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 .
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 39-42 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.
Regarding Claims 39-42, Claim 39 recites “consolidating … consists of imparting an embossed pattern comprising” with the consisting then comprising sequence implying open-ended patterns despite the restrictive consisting language. For the purposes of examination, the pattern will be presumed to be recited as “consisting” as well.
Additionally, the “consists” phrasing implies that all consolidation is happening at the pattern areas, but the specification does not appear to support the totality of consolidating happening in areas of icons 1 and 2, since some consolidating would seem to be happening in areas outside of icons
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 15-17, 19, 21, 23-30, 32-37, and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo (US 2015/0086760 A1, hereinafter Castillo) in view of Tomioka (JP 57-167442 A, hereinafter Tomioka, and wherein the citations below refer to pages within the translation of the reference submitted with the 34-page submission on December 14, 2020).
Regarding Claim 32, 17, 19, 26, and 39, Castillo teaches in [0084]-[0085] a method of producing an embossed fabric, comprising: providing a nonwoven web comprising a plurality of interlaid fibers (i.e. the batt 104 in [0084]; and directing a nonwovwen web into a nip formed between an embossing roll 320 and an anvil roll 321 as seen in Figure 2 to consolidate the nonwoven web to form the embossed fabric, wherein the embossing roll has a cylindrical base surface area and a plurality of embossing protrusions 323 extending outwardly from the cylindrical base surface and defining an embossing protrusion pattern, the embossing protrusion pattern comprising a plurality of icons enclosing different areas (see Figure 14 per [0087]), wherein per [0091]-[0092] Castillo allows for individual embossing protrusions to be as close as 1 mm apart from each other, and wherein per [0087] the total bonding area is from 9-11%.
Howevever, it is unclear if Castillo’s icons are themselves made up of individual embossing protrusions as claimed.
In analogous art pertaining to nonwovens, Tomioka teaches a known variety of embossing protrusion pattern comprising (i) a plurality of icons, each of the plurality of icons being defined by a first group of embossing protrusions comprising a plurality of perimeter embossing protrusions and (ii) a plurality of internal embossing protrusions located within at least one of the plurality of icons; and imparting an embossed bonding pattern corresponding to the embossing protrusion pattern of the embossing roll (Page 4 recites in the last paragraph that rhombuses and hexagons are possible icon shapes, with convex parts arranged on the sides of the icons to form an external pattern of perimeter protrusions and further convex parts arranged on the inside of the icons to form an internal pattern, thus used for emboss processing to partially reinforce bonding between fibers, see specifically the icon shapes/configurations in Figure 3(8) having 4 internal embossing protrusions within 8 perimeter embossing portions).
Therefore it would have been obvious to use known embossing patterns as claimed per Tomioka as an alternative pattern in Castillo, since this would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of embossed nonwoven fabrics.
Additionally, with respect to Claim 17, as Castillo teaches using multiple icon designs, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing would have been motivated to use multiple versions of Tomioka’s icons with different areas, such as both the aforementioned rhombuses and hexagons, if Tomioka alone would not already teach using two different icons.
Regarding Claims 15 and 30, the previous combination remains as applied above and Tomioka teaches in the second paragraph of Page 6 that the embossing roll uses various patterns made from squares and hexagons as the basic pattern (i.e. separate and distinct building blocks that make the various patterns), thus defining first and second discrete icons having corresponding discrete perimeter embossing protrusions.
Regarding Claim 16, the previous combination remains as applied above and Tomioka teaches in Table 2-(2) that the icon area of Figure 3(8) is 28.1 mm2.
Regarding Claim 21, the previous combination remains as applied above and Tomioka teaches the embossing method as applied above, and while Tomioka is silent on the areas of the individual convex parts/projections, Tomioka does provide general dimensions for spacing of parts in a scale accommodating to the claimed area range of 0.01 to 0.25 mm2, and such areas of the projections would have to be chosen, it would have been obvious to make the projections said areas since finding a workable range has been held to require only ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 23, the previous combination remains as applied above and Tomioka teaches in the last full paragraph of Page 13 that a gap between the convex parts/projections is 0.5 mm or more.
Regarding Claim 24, the previous combination remains as applied above and Tomioka teaches the embossing method as applied above, and while Tomioka is silent with respect to gaps between internal and closest perimeter projections being at least 5 mm, Tomioka does identify such gaps as a possible result-effective variable in Table 2-(2), and thus to further Tomioka’s experimentation, it would have been obvious to further explore the effect of said gaps in order to find a workable range, and thus arrive at a gap of at least 5 mm, since finding a workable range has been held to require only ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 25 and 29, the previous combination remains as applied above and Tomioka teaches the embossing method as applied above, and while Tomioka is silent as to randomly-placed and/or non-centered internal projections, Tomioka teaches in the first paragraph of Page 14 that the shape of the internal convex parts can have numerous changes and thus as Tomioka explicitly allows for shape change/rearrangement of parts, it would have been obvious to try arranging the internal projections in a random and/or non-centered pattern as these are the only alternatives to ordered and centered patterns.
Regarding Claims 27-28, 36-37, and 40-41, the previous combination remains as applied above and Tomioka shows Figure 3(8) with 4 internal embossing portions with an internal pattern centered within the icon that is replicated across the embossing roller as a plurality of icons to create multiple icons with 4 internal embossing protrusions.
Regarding Claims 33-35, Castillo teaches in [0044] that the nonwoven web can be meltblown or spunbond and further in [0043] that the nonwoven web can comprise both natural and synthetic materials.
Claims 38 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castillo (US 2015/0086760 A1, hereinafter Castillo) in view of Tomioka as applied to Claims 32 and 39 above, and in view of Ichikawa et al. (WO 2011/122277 A1, hereinafter Ichikawa).
Regarding Claims 38 and 42, the previous combination teaches the method as applied above, and while Castillo limits spacing to 1 mm, analogous in embossing Ichikawa teaches on Page 4 of the included translation that spacing can actually go as low 0.5 mm, thus making it obvious to use such low spacing in the previous combination as it is known substitution that works to emboss.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applied combination expressly allows for internal bonding portions as little as 1 mm apart from each other, clearly reading on the claimed 0.2-1 mm claimed range. Additionally, the lower end of the JP ‘442 total bond area range is 20%, which is sufficiently close to 18% to preempt allegations of teaching away, particularly given how wide the ‘442 range is. Additionally, if necessary the bonding patterns from ‘442 could be scaled to Castillo’s requirements.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 15-17, 19, 21, and 23-35 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 RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743