resistance while having less stickiness as taught by Motomura. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the content of fibers in the nonwoven would include 50% polypropylene fibers.
Pereira is silent with respect to the sets of fibers being configured to generate controlled cross-directional weakness and increased maximum elongation while maintaining longitudinal tensile strength.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the materials for forming the non-woven fabrics of the instant claims such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical materials would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
In the instant case, the fabrics require the combination of the first and second group of fibers and the relationships between their lengths, length variances and compositions as required by claim 1.
Each of the limitations are taught by the combination of Pereira, Fors, Meece, Topolkaraev and Motomura as discussed above.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the resulting fabrics from the combination discussed above would be identical to applicant’s claimed invention and would have identical properties, including being configured to generate controlled cross-directional weakness and increased maximum elongation while maintaining longitudinal tensile strength.
Regarding claim 3, Pereira teaches the nonwoven fabrics as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Pereira teaches the mixtures of fibers being polypropylene and polyester fibers and Motomura further teaches the fiber contents being 10-90% weight of polyester fibers such as polyethylene terephthalate and 10-90% polypropylene fibers in order to provide excellent elasticity, softness, water resistance, fuzz resistance and curl resistance while having less stickiness.
Regarding claim 4, Pereira teaches the nonwoven fabrics as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Pereira teaches the number of sets of mixed fibers being between 2 and 6 different lengths (Col. 2, Lines 50-53). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the content of each of the set of fibers when two groups are used would be between 1 and 99% of the nonwoven fabric which overlaps with the content of first fibers being 50%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 5, Pereira teaches the nonwoven fabrics as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Pereira is silent with respect to one of the sets of fibers comprising 50% PET fibers and 50% PP fibers.
Motomura teaches nonwoven fabrics having excellent elasticity, softness, water resistance, fuzz resistance and curl resistance while having less stickiness (Pg. 11, Paragraph [0001]). The nonwoven comprises a layer of mixed fibers including 10-90% of a first fiber and 10-90% of a second fiber (Pg. 1, Paragraph [0013]). The first fibers may be formed from polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate and the second fibers may be formed from polypropylene (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0034]; Pg. 3, Paragraph [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the sets of fibers of Pereira such that they are formed from 10-90% weight of polyester fibers such as polyethylene terephthalate and 10-90% polypropylene fibers in order to provide excellent elasticity, softness, water resistance, fuzz resistance and curl resistance while having less stickiness as taught by Motomura.
Regarding claims 6-7, Pereira teaches the nonwoven fabrics as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the sets fibers preferably have average lengths between 15 and 40 mm. Additionally, the fibers each preferably have a variance of up to +/- 20% (Col. 2, Lines 13-14). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this would result in a variance of up to 11.4 for fibers having a length of 28.5 mm, which is within the range taught above. Additionally, the variance of fibers having a length of 39 mm would be up to 15.6.
Regarding claim 9, Pereira teaches the nonwoven fabrics as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The sets of fibers include mixtures of polypropylene and polyester fibers (Col. 3, Lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 12, Pereira teaches the nonwoven fabrics as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The nonwoven fabrics have a basis weight of between 25 and 50 gsm (Col. 3, Lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 14, Pereira teaches the nonwoven webs as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The nonwoven fabrics may be provided in combination with a flexible film forming the disposable article (Col. 6, Lines 5-31).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira et al. (US 6,001,751) in view of Fors et al. (WO 2014/076353), Meece et al. (US 2001/0008675), Topolkaraev et al. (US 2008/0150185) and Motomura et al. (US 2008/0038982) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Shimada et al. (US 8,741,103).
Regarding claim 11, Pereira teaches the nonwoven fabrics as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Pereira is silent with respect to the density of the fibers being in the range of 1.3 and 1.7 dtex.
