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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 4, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 22-26, and 28-32 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim Interpretation / Claim Notes
The limitation “TS7” in claim 31 is interpreted as softness data measured with a TSA—Tissue Softness Analyzer from Emtec Innovative Testing Solutions and other physical data (e.g., density, thickness, etc.) as a direct measurement of the softness of the sample (e.g., via measurement of blade vibration by the TSA device due to the stiffness of the fibers), aligned with the originally filed disclosure (see para 0069 of the published application).
Support from the limitation “wherein the three-dimensional image includes at least one recessed portion and at least one projecting portion and is defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites according to an image from image transfer device” in claims 1 and 29 is found in para 0018 of the published application stating “[i]n accordance with certain embodiments of the invention, the “slack” between adjacent discrete bond sites provides a greater degree of freedom for the portions of the CCFs located between bond sites to move and, for example, physically entangle together and/or with other fibers as well as to penetrate into an imaging surface during an imaging operation to provide an enhanced three-dimensional image into the nonwoven fabric. In accordance with certain embodiments of the invention, the nonwoven fabric may comprise a three-dimensional image imparted into at least a first surface of the nonwoven fabric, in which the three-dimensional image includes at least one recessed portion and at least one projecting portion.”
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 31-32 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.
Specifically, the limitations “wherein the nonwoven fabric has a first ratio between the thickness in microns and a TS7 value from 348:1 to 406:1” (claim 31) and “wherein the nonwoven fabric has a second ratio between the thickness in microns and a HF value from 16:1 to 23:1.” (claim 32).
Regarding “wherein the nonwoven fabric has a first ratio between the thickness in microns and a TS7 value from 348:1 to 406:1” (claim 31) and “wherein the nonwoven fabric has a second ratio between the thickness in microns and a HF value from 16:1 to 23:1.” (claim 32), there is no mention of a ratio between the thickness in microns and a TS7 value or a ratio between the thickness in microns and HF. The originally filed disclosure does provide TS7 value and HF value for 5 specific examples. However, the originally filed disclosure never discusses either ratio and does not teach how to achieve or adjust the TS7, HF, ratio of thickness to TS7, or ratio of thickness to HF, merely provided measured value for 5 specific samples. 2 samples in the Table 1 align with inventive concept and specifically contain side-by-side polypropylene/co-polypropylene crimped fibers on the first beam and third beam and the second beam comprises polypropylene/polyethylene bicomponent crimped fibers for one sample and all layer being side-by-side Exxon 3155 polypropylene/random copolymer polypropylene 35R80 from Propilco (see para 006400072, Table 1) providing the rounded ratio used as the end point in the claimed ratio ranges. As the ratio is never discussed nor the TS7 and HF values for the full breadth of the claim, the amendment introduces new matter.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim, remove the limitation, or modify this limitation to align with the specifically disclosed embodiment.
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.
Claim 32 is 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 32 recites the limitation “wherein the nonwoven fabric has a second ratio between the thickness in microns and a HF value from 16:1 to 23:1.” The originally filed disclosure states ““HF” values are composite values based on the “T57” data, the “TS750” data, and the “D” data” and ““D” data is a direct measurement of the stiffness of the sample by the TSA device due to the sample deformation under a defined force” (see para 0069 of published application). However, the defined force is never specified. As it is unclear how the D data is measure, the HF value cannot be determined and the scope of the claim is indefinite.
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 1-2, 4, 7-11, 22-25, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2015/0017411 to Wilkie, as evidenced by Complete Textile Glossary to Celanese, in view of US Pub. 2009/0142595 to Matsui (‘595 herewithin), US Pub. No. 2011/0189915 to Morimoto, and USPN 6,314,627 to Ngai.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-11, 22-25, and 31-32, Wilkie teaches a continuous filament spunlaid web (nonwoven fabric, specifically spunbond, claim 2, comprising a plurality of continuous) of plurality of polymer fibers that are mechanically bonded or achieve a bonding like engagement with each other as a result of an activation process that induce loftiness by crimping and entangling of the fibers (Wilkie, abstract, para 0017-0020, 0028), reading on a plurality of crimped continuous fibers (CCFs) consolidated in a second manner by crimped portions of the CCFs being physically entangled together. Wilkie teaches the activated spunlaid web can be further bonded using any known or other bonding technique such as point bonding (Id., para 0049), reading on the CCFs consolidated in a first manner via a plurality of discrete thermal bond sites, as evidenced by Celanese (Celanese, p. 4, point bonding). Wilkie teaches the loftiness results in the web having an increase in elasticity in the MD and/or CD direction (Wilkie, para 0030). Wilkie teaches the fibers of the web being able to freely move relative to each other so as to crimp, bend, and entangle each other to mechanically interlock with each other as activation occurs (Id., para 0028), reading on nonwoven having one or more crimped portions of the CCFs being physically entangled together and located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites. If the continuous filaments did not have crimped portions between the point bonded sites, the nonwoven would not achieve the desired feature of increased elasticity or ability for the fibers to move relative to each other. Wilkie teaches further bonding of the fibers within the activated web, such as by hydroentangling (Id., para 0027, 0049). As the fibers are crimped and bonded, the hydroentangling would necessarily result in physical displacement of at least a portion of one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites. Wilkie teaches the nonwoven being used in wipes (Id., para 0073). Wilkie teaches the web thickness of the activated continuous filament spun-laid web being about 0.5 mm to about 76 mm (Id., para 0021). Wilkie does not require additional fiber from the continuous crimped spunlaid fibers (Id., all, claim 1), reading on the plurality of CCFs accounting for 100% of a total fiber content of the nonwoven fabric (claim 25). Wilkie teaches the fibers being bicomponent fiber (multi-component fibers) having different degrees of shrinkage and/or crimping characteristics, including having a sheath-core configuration (Id., para 0032-0037). Wilkie also teaches the degree of activation in relation to the resultant properties of the web can be influenced by any one or combination of selection of different polymer components, selection of different fiber cross-sectional geometries or combinations of two or more different types of fiber cross-sectional geometries for a web, location of different polymer types within a fiber cross-section (for example, selection of a specific polymer type for one section of a fiber, such as the sheath of a sheath-core fiber and selection of another polymer type for another section of a fiber, such as the core of a sheath-core fiber), and selection of polymer component volumetric ratios within multi-component fibers (Id., para 0040), indicating crimping is influenced by the selected of different polymer components.
Wilkie does not explicitly teach the crimped fiber having a helical configuration such that one or more helically configured crimped portions of the CCFs physically entangle together and are located between adjacent discrete thermal bonds sites.
However, ‘595 teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising crimped fiber used for wipe having a thickness preferably from 2 to 4 mm (‘595, abstract, para 0057-0058). ‘595 teaches the fibers can be conjugate fiber having eccentrical sheath/core configurations that easily develop a desirable helical crimp (Id., para 0030-0031), reading on the crimp being helically configured. '595 teaches the helical crimp shape being preferred due to bulkiness (Id., para 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Wilkie, wherein the crimped fibers have a helical shape as taught by ‘595 motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known nonwoven having crimped fibers and crimp configuration predictably suitable for use in crimped spun-laid material with fibers having asymmetry cross sections used in wipe applications, and to ensure mechanical interlocking of the crimped fibers and bulkiness. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the nonwoven of Wilkie, wherein there are crimps between discrete thermal bonds formed by the point bond in order to result in a nonwoven having the elastic desirable in the nonwoven. If there were no crimps between these bonds, the nonwoven would not have the stretch that is desirable feature of the invention.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 0.8 to 3 mm, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the thickness, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
The prior art combination teaches the fibers being bicomponent fiber having different degrees of shrinkage and/or crimping characteristics, including having a sheath-core configuration including eccentric (Wilkie, para 0032-0037) and would necessarily have a first component and a second component that are different. Wilkie teaches the polymer component used to form the spunlaid web including polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene, polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate, polylactides, polyamide amide such as nylon 6, and/or a variety of grades or copolymers (Id., para 0034), reading on the first component and second component being polymeric materials. The prior art combination teaches the fibers of the web being able to freely move relative to each other so as to crimp, bend, and entangle each other to mechanically interlock with each other as activation occurs (Id., para 0028) and teaches the heated fiber crimping or bending to induce loftiness to the web in which a “Z” dimension of the web increases (Id., para 0030), reading on the CCFs comprising one or more three-dimensional crimped portions. Additionally, a helical crimp would necessarily have a three-dimensional crimped portion (claim 4).
The prior art is silent with regards the first polymeric material of the first component having a first melt flow rate (MFR) of less than 50 g/10 min and the second polymeric material of the second component having a first melt flow rate (MFR) of less than 50 g/10 min (claim 27), that is different from the first component.
However, Morimoto teaches a crimped conjugate fiber, including continuous crimped fibers, having a crimpable cross-sectional configuration comprising at least portion (a) comprising a propylene polymer (A) and a portion (b) comprising a propylene polymer (B) and a nonwoven fabric comprising the crimped conjugate fibers (Morimoto, abstract, 0106-0108). Morimoto teaches the propylene polymer (A) and propylene polymer (B) being polypropylene or propylene copolymers and having a melt flow rate preferably from 30 to 80 (Id., para 0035-0060), with specific embodiments having a MFR of 34 and 35 (Id., Table 1, Ex. 6 and 7), reading on a first component and a second component having a MFR of less than 50 g/10 min and the first component and the second component are different (claim 1) and the first polymer material and the second polymeric materials comprising a first polyolefin composition and s second polyolefin composition (claim 9), specifically a polypropylene and a copolymer of polypropylene, respectively (claims 23, 25). Morimoto teaches the continuous fibers include spunbond fibers and nonwoven fabrics being subjected to mechanical entanglement and/or thermal bonded such as embossing (Id., para 0108-0112). Morimoto teaches the fibers having a side-by-side or eccentric core-sheath configurations (claims 7-8 and 24) (Id., para 0067). Morimoto teaches the nonwoven fabric having excellent properties, such as spinnability, strength, softness and water resistance (Id., para 0204).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of the prior art combination, wherein the continuous crimpable fibers comprise the crimpable propylene polymers of Morimoto, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known continuous crimp fibers predictably suitable for using in nonwoven, including spunlaid, that can be subjected to mechanical entanglement and thermal bonding and by the desire of forming fibers having good spinnability, strength, and softness.
The prior art combination does not explicitly teaches a three-dimensional image imparted throughout the nonwoven fabric, wherein the three-dimensional image includes at least one recessed portion and at least one projection portion and is defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites according to an image transfer device.
However, Ngai teaches a composite nonwoven used as a wipe that is hydroentangled so as to have a structured surface that has a three dimensional quality of a fabric surface and/or a has regular pattern of apertures (Ngai, abstract, col. 2 lines 29-55), reading on three-dimensional image impart throughout the nonwoven fabric and includes at least one recessed portion and at least one projecting portion. Ngai teaches that fabrics having structured surfaces are far more efficient at collecting solid or semi-solid materials than are fabrics with a substantially flat or unstructured surface (Id., col. 2 lines 60-63). Ngai teaches the increased surface area and various angled surface portions are thought to be advantageous in attaching and retaining solid or semi-solid material, particularly when wiping such material which tends to smear (Id., col. 2 lines 63-67). Ngai teaches the structure surface being formed by hydroentangling fibers supported on a surface having raised portion and the suitable support surface comprising a surface with an apertured pattern such as a wire mesh forming belt (image transfer device) (Id., col. 2 lines 49-59), reading on the three-dimensional image being defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites according to an image transfer device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the wipe of the prior art combination, wherein the wipe have the three dimensional structure surface of Ngai, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known wipe structure formed by hydroentangling and by the desire to provide a more efficient surface for collecting solid and/or semi-solid material. As the structured surface is imparted by hydroentangling after thermal bonding and crimp activation, the three-dimensional image would be defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portion located between advancement discrete thermal bond sites according to an image from image transfer device.
The limitation “consolidated … in a second manner by one or more helically configured crimped portions of the CCFs physically entangled together via hydroentanglement and located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art. The resultant structure of the process requires discrete thermally bonds and physical entanglement of the helically configured portions, which would be present in Wilkie. Additionally, Wilkie teaches further bonding on the fibers through point bonding and hydroentangling after activation of the crimp (Wilkie, para 0027, 0042, 0049), indicating the invention is open to additional bonding and entanglement.
Regarding claims 10-11, the prior art combination teaches the web including a mixture of two or more different fiber geometries and a combination of polymer component (Wilkie, para 0037), reading on the CCFs including a first group of CCFs having a first identifying feature comprising a first cross-sectional geometry or a first chemical construction and a second group of CCFs having a second identifying feature comprising a second cross-sectional geometry or a second chemical construction, wherein the first identifying feature is different than the second identifying feature. The prior art combination also teaches two or more fiber in the plurality being formed from different polymer component (Id., para 0032) and teaches the polymer components used to form the spunlaid web including polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene, polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate, polylactides, polyamide amide such as nylon 6, and/or a variety of grades or copolymers (Id., para 0034), encompasses a first group of CCFs including polyolefin and a second group of CCFs including a non-polyolefin as at least a portion thereof.
Regarding claims 31-32 and the claimed first ratio between the thickness in microns and a TS7 value from 348:1 to 406:1 and a second ratio between the thickness in microns and a HF value from 16:1 to 23:1., although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a nonwoven of continuous crimped fibers that are spunlaid comprising bicomponent fiber having a first polymeric material and second polymeric of different MFR and both below 50 g/10min that is point bonded and hydroentangled such as to impart a three-dimensional image on the surface. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 22-25, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2015/0017411 to Wilkie, as evidenced by Complete Textile Glossary to Celanese, in view of US Pub. 2009/0142595 to Matsui (‘595 herewithin), US Pub. No. 2018/0002850 to Hansen, and USPN 6,314,627 to Ngai.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-11, 22-25, and 30-32, Wilkie teaches a continuous filament spunlaid web (nonwoven fabric, specifically spunbond, claim 2, comprising a plurality of continuous) of plurality of polymer fibers that are mechanically bonded or achieve a bonding like engagement with each other as a result of an activation process that induce loftiness by crimping and entangling of the fibers (Wilkie, abstract, para 0017-0020, 0028), reading on a plurality of crimped continuous fibers (CCFs) consolidated in a second manner by crimped portions of the CCFs being physically entangled together. Wilkie teaches the activated spunlaid web can be further bonded using any known or other bonding technique such as point bonding (Id., para 0049), reading on the CCFs consolidated in a first manner via a plurality of discrete thermal bond sites, as evidenced by Celanese (Celanese, p. 4, point bonding). Wilkie teaches the loftiness results in the web having an increase in elasticity in the MD and/or CD direction (Wilkie, para 0030). Wilkie teaches the fibers of the web being able to freely move relative to each other so as to crimp, bend, and entangle each other to mechanically interlock with each other as activation occurs (Id., para 0028), reading on nonwoven having one or more crimped portions of the CCFs being physically entangled together and located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites. If the continuous filaments did not have crimped portions between the point bonded sites, the nonwoven would not achieve the desired feature of increased elasticity or ability for the fibers to move relative to each other. Wilkie teaches the nonwoven being used in wipes (Id., para 0073). Wilkie teaches the web thickness of the activated continuous filament spun-laid web being about 0.5 mm to about 76 mm (Id., para 0021). Wilkie does not require additional fiber from the continuous crimped spunlaid fibers (Id., all, claim 1), reading on the plurality of CCFs accounting for 100% of a total fiber content of the nonwoven fabric (claim 22). Wilkie teaches the fibers being bicomponent fiber (multi-component fibers) having different degrees of shrinkage and/or crimping characteristics, including having a sheath-core configuration (Id., para 0032-0037).
Wilkie does not explicitly teach the crimped fiber having a helical configuration such that one or more helically configured crimped portions of the CCFs physically entangle together and are located between adjacent discrete thermal bonds sites.
However, ‘595 teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising crimped fiber used for wipe having a thickness preferably from 2 to 4 mm (‘595, abstract, para 0057-0058). ‘595 teaches the fibers can be conjugate fiber having eccentrical sheath/core configurations that easily develop a desirable helical crimp (Id., para 0030-0031), reading on the crimp being helically configured. '595 teaches the helical crimp shape being preferred due to bulkiness (Id., para 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Wilkie, wherein the crimped fibers have a helical shape as taught by ‘595 motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known nonwoven having crimped fibers and crimp configuration predictably suitable for use in crimped spun-laid material with fibers having asymmetry cross sections used in wipe applications, and to ensure mechanical interlocking of the crimped fibers and bulkiness. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the nonwoven of Wilkie, wherein there are crimps between discrete thermal bonds formed by the point bond in order to result in a nonwoven having the elastic desirable in the nonwoven. If there were no crimps between these bonds, the nonwoven would not have the stretch that is desirable feature of the invention.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 0.8 to 3 mm, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the thickness, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
The prior art combination teaches the fibers being bicomponent fiber having different degrees of shrinkage and/or crimping characteristics, including having a sheath-core configuration including eccentric (Wilkie, para 0032-0037) and would necessarily have a first component and a second component that are different. Wilkie teaches the polymer component used to form the spunlaid web including polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene, polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate, polylactides, polyamide amide such as nylon 6, and/or a variety of grades or copolymers (Id., para 0034), reading on the first component and second component being polymeric materials. The prior art combination teaches the fibers of the web being able to freely move relative to each other so as to crimp, bend, and entangle each other to mechanically interlock with each other as activation occurs (Id., para 0028) and teaches the heated fiber crimping or bending to induce loftiness to the web in which a “Z” dimension of the web increases (Id., para 0030), reading on the CCFs comprising one or more three-dimensional crimped portions. Additionally, a helical crimp would necessarily have a three-dimensional crimped portion (claim 4).
The prior art is silent with regards the first polymeric material of the first component having a first melt flow rate (MFR) of less than 50 g/10 min and the second polymeric material of the second component having a first melt flow rate (MFR) of less than 50 g/10 min, that is different from the first component.
However, Hansen teaches a spunbonded high loft nonwoven web comprising crimped multicomponent fibers wherein the fibers comprise a first component comprising a polypropylene homopolymer and a second component comprising a polypropylene/polyethylene copolymer (Hansen, abstract). Hansen teaches the melt flow rate of the polypropylene homopolymer and/or the polypropylene/polyethylene (PP/PE) copolymer being in the range of 20-40 (Id., para 0014). Hansen teaches the fibers having an eccentric sheath-core arrangement (claims 7-8) to side-by-side (claim 24) (Id., para 0061). Hansen teaches the addition of a PE/PP copolymer avoids an undesired dry or cottony feel (Id., para 0009). Hansen teaches the first polymer being a regular polypropylene homopolymer and the second polymer being a random PP/PE copolymer in a side-by-side arrangement forming helical crimp (three dimensional crimp, claim 4) (Id., para 0066), and teaches specific embodiments using a PP homopolymer having a MFR of 25, 29, and 35 and a random PP/PE copolymer with a MFR of 30 (claim 27) (Table 1-3), reading on a first component comprising a first polymeric material having a first melt flow rate of less than 50 g/10min and a second component comprising a second polymeric material that is different than the first component and having a MFR of less than 50 g/10min, specifically first polyolefin composition and a second polyolefin composition (claim 9) and first polymeric material being a polypropylene and the second polymeric material being a copolymer of polypropylene (claim 23 and 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, wherein the crimped fibers of the prior art combination comprise the homopolymer polypropylene as one component and the PP/PE copolymer as a second component having a MFR of 20-40 as taught by Hansen motivated by the desire of using conventionally known polyolefin compositions predictably suitable for use in crimped multicomponent fibers in high loft nonwovens and to avoid an undesired dry or cottony feel.
The prior art combination does not explicitly teaches a three-dimensional image imparted throughout the nonwoven fabric, wherein the three-dimensional image includes at least one recessed portion and at least one projection portion and is defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites according to an image transfer device.
However, Ngai teaches a composite nonwoven used as a wipe that is hydroentangled so as to have a structured surface that has a three dimensional quality of a fabric surface and/or a has regular pattern of apertures (Ngai, abstract, col. 2 lines 29-55), reading on three-dimensional image impart throughout the nonwoven fabric and includes at least one recessed portion and at least one projecting portion. Ngai teaches that fabrics having structured surfaces are far more efficient at collecting solid or semi-solid materials than are fabrics with a substantially flat or unstructured surface (Id., col. 2 lines 60-63). Ngai teaches the increased surface area and various angled surface portions are thought to be advantageous in attaching and retaining solid or semi-solid material, particularly when wiping such material which tends to smear (Id., col. 2 lines 63-67). Ngai teaches the structure surface being formed by hydroentangling fibers supported on a surface having raised portion and the suitable support surface comprising a surface with an apertured pattern such as a wire mesh forming belt (image transfer device) (Id., col. 2 lines 49-59), reading on the three-dimensional image being defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites according to an image transfer device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the wipe of the prior art combination, wherein the wipe have the three dimensional structure surface of Ngai, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known wipe structure formed by hydroentangling and by the desire to provide a more efficient surface for collecting solid and/or semi-solid material. As the structured surface is imparted by hydroentangling after thermal bonding and crimp activation, the three-dimensional image would be defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portion located between advancement discrete thermal bond sites according to an image from image transfer device.
The limitation “consolidated … in a second manner by one or more helically configured crimped portions of the CCFs physically entangled together via hydroentanglement and located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art. The resultant structure of the process requires discrete thermally bonds and physical entanglement of the helically configured portions, which would be present in Wilkie. Additionally, Wilkie teaches further bonding on the fibers through point bonding and hydroentangling after activation of the crimp (Wilkie, para 0027, 0042, 0049), indicating the invention is open to additional bonding and entanglement.
Regarding claims 10-11, the prior art combination teaches the web including a mixture of two or more different fiber geometries and a combination of polymer component (Wilkie, para 0037), reading on the CCFs including a first group of CCFs having a first identifying feature comprising a first cross-sectional geometry or a first chemical construction and a second group of CCFs having a second identifying feature comprising a second cross-sectional geometry or a second chemical construction, wherein the first identifying feature is different than the second identifying feature. The prior art combination also teaches two or more fiber in the plurality being formed from different polymer component (Id., para 0032) and teaches the polymer components used to form the spunlaid web including polyolefin such as polyethylene and polypropylene, polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate, polylactides, polyamide amide such as nylon 6, and/or a variety of grades or copolymers (Id., para 0034), encompasses a first group of CCFs including polyolefin and a second group of CCFs including a non-polyolefin as at least a portion thereof.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art combination teaches the melt flow rate of polymer A being at least 25% higher than the melt flow rate of polymer B and the difference can also be 35% or greater for enhanced effects (Hansen, para 0005, 0010). The prior art combination teaches one embodiment wherein polymer A is smaller or equal to 26 g/10 min and the melt flow rate of polymer B is 34 g/10 min or greater (Id., para 0011), reading on a difference between the first MFR and the second MFR of 8 g/10 min or greater. The prior art combination teaches a specific embodiment using a PP homopolymer Moplen HP 5552R having a MFR of 25 and a polypropylene homopolymer Exxon 3155 having MFR of 35 (Id., para 0079-0085), reading on a difference between the first MFR and the second MFR of 10 g/10 min.
Regarding claims 31-32 and the claimed first ratio between the thickness in microns and a TS7 value from 348:1 to 406:1 and a second ratio between the thickness in microns and a HF value from 16:1 to 23:1., although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a nonwoven of continuous crimped fibers that are spunlaid comprising bicomponent fiber having a first polymeric material and second polymeric of different MFR and both below 50 g/10min that is point bonded and hydroentangled such as to impart a three-dimensional image on the surface. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkie, as evidenced by Celanese, in view of Morimoto, Hansen, and/or Ngai, as applied to claims 1-4, 7-11, 22-25, and 30-32 above, further in view of USPN 6,200,669 to Marmon.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-11, and 22-25, in the event that the process necessarily results in a structural distinction, the prior art combination teaches further bonding on the fibers through point bonding and hydroentangling after activation of the crimp (Wilkie, para 0027, 0042, 0049), indicating the invention is open to additional bonding and entanglement. Marmon teaches a nonwoven web comprising multicomponent fibers that have been bonded by thermal point bonding then hydroentangled to entangle the fibers that creates a highly integrated nonwoven (Marmon, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of the prior art combination, wherein nonwoven is thermally point bonded then hydroentangled as taught by Marmon, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known and predictably suitable bonding techniques for nonwoven web and based on the desired level of integration of the fibers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkie, as evidenced by Celanese, in view of either Morimoto, Hansen, Matsui (‘595 herewithin), Ngai, and/or Marmon, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 22-25, and 30-32 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0116024 to Zafiroglu.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art combination is silent with regards to the average distance between adjacent bond sites, specifically being from 1 mm to 10 mm.
However, Zafiroglu teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising spirally crimped multiple-component continuous filament that is intermittently bonded, such as by thermal point bonding, then heated to develop three-dimensional spiral crimp (Zafiroglu, abstract, 0016-0020, 0034, 0052-0054). Zafiroglu teaches the distance between adjacent bonds being adjusted to control the level of stretch and being preferably in the range of 0.10 to 0.60 cm (1 to 6 mm) (Id., para 0057). Zafiroglu teaches in order to obtain highly stretchable and strong fabrics, a sufficiently large spacing between the bonds is selected so that the spirally-crimpable fiber segments between adjacent bonds are long enough to provide the desired degree of stretch and the impedance to stretch caused by short connection between bonds is minimized (Id., para 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of the prior art combination, wherein the average distance between thermal bond sites is 1 to 6 mm as taught by Zafiroglu, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known bond spacing predictably suitable for use in nonwoven comprising spiral crimp multicomponent fiber that are activated after thermal bonding and by the desire to obtain the desired level of stretchable and form a strong fabric.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2010/0130084 to Matsubara.
Regarding claim 28, Matsubara teaches a nonwoven fabric for use as a wiping cloth comprising a plurality of crimped continuous fibers (CCFs) on a wiping surface and another nonwoven (second layer) such as the web of CCF laminated by a water jet process with a nonwoven fabric made of pulp, cotton, rayon, regenerated cellulose and other cellulose (cellulosic fibers) having absorbing properties, to impart water absorbing properties (Matsubara, abstract, para 0070, Fig. 4, 3), reading on a first layer of fiber including a first plurality of crimped continuous fibers (CCFs) and a second layer of fibers including a plurality of cellulosic fibers. Matsubara teaches the crimped continuous fibers are confounded (consolidated) by means such as needle punch and water jets as well as lamination by water jet processing (Id., para 0051, 0054, 0070), reading on the CCFs and cellulosic fibers being physically entangled together. Matsubara teaches the use of thermal fusion bonding carried out by a hot embossing method with an emboss area ratio in the range of 5 to 20% and non-emboss unit area of at least 0.5 mm2, preferably in the range of 4 to 40 mm2 in conjunction with needle punching or water jetting (Id., para 0051-0052) and teaches the crimp fiber having at least 15 crimps per 25 mm, particularly 20 to 40/25 mm (Id., para 0041). Based on a square, the edges would be 2 to 6.3 mm. As there is 0.8 to 1.6 crimps per mm, there would be at least a crimp between the bond areas which would form at least a degree of physical entanglement. Therefore the fibers would be entangled together at locations between a plurality of adjacent thermal bond sites.
While Matsubara does not explicitly teaches an additional nonwoven layer comprising a plurality of crimped continuous fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the wipe of Matsubara, wherein other outer surfaces comprise a plurality of crimped continuous fibers so as to impart two wiping surface to the wipe.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Matsubara, as applied to claim 28, in view of USPN 6,314,627 to Ngai.
Regarding claim 29, Matsubara teaches a raising processing, embossing processing, and a punching process can be carried outer to the wiping cloth (Matsubara, para 0070).
Matsubara does not explicitly teaches a three-dimensional image imparted throughout the nonwoven fabric, wherein the three-dimensional image includes at least one recessed portion and at least one projection portion and is defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites according to an image transfer device.
However, Ngai teaches a composite nonwoven used as a wipe that is hydroentangled so as to have a structured surface that has a three dimensional quality of a fabric surface and/or a has regular pattern of apertures (Ngai, abstract, col. 2 lines 29-55), reading on three-dimensional image impart throughout the nonwoven fabric and includes at least one recessed portion and at least one projecting portion. Ngai teaches that fabrics having structured surfaces are far more efficient at collecting solid or semi-solid materials than are fabrics with a substantially flat or unstructured surface (Id., col. 2 lines 60-63). Ngai teaches the increased surface area and various angled surface portions are thought to be advantageous in attaching and retaining solid or semi-solid material, particularly when wiping such material which tends to smear (Id., col. 2 lines 63-67). Ngai teaches the structure surface being formed by hydroentangling fibers supported on a surface having raised portion and the suitable support surface comprising a surface with an apertured pattern such as a wire mesh forming belt (image transfer device) (Id., col. 2 lines 49-59), reading on the three-dimensional image being defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites according to an image transfer device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the wipe of the Matsubara, wherein the wipe have the three dimensional structure surface of Ngai, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known wipe structure formed by hydroentangling and by the desire to provide a more efficient surface for collecting solid and/or semi-solid material. As the structured surface is imparted by hydroentangling after thermal bonding and crimp activation, the three-dimensional image would be defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portion located between advancement discrete thermal bond sites according to an image from image transfer device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness as the cited prior art, alone or in any combination, fails to teach or suggest the following combination of features (i) each of the first and second components having a MFR below 50 g/10 min; (ii) the first and second components having a different MFR; and (iii) CCFs having helically crimped portions located between discrete thermal bonds sites that yields slack-driven three-dimensional imaging as currently claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (i) and (ii), Wilkie already establishes the use of sheath-core fiber and the use of different polymer components, which can be selected to influence and control the degree of activation the impart crimp to fibers and induces loftiness (Wilkie, para 0040, 0030). Morimoto or Hansen is relied upon for teachings specific sheath-core fiber component type and melt flow rates resultant in crimp fibers. Applicant argues that the current prior art relied upon merely uses ranges broadly for fiber formation but does not link or otherwise connect any particular MFR or combination of MFRs, such as a first and second component each having a MFR below 50 g/10 min as claimed with provides constraints and differences to the specific helical CCF configuration and imaging mechanism that produces measured caliper/density advantages. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art combination teaches crimped fibers having MFR within the claimed ranges, including in specific embodiments having the claimed MFR and correlation. While the instant disclosure teaches a specific MFR range, there are no teaching as to the criticality of the MFR or impact to the invention, if Applicant is arguing unexpected results. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Additionally, the prior art has established that the polymer component selected influence to degree of activation, or crimping, of the fiber (Wilkie, para 0040, Hansen, 0005, 0010). Hansen establishes the use of MFR in the range of 20-40 (Hansen, para 0014, 0079-0085; Table 1-3). Morimoto teaches explicit examples using 34 and 35 MFR (Morimoto, Table 1, Ex. 6 and 7).
Regarding (iii), Wilkie teaches the fibers being subjected to an activation process that induces loftiness by crimping and entangling of the fibers (Wilkie, para 0028). Therefore, loftiness due to fiber crimp and the freedom of movement for entanglement are taught. Wilkie explicitly teaches the fiber being able to freely move relative to each other so as to crimp, bend, and entangle each other (Id.). If the bonds were close together, this disclosed movement would not be possible. A degree of slack would be necessarily present. While the freedom to move is taught with regards to elongation, this same feature would also necessarily allow for displacement of fibers between bonds during hydroentanglement and imparting three-dimensional image. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Applicant argues that an additional technical effect of the claimed nonwoven fabric is a reduced bulk density as compared to a comparative nonwoven fabric that does not include any CCFs but otherwise is identically constructed. However, this feature appears related to the presence of continuous crimped fibers, which is taught by Wilkie resulted from activation (e.g. crimping) of the web (Wilkie, para 0020-0021). Bulk density is also not a claimed feature. The overall thickness is claimed. The instant disclosure teaches the high-loft nonwoven having a low density, such as less than about 60 kg/m3 (0.06 g/cm3) (see published application, para 0031). Wilkie also teaches web density for activated webs can be from about 0.002 g/cm3 to about 0.25 g/cm3 (Wilkie, para 0021), which overlaps with the instant disclosed range and supports the effect due to the presence of the continuous crimp fibers.
Applicant argues with regards to the application of Wilkie in view of Matsui, Morimoto/Hansen and Ngai, that Matsui ‘595 concerns staple-like crimped fibers and general helical crimp formation and does not teach the claimed spatial relationship of helically crimped continuous fiber having crimped portions between discrete thermal bond sites nor the slack-enabled displacement during hydroentanglement to form a three-dimensional image throughout the web and Morimoto and Hansen are cited for teaching various MFR but fail to cure the deficiencies of Wilkie. As discussed above, Wilkie teaches the loftiness results in the web having an increase in elasticity in the MD and/or CD direction (Wilkie, para 0030). Wilkie teaches the fibers of the web being able to freely move relative to each other so as to crimp, bend, and entangle each other to mechanically interlock with each other as activation occurs (Id., para 0028), reading on nonwoven having one or more crimped portions of the CCFs being physically entangled together and located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites. If the continuous filaments did not have crimped portions between the point bonded sites, the nonwoven would not achieve the desired feature of increased elasticity or ability for the fibers to move relative to each other. Wilkie teaches the fiber being activated by heat to induce crimp but is silent as to the specific type of crimp, specifically the crimp being helical. Matsui is relied upon for teaching helical crimp and helical crimp being desirable for use in a wipe and for bulkiness. To maintain the desired elastic property disclosed by Wilkie, there would necessarily be crimped between the point bond locations.
Applicant argues that Ngai does not teach a web wherein helically crimped continuous fibers have crimped portions located specifically between thermal bond sites to provide slack that enables deeper penetration into an imaging surface and enhanced image crispness across thickness. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the prior art rejection. Nagai is relied upon for teaching imparting a three-dimensional structure through hydroentanglement and the corresponding benefit. The feature of slack, as discussed above, would be present to achieve the elastic feature of Wilkie and would necessarily be present to allow penetration into an imaging surface. The enhanced crispness across the thickness is not a claimed feature. The claim requires a three-dimensional image imparted throughout the nonwoven fabric, without specifying the image. Therefore any three-dimensional shape of structure is encompassed. The three-dimensional image includes at least one recessed portion and at least one projecting portion, which requires a difference in height of thickness. The three-dimensional image is defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites according to an image from image transfer device. One a portion of crimp between adjacent bond sites is required to be displaced. Wilkie teaches freedom of the fibers to move an entangle, which would allow displacement during hydroentanglement and achieve the claimed effect implicitly, even if not disclosed explicitly by the prior art.
Applicant points to Sample 3 vs 6B/6C and Table 1 to demonstrate that webs with the claimed CCF arrangement yield significantly higher caliper at comparable basis weight and a visually crisper image than non-CCF comparative, evidencing unexpected performance not attributable to generic hydroentanglement that Applicant asserts is linked to the specific between-bond helically crimped CCF structure and the claimed MFR-governed self-crimping that enables robust entanglement. However, the comparative Sample 4 and 5 are devoid of continuous crimped fibers whereas Sample 3 contains the continuous crimped fibers. Therefore, the argued unexpected performance appear to be attributed to the CCFs presence, which is taught in the prior art.
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Marmon, that Marmon teaches point bonding then hydroentangling but does not teach helically crimped continuous fibers having crimped portions (e.g. crimps) positioned between points bonds providing slack-driven displacement during imaging nor the MFR-based self-crimp scheme as claimed. As discussed above, Wilkie already establishes
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Zafiroglu, that Zafiroglu teaches bond spacing for stretch with spirally crimped fiber but does not disclose Applicant’s CCF self-crimping MFR constraints and the image-throughout mechanism based on displacement of helically crimped spans between bonds as currently claimed. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). As Wilkie teaches stretching or elongation of the activated spunlaid nonwoven (Wilkie para 0035), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of the prior art combination, wherein the average distance between thermal bond sites is 1 to 6 mm as taught by Zafiroglu, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known bond spacing predictably suitable for use in nonwoven comprising spiral crimp multicomponent fiber that are activated after thermal bonding and by the desire to obtain the desired level of stretchable and form a strong fabric
Applicant argues, with regards to the application Matsubara, that Matsubara does not teach wherein the first plurality of CCFs, the plurality of cellulosic fibers, and the second plurality of CCFs are physically entangled together at locations between a plurality of adjacent thermal bond sites, let alone slack-enabled displacement during hydroentanglement to form a three-dimensional image throughout the web as currently claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Matsubara teaches 20 to 40 crimps per mm (Matsubara, para 0041). Mat also teaches thermal fusion bonding carried out by hot embossing with an emboss ratio of 5 to 20% with a non-embossed unit of area of 4 to 40 mm2 that is the maximum area of a quadrangle that touches the emboss internally in a non-emboss part of a minimum unit enclosed by all four side by an emboss part (Id., para 0051-0052). Based on a square, the edges would be 2 to 6.3 mm. As there is 0.8 to 1.6 crimps per mm, there would be at least a crimp between the bond areas which would form at least a degree of physical entanglement and read on continuous crimped fiber laminated to the nonwoven fabric made of pulp, cotton, rayon, regenerated cellulose and other cellulose being physically entangled together at location between a plurality of adjacent thermal bond sites. The claim does not require slack enabled displacement during hydroentanglement and does not require a three-dimensional image throughout the web in claim 28. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the current claim limitation of claim 29. Ngai is relied upon for teach a three-dimensional image. Slack enabled displacement is not required in claim 29 as well. The claim requires at least one recessed portion and at least one projection portion, which is taught by Ngai for more efficient surface for collecting solid and/or semi-solid material. The claim also requires physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portions located between adjacent discrete thermal bond sites according to an image from image transfer device. Only a portion is required to be physical displaced according to an unspecified image transfer device. As the structured surface is imparted by hydroentangling the material supported on a surface with a patter after thermal bonding and crimp activation, the three-dimensional image would be defined by a physical displacement of at least a portion of the one or more crimped portion located between advancement discrete thermal bond sites according to an image from image transfer device. Applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2010/0048072 to Kauscke teaches a nonwoven fabric that is patterned bonded then hydroentangle to create a three-dimensional image that has a higher loft .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights