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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 and 22-26 are pending in the application. Claim 21 has been cancelled. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claims 1, 11 and 22-23, and new claim 26, filed on 10/1/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites the limitation “has a surface weight of 1 to 50 g/m2.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-12 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton et al. (US 2017/0175325 A1) in view of Bolliand (US Patent No. 4,259,400).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 23 and 26, Milton teaches structures and methods of producing the structures for use as fill material for insulation or other bulk material applications, such as padding or cushioning ([0042]). The novel constructs 10 may be characterized by a primary fiber 12 (a filament) that is elongated in form and is a primary structure ([0047], FIGS. 2A-2C and 11). The primary structure has disposed along its length a plurality of transversely extending secondary fibers 14 that form secondary structures in the nature of loops 16 ([0047], [0051] and FIGS. 2A-2C and 11). In certain possible embodiments, loops 16 are formed in a pattern of loops by disposing a continuous length 114 of secondary fiber in a desired pattern, such as a sinusoidal or undulating pattern, on a predetermined length 112 of the primary fiber ([0048]). The patterns may be created by relative movement of a stream of the secondary material over the stream or structure of the primary fiber material ([0083]). The secondary fiber 114 may be fed from any mechanism or system for providing a stream, such as the meltblowing or forcespinning systems discussed (a first nonwoven material) ([0083] and [0069]-[0070]).
The examiner notes that meltblowing would result in the secondary fibers (the fibers in the first nonwoven) being heat-bonded as claimed. In addition, Milton teaches that the combined primary and secondary fibers are drawn through rollers and set together by compression and/or fusion bonding ([0083]). The secondary fibers may be patterned not only as loops but could also be patterned as linear or curved structures that intersect the primary fiber ([0069]). Claim 1 includes a product-by-process limitation. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Milton does not explicitly disclose wherein the first nonwoven material has a surface weight of 1 to 50 g/m2.
However, Bolliand teaches a fibrous padding material simulating natural down for quilted articles (Abstract). Bolliand teaches a process that consists schematically in forming, in a known manner, a fibrous web consisting of fibers entangled with one another, for example a carded web or the like, and is characterised in that there is superposed onto the web thus formed, and onto at least one face thereof, a plurality of spaced-out yarns with a heat-weldable material base, after which said spaced-out threads are bonded to the web, the web is then divided into strips on either side of the spaced-out threads and finally said strips are cut to a defined length (col. 2 lines 8-18). The use of a single layer of threads superposed on the fibrous web is generally very suitable for weights of the fibrous web ranging up to 50 grams per square meter; beyond this, the number of fibers which stick diminishes and it is therefore proposed to place the fibrous web between two layers of spaced-out threads, these two layers being staggered relative to one another by half a space (col. 2 lines 38-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the first nonwoven material of Milton with a surface weight of up to 50 g/m2 because Bolliand suggests that such surface weights are suitable for padding or filling material that can in particular be used for the production of quilted or stuffed articles, such as bedding articles and various garments such as dressing gowns, parkas, quilted cloaks and the like (Abstract, col. 1, lines 5-9, and col. 2, lines 12-14 and 38-40).
Regarding claim 2, Milton teaches that the combined primary and secondary fibers are drawn through rollers and set together by compression and/or fusion bonding ([0083]).
Regarding claim 3, Milton teaches embodiments such as those shown in FIGS. 4-6 ([0053]-[0055]). The examiner notes that the loops in these embodiments would read on a first and a second sheet as claimed (also see [0067]-[0069]). The examiner also notes that the first sheet would be bonded to the second sheet through the filament as claimed. In the alternative, Difloe is applied below to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Milton teaches that the primary fibers may have a diameter of from about 10 μm-100 μm ([0061]). For the primary fibers, diameters equal to or less than about 90 μm, 80 μm, 70 μm, 60 μm, 50 μm, 40 μm, 30 μm, 20 μm, or 15 μm, are contemplated ([0061]). Diameters of 20-30 μm are expected to mimic those in natural down ([0061]). Bolliand teaches wherein a textile of a rod is either a monofilament or a multifilament, a double thread or a thread sheathed with another thread; it may have a core/sheath structure, the sheath consisting of a polymer with low melting point (col. 2 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 8, Milton teaches that, for example, if a primary structure has a curving path, the length is measured not in a straight line from one end point to another but by traveling along the curved path ([0108]). Bolliand teaches that the thread of the rod can optionally be crimped or wavy (col. 3 lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Milton teaches that the primary structure has disposed along its length a plurality of transversely extending secondary fibers 14 that form secondary structures in the nature of loops 16, with one closed end or maxima 14A of a given loop being defined by a section of the primary fiber that extends transversely from intersection points 14B, 14C of the secondary fiber with primary fiber 12 ([0047], [0051] and FIGS. 2A-2C and 11). The loops 16 in the secondary structures are not limited to any particular shape or geometry ([0051]). For example, they may be elliptical semi-circles, polygonal, complex curve, or any other closed-loop form with end points emanating on the primary structure ([0051]). In some embodiments, the secondary fibers may be arranged substantially perpendicular to the primary (as opposed to a conventional yarn in which the fibers are substantially parallel to the yarn, with a small offset, and twisted) ([0108]). Bolliand teaches that if desired, to accentuate the resemblance to natural feathers, it is possible, as is shown in FIG. 5, to taper the end of the material (col. 4 lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 10, Milton teaches that in some embodiments, the inventive subject matter relates to insulative fiber structures that mimic the structure and scale of natural down and thereby provide similar properties (Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Milton teaches embodiments such as those shown in FIGS. 4-6 ([0053]-[0055]; also see [0067]-[0069]). The examiner notes that the filaments in the loops in these embodiments would be arranged side by side in a bundle and would be melt bonded to each other at a single bonding location (the filament) (particularly FIG. 6, and [0046]). In the alternative, Miller is applied below to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Milton teaches that the inventive subject matter generally relates to units of small scale fibers suitable as fill materials in apparel items, sleeping bags, bedding, pillows, upholstery, cushions, and other such articles and uses ([0002] and [0119]). Bolliand teaches that the padding material is employed for padding and quilting of bedding articles (pillows, bolsters, eiderdowns, bedspreads, coverlets and the like), clothing and furnishings, for the manufacture of garments, in decoration, in millinery and for heat insulation and sound insulation (col. 4 lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 24-25, Milton teaches that suitable lengths may be from 0.1 mm-5 cm or thereabout, as well as other lengths contemplated elsewhere “herein” ([0105]). Suitable lengths to mimic natural down primary structures are from 5 mm-70 mm or thereabout, or 3-33 mm or hereabout, or 14 mm-20 mm or thereabout, as indicated elsewhere ([0105]). In addition, the examiner notes that Example 1 of Bolliand reads on the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the following: The strips thus produced have a mean width of 15 to 20 mm (col. 4, liens 57-58). These strips are then cut transversely by knives into elements of 10 centimeters length, and are collected in a receptacle (col. 4, lines 58-60).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton et al. (US 2017/0175325 A1) in view of Bolliand (US Patent No. 4,259,400), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Miller (US Patent No. 3,892,909).
Regarding claims 10-11, Milton in view of Bolliand remains as applied above, teaching the claimed limitations.
In the alternative, Miller is applied below.
Miller teaches fibrous body simulating natural bird down in its physical and functional aspects in that it is light in weight, has equivalent insulating characteristics, will not mildew or become soggy in the presence of water, has excellent laundering and dry cleaning characteristics, is lower in cost and is not dependent on the vagaries of nature which may result in periodic short supply (Abstract). FIGS. 7, 8 and 9 may be considered together (col. 3 lines 33-42). Each bundle of staple fibers or filaments is joined at the center or at one end (same section).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included, in the artificial filling material of Milton in view of Bolliand, fibrous bodies simulating natural bird down, in which bundles of staple fibers or filaments are joined at a center or at one end, in order to simulate natural bird down in its physical and functional aspects in that it is light in weight, has equivalent insulating characteristics, will not mildew or become soggy in the presence of water, has excellent laundering and dry cleaning characteristics, is lower in cost and is not dependent on the vagaries of nature, as suggested by Miller (See Abstract, FIGS. 7-9, and col. 1 lines 49-60).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton et al. (US 2017/0175325 A1) in view of Bolliand (US Patent No. 4,259,400), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hase (JP 2010220997 A, attached).
Regarding claim 22, Milton in view of Bolliand remains as applied above.
Milton teaches insulative fiber structures that mimic the structure and scale of natural down (Abstract). Bolliand teaches a fibrous padding material that simulates natural down and imitates natural feathers (Abstract and col. 2, lines 1-5).
Milton in view of Bolliand does not explicitly disclose wherein the first nonwoven material has a thickness of 1 mm or less.
However, Hase teaches an artificial feather made of a liquid crystalline resin composition and constituted by a rod-shaped shaft and a fan-shaped thin portion ([0008]). The maximum thickness of the rod-shaped portion is 5 to 0.5mm and the maximum thickness of the fan-shaped portion is 1 to 0.05mm ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the first nonwoven material of Milton in view of Bolliand with a maximum thickness of 0.05 to 1 mm in order to obtain a product that is useful as a substitute for a feather made of a natural material, as suggested by Hase ([0067] and [0008]).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Difloe (US Patent No. 5,585,161) in view of Bolliand (US Patent No. 4,259,400).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5 and 10, Difloe teaches highloft, nonwoven bonded fiberfill structures 10 (an artificial feather filling material, artificial down), as distinguished over existing technologies by the use of a supplemental incorporation of embedments that act as bond site reinforcement (col. 3 lines 55-58). As illustrated in FIGS. 1a and 1b, one embodiment provides that the embedment take the form of a continuous filament product 24 and 26 (a filament) (col. 4 lines 56-61). This particular embodiment consists of one or more strands of extruded synthetic fibers that continuously wind throughout (or run the length of) the fiber mass/batting 10 (same section).
In a preferred embodiment, Difloe teaches (and shows) a cross-section of an embedment layer in two crosslapped fiber layers (FIG. 5, col. 3, lines 37-38, and col. 5, lines 7-15). As shown in FIG. 5, the bond site reinforcing embedments 34 are inserted during the crosslapping process 36 (FIGS. 7 and 8) after the blend of matrix fiber has been garnetted or carded 40 and before the entrance of the fiber web 42 into the bonding range 44 (col. 5, lines 7-15). The continuous filament 38 is introduced into the process by means of a creel, warp or other equivalent system 46 designed to provide a continuous delivery of filament products (see FIG. 7, and col. 5, lines 7-15). As the embedments and layers of matrix fiber enter the bonding process, the combination of pressure and the thermal bonding process causes the matrix fiber, the embedment and a binding agent to become a unified, flexible, high strength, highloft nonwoven fabric (col. 5 lines 23-27). The examiner notes that the two bonded cross-lapped layers would meet the claimed first nonwoven material and second nonwoven material limitations, and the continuous filament 38 between the two bonded cross-lapped layers would meet the claimed filament limitation.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the process of FIG. 7, which is identical to the process of FIG. 8 with the exception that continuous filament 38 is used instead of bond site reinforcement embedments 48, would have resulted in the embedment layer in the form a continuous filament being present between two bonded crosslapped fiber layers, in a manner similar to that shown in the cross-sectional view of FIG. 5 (see col. 3 lines 37-38, col. 4 lines 26-30, col. 5 lines 4-15, and FIGS. 7 and 8).
Difloe does not explicitly disclose wherein the first nonwoven material has a surface weight of 1 to 50 g/m2.
However, Bolliand teaches a fibrous padding material simulating natural down for quilted articles (Abstract). Bolliand teaches a process that consists schematically in forming, in a known manner, a fibrous web consisting of fibers entangled with one another, for example a carded web or the like, and is characterised in that there is superposed onto the web thus formed, and onto at least one face thereof, a plurality of spaced-out yarns with a heat-weldable material base, after which said spaced-out threads are bonded to the web, the web is then divided into strips on either side of the spaced-out threads and finally said strips are cut to a defined length (col. 2 lines 8-18). The use of a single layer of threads superposed on the fibrous web is generally very suitable for weights of the fibrous web ranging up to 50 grams per square meter; beyond this, the number of fibers which stick diminishes and it is therefore proposed to place the fibrous web between two layers of spaced-out threads, these two layers being staggered relative to one another by half a space (col. 2 lines 38-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the first and/or second nonwoven materials of Difloe with a surface weight of up to 50 g/m2 because Bolliand suggests that such surface weights are suitable for padding or filling materials that can in particular be used for the production of quilted or stuffed articles, such as bedding articles and various garments such as dressing gowns, parkas, quilted cloaks and the like (Abstract, col. 1, lines 5-9, and col. 2, lines 12-14 and 38-40).
Claim 1 includes a product-by-process limitation. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Regarding claim 4, as applied above, Difloe teaches that, as the embedments and layers of matrix fiber enter the bonding process, the combination of pressure and the thermal bonding process causes the matrix fiber, the embedment and the binding agent to become a unified, flexible, high strength, highloft nonwoven fabric (col. 5 lines 23-27). The examiner notes that when the embedments are in the form of continuous filaments 38/24/26 or a grid-like mesh 30, the bonding would take the form of a multitude of bonding lines (FIGS. 1a, 1b and 3a, and col. 4, lines 35-37 and 56-61). (Also see the Abstract of Bolliand, which teaches heat-weldable threads).
Regarding claim 6, Bolliand teaches wherein a textile of a rod is either a monofilament or a multifilament, a double thread or a thread sheathed with another thread; it may have a core/sheath structure, the sheath consisting of a polymer with low melting point (col. 2 lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 8, Bolliand teaches that the thread of the rod can optionally be crimped or wavy (col. 3 lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Bolliand teaches that if desired, to accentuate the resemblance to natural feathers, it is possible, as is shown in FIG. 5, to taper the end of the material (col. 4 lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 12, Difloe teaches that the reinforced product has immediate application in geotextile, filtration, seating, bedding, cushioning and building products use (col. 5 lines 51-52). Bolliand teaches that the padding material is employed for padding and quilting of bedding articles (pillows, bolsters, eiderdowns, bedspreads, coverlets and the like), clothing and furnishings, for the manufacture of garments, in decoration, in millinery and for heat insulation and sound insulation (col. 4 lines 30-36).
Regarding claims 24-25, the examiner notes that Example 1 of Bolliand teaches the following: The strips thus produced have a mean width of 15 to 20 mm (col. 4, liens 57-58). These strips are then cut transversely by knives into elements of 10 centimeters length, and are collected in a receptacle (col. 4, lines 58-60).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Difloe (US Patent No. 5,585,161) in view of Bolliand (US Patent No. 4,259,400), as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Hirakawa (US 2017/0013901 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Difloe in view of Bolliand remains as applied above.
Bolliand further teaches that the textile of the rod is either a monofilament or a multifilament, a double thread or a thread sheathed with another thread; it may have a core/sheath structure, the sheath consisting of a polymer with low melting point (col. 2, lines 60-64). It is also possible to deposit a heat-weldable product of the hot-melt type on the surface by coating or sheathing the thread (col. 2, lines 64-67). Preferably, this thread is made up by combining to threads having different temperatures at which they become sticky, for example with one thread based on a copolyamide which becomes sticky at about 120°-140° C., and another based on polyamide 6—6 (cols. 2-3, lines 67-3).
Difloe in view of Bolliand does not explicitly disclose wherein the filament is a sheath-core bi-component fiber, the sheath comprising a polymer having a melting point of at least 20°C lower than the melting point of a polymer in the core; the core comprising a polyester having a melting point of at least 220°C, and the sheath having a melting point of less than 200°C.
Hirakawa teaches wherein a down-like cotton material 1 according to an Example, as shown in FIG. 1, includes an axial fiber 2 and a float 3 which is longer than the axial fiber 2 ([0041]). The axial fiber 2 and the float 3 comprise a fusion fiber and a non-fusion fiber ([0055]). The fusion fiber is composed of 2 or more polymers having a different melting point (a high melting point polymer and a low melting point polymer) ([0055]). In the 2 or more polymers, illustrative example of the high melting point polymer includes a polyester multi-filament and a polypropylene polymer, and illustrative example of the low melting point polymer includes a polyethylene polymer and a low melting point polypropylene polymer ([0056]). The fusion temperature is preferably 80 to 200° C., and the difference in melting point temperature is preferably 10 to 200° C ([0057]). In the axial fiber 2, in order to fuse a low melting point polymer, a core sheath structure, with a high melting point polymer as a core and a low melting point polymer as a sheath, is preferable ([0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided polyester as a high melting point polymer in the core of the core-sheath fibers of Difloe in view of Bolliand, to have provided the low melting sheath with a melting temperature of preferably 80 to 200° C., and to have provided the core and sheath with a difference in melting point temperature of preferably 10 to 200° C, in order to provide polymeric martials that can be bonded through fusion and are useful as replacements for natural down material ([0001] and [0055]-[0059]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following with respect to Milton: “Additionally, Applicant reasserts that Milton is directed toward "insulative fiber structures that mimic the structure and scale of natural down and thereby provide similar properties." See Milton, Abstract. As previously explained, feathers and down have very different properties and are used in the art for very different purposes. While bonding of the fibers extending from the central filament is desired in feathers, it is particularly undesired in down. The fibers of Milton that the Examiner relies upon as allegedly comparable to the nonwoven material (the secondary fibers, annotated below) are therefore not bonded to each other, whatsoever, as claimed, and it would not have otherwise been obvious to bind such fibers together to form a comparable nonwoven bonded fabric to that which is claimed. While such fibers in Milton may be provided by meltblowing (e.g., presumably why the Examiner identified Milton as a new reference, based on previously presented dependent claim 23), they are still only subsequently bonded to the primary fiber, not to each other, as desired for mimicking natural down, and hence do not form any comparable bonded fabric to that which is claimed. Applicant clarifies to the Examiner that "meltblown" refers to how the fibers are laid/distributed into a web prior to any bonding step and does not relate to any bonding of the fibers, themselves.”
Regarding these contentions, Milton teaches that the secondary fiber 114 may be fed from any mechanism or system for providing a stream, such as the meltblowing or forcespinning systems discussed elsewhere herein ([0083]). The examiner notes that both of these methods would result in thermal bonding of the secondary fibers 114 to each other and in the formation of nonwoven fiber webs, including the formation of meltblown nonwoven materials as claimed. In addition, as applied above, the claimed artificial filling material is met by Milton in view of Bolliand’s disclosure of a structure comprising a sheet of a first nonwoven material and a filament in the manner claimed.
Applicant contends the following: “An inventive aspect of Milton is described in paragraph [0049] as follows: As the secondary fiber 114 forms a series of loops 16, rather than a set of discrete, linear branches, as in the prior art, the looping creates a bulkier surface that helps keep the primary fibers apart. It is believed that the loops provide analogous function to the tertiary hooks of natural down, allowing for a synthetic down that is closer to natural down. Accordingly, Milton even goes so far as to teach away from bonding the secondary fibers to each other.”
Regarding this contention, as noted above, Milton teaches that the secondary fiber 114 may be fed from any mechanism or system for providing a stream, such as the meltblowing or forcespinning systems discussed elsewhere herein ([0083]). As these methods would result in thermal bonding of the secondary fibers 114 to each other and in the formation of nonwoven fiber webs, Milton does not teach away from bonding the secondary fibers. The examiner notes that the bulkiness of the meltblown webs can be increased or decreased by adjusting the density of the fibers in the web, and without a need to avoid bonding the fibers to each other.
Applicant contends the following: “Specifically, amended independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "wherein the first nonwoven material has a surface weight of 1 to 50 g/m2.” Difloe is drawn to thermal bonded high loft non-woven fibrous batting suitable for applications in cushioning, seating, and mattresses where durability and resilience are essential. The high loft fiber structure is typically used as a continuous, cohesive piece to replace e.g. a piece of polyurethane foam. Further, as can be seen in the cross-section in Fig. 5 of Difloe, the thermal bonded high loft non-woven fibrous batting of Difloe is thick (at least 22 mm) and stated to be distinct from non-woven flat goods. See Difloe, column 5, lines 43-47. A thickness of 22mm inherently corresponds to a high surface weight, above that which is claimed. Modifying Difloe to instead be a very thin, light weight fabric, would render Difloe unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as the resulting nonwoven fabric would not be a high loft batting material.”
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that although Difloe is not limited with respect to surface weight, Difloe teaches high loft batting, which is often associated with light weight fabrics. In addition, Difloe teaches that although the device is being developed for thermal bonded and densified processes, it could be applicable for molded structures and non-densified ones as well (col. 6, lines 5-7, and col. 3, lines 58-62). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret Difloe as not being limited to particular densities and/or surface weights. Difloe also teaches that the reinforced product has immediate application in a wide range of fields, including geotextile, filtration, seating, bedding, cushioning and building products use (col. 5 lines 51-52).
Applicant contends the following: ‘Modifying Difloe's planar textile component positioned throughout the established textile structure to instead be "a filament ... arranged along the longitudinal extension of said strip," as claimed, would result in a loss of the underlying effect sought by Difloe, as the distribution of pressure and maintenance of loft would be lost