Shimada teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising polyalkylene terephthalate fibers (Col. 1, Lines 15-16). The fibers are preferably formed in the range of 0.5 to 2.0 dtex in order to maintain tensile strength and control uniformity (Col. 7, Lines 41-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the nonwoven fabrics of Pereira such that the fibers have a density in the range of 0.5 to 2.0 dtex in order to maintain tensile strength and control uniformity as taught by Shimada.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-10, applicant argues that the teachings of Pereira are misinterpreted and the combination of Pereira with Fors is improper resulting in the combination failing to teach each of the limitations of claim 1.
Firstly, on pages 5-7, applicant argues that the office action is misconstrued to teach a first and second group of fibers and instead these groups are blended together to produce a homogenous web. Additionally, the office action’s reliance on the distribution teaching the variance relationship is improper. Instead, this distribution describes uniformity within a single group of fibers and not a comparison between variances between different groups. As such, Pereira fails to teach the first group of fibers having a greater length variance than the second group of fibers nor the statistical separation regarding the difference between the first average length and the second average length being at least twice the standard deviation of the second group of fibers. Applicant further argues that these properties are a statistical constraint and not a manufacturing tolerance required by Pereira. This constraint is designed so that the two fiber populations are sufficiently separated in length so that minimal overlapping occurs.
The examiner is not persuaded by applicant’s arguments concerning Pereira. Firstly, the examiner notes that the instant claims require hydroentanglement and, therefore, the first and the second groups of fibers of claim 1 are mixed, similar to that of Pereira. Additionally, the claims do not preclude the groups of fibers being mixed together. As such, the sets of fibers with different lengths and distributions within those lengths are considered to be equivalent to the first and second groups of fibers required by claim 1.
Concerning applicant’s arguments regarding the distributions being a manufacturing tolerance rather than a statistical constraint, the examiner notes that the manufacturing tolerance is a statistical constraint such that the lengths of the fibers within those particular sets of fibers are designed to not be outside of the distribution. This is so such that within a set of fibers, 55% to 99% of the fibers must be within 1% of the average fiber length (Col. 2, Lines 54-64). While this may appear to be a manufacturing tolerance, any values outside of the 1% are not considered to be part of the set of fibers or are not desired to be within the set. This is considered to be a statistical constraint similar to applicant’s claimed invention. Additionally, as noted in the rejection above the fibers may have lengths of up to 40 mm resulting in 1% of the average fiber lengths being 0.4 mm (0.8 mm for two of these deviations). This distribution results in the determination of a standard deviation for a set of fibers with a particular average length and since the difference between groups of fibers must be 2 mm at a minimum, the resulting difference between an average length for a first set of fibers and an average length for a second set of fibers must be at least two standard deviations. Therefore, the examiner contends while Pereira might not teach the statistical constraint exactly as provided in the instant claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the limitation is taught via the provided average fiber lengths and the desired distribution of the fibers within a set being 1% from the average length.
Secondly, on pages 8-9, applicant argues that the combination of Pereira in view of Fors is improper such that they are not analogous art and the combination would render the teachings of Pereira as unsatisfactory. Specifically, applicant argues that Pereira teaches self-supporting, porous, nonwoven webs with the intention of improving comfortability and breathability whereas Fors teaches fiber-reinforced composites designed to degrade softness and increase rigidity, contrary to Pereira’s teachings.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments such that the teachings of Fors applied in the rejection would not destroy the teachings of Pereira. Specifically, the rejection relies on the combination of short fibers for easier processing and improved strength and the use of longer fibers would provide impact strength and, as shown in figure 5 of Fors, a wider range, or a wider variance of short fibers is provided (See rejection above). As such, the examiner contends a specific combination of short and long fibers, such as the combination shown in figure 5, may be provided to the nonwovens of Pereira, which already provides combinations of fibers with different average lengths, in order to increase properties such as processing and strength as taught by Fors.
Ultimately, the examiner contends that the combination of Pereira, Fors, Meece, Topolkaraev and Motomura is proper and teaches each of the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights