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 .
Response to Amendment
The claim amendment dated 2/2/2026 has been entered into the record. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8–17 remain pending and are examined below.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/2/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims based upon the combined teachings of Westwood and Richeson as set forth in the last Office action because: while it demonstrates that spunbond and meltblown fabrics made of the same material are not literally the same – having exactly the same properties – the declaration fails to show that they are not functional equivalents in the field of nonwoven fabrics for use in medical and hygiene products. Additionally, the declaration fails to demonstrate how spunbond fabrics are unexpectedly superior to meltblown fabrics of the same composition, rather than merely different.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westwood (US 2012/0225601 A1) in view of Richeson (US 2018/0230629 A1).
Westwood teaches the formation of a multi-layer construction comprising one or more elastic meltblown fabric layer comprising an a-olefin copolymer having an MFR of from less than 90 g/10 min. Westwood abstract. Extensible spunbonded nonwoven fabrics may be disposed on both sides of the elastic meltblown fabric layer. See id. ¶¶ 58, 62, Fig. 1. The composition of the elastic meltblown fabric layer may consist of VistamaxxTM 6202 specialty elastomer, which has an MFR of 18 g/10 min. Id. ¶ 127.
As noted in Applicant’s previous remarks, and shown below, VISTAMAXX® 6202 has been used in Applicant’s invention to attain the properties recited in instant claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
208
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Westwood does not explicitly teach the claimed feature of a tensile modulus of 30 MPa or less, a maximum load elongation in at least one direction is 45% or more, it is reasonable to presume a tensile modulus of 30 MPa or less is inherent to Westwood. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. VISTAMAXX® 6202). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed property of a tensile modulus of 30 MPa or less, a maximum load elongation in at least one direction is 45% or more, it is reasonable to presume a tensile modulus of 30 MPa or less would obviously have been present one the Westwood product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102.
Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947 (CCPA 1975).
Westwood teaches that the one or more nonwoven fabric materials consisting of the a-olefin copolymer is a meltblown nonwoven fabric, rather than a spunbonded nonwoven fabric.
Richeson teaches formation of an elastic multi-layer article comprising multiple nonwoven fabric layers with an elastic core comprising an a-olefin copolymer of VISTAMAXX® 6202, wherein the elastic core layer may be in the form of a meltblown or spunbonded fabric. Richeson abstract, ¶¶ 123, 126–127, 130, 136, 137. The multi-layer nonwoven article may be use in the field of hygiene articles, such as diapers. Id. ¶ 132.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the more than one additional elastic layer of Westwood a spunbonded nonwoven fabric because Richeson establishes the functional equivalence of the nonwoven fabric types. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected as the relative basis weights for the elastic nonwoven meltblown fabric and spunbond layers are taught. Westwood ¶ 58. Claims 11–17 are rejected as the invention of Westwood may be used in the claimed manner. See id. ¶¶ 80, 109.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westwood and Richeson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takaku (WO 2016/143834 A1).
Westwood and Richeson fail to teach a sheath/core fiber structure for the stretchable, non-elastic spunbond layer comprising polyolefin.
Takaku teaches a nonwoven fabric laminate comprising a stretchable spunbonded nonwoven fabric provided on at least one side of an elastic nonwoven fabric. Takaku abstract. The fabric laminate is for use in sanitary materials that require water resistance, stretchability, and breathability. Id. Background Art. The stretchable spunbonded nonwoven fabric may comprise composite fibers with a concentric sheath/core structure, wherein each of the sheath and core sections contain a polyolefin polymer having different melt flow rates yielding a fabric with excellent stretchability. Id. Extensible Spunbond Nonwoven Fabric. In particular, the core section may comprise a lower MFR propylene polymer in the range of 1 g / 10 min to 200 g / 10 min and a sheath section comprising a higher MFR propylene polymer in the range of 1 g / 10 min to 230 g / 10 min, wherein the difference between the MFRs is 15 g / 10 min or more. Id.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Takaku for guidance as to suitable polymer composition and structure when making the extensible spunbonded polymer fabric layers of Westwood because the fabric of Takaku would offer excellent stretchability for use in absorbent articles.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westwood and Richeson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2008/0014819 A1).
Westwood and Richeson fail to teach the non-elastic spunbond nonwoven fabric layers comprise an olefin polymer composition comprising a crystalline propylene polymer of from 80% by mass to 99% by mass and a high density polyethylene of from 1% by mass to 20% by mass.
Suzuki teaches a polypropylene spunbonded nonwoven fabric that is excellent in surface appearance and stretch properties and exhibits a small residual strain and excellent adhesiveness to polyolefins for use in sanitary materials. Suzuki abstract, Examples. The nonwoven fabric is made from fibers comprising an olefin polymer composition comprising a crystalline propylene polymer. Id. ¶ 37. For examination purposes, the Examiner equates the claimed olefin composition to the non-ethylene components of the propylene composition of Suzuki (i.e., everything but the ethylene). The ethylene may be high density polyethylene (HDPE) and comprise up to 10 weight percent of the propylene composition. Id. ¶¶ 62, 192. Accordingly, because the HDPE comprises only up to 10 weight percent of the propylene composition of Suzuki, the remaining components constitute 90 weight percent or more of the composition that the Examiner equates to the claimed olefin polymer composition.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have used the propylene composition of Suzuki to make the extensible spunbonded layers in Westwood due to its excellence in surface appearance and stretch properties and exhibits a small residual strain and excellent adhesiveness to polyolefins for use in sanitary materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that a meltblown nonwoven fabric taught by Westwood and a spunbonded nonwoven fabric by Richeson are not equivalent because the two fabric types have different properties. Applicant further contends that since the technical content underlying Richeson is directed to the composition of a fiber, rather than the technical context of Westwood, which is directed to a multilayer construction comprising at least one layer of elastic meltblown fabric, the teaching in Richeson is not relevant in indicating equivalence of meltblown and spunbonded fabrics in the construction of the Westwood article. Applicant then contends that based on the evidence set forth in the provided declaration, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to replace the meltblown fabric of Westwood with a spunbonded fabric with a reasonable expectation of success.
As addressed above, Applicant’s declaration is not persuasive of demonstrating non-obviousness because it fails to show unexpected benefits of spunbonded fabrics over meltblown fabric, rather they are merely different fabrics with different properties. Furthermore, as shown above both Westwood and Richeson are directed multi-layer materials comprising elastic nonwoven fabric layers using the exact same polymer, VISTAMAXX® 6202, as Applicant. Westwood only differs from the invention of claim 1 in that the elastic nonwoven fabric is meltblown rather than spunbonded. Richeson has been relied upon to show that the prior art recognizes that the same polymer used by Applicant and Westwood is used to make elastic nonwoven fabrics for use in hygiene articles, such as diapers, in the form of both meltblown and spunbonded fabrics and that they may be used interchangeably. As such, Richeson establishes the functional equivalence of the two fabric types in the same field of invention for the same purpose. Accordingly, the ordinarily skilled would have found it obvious to have modified the invention to Westwood to replace a meltblown fabric with a spunbonded fabric of the same composition due to the two fabric’s functional equivalence under KSR.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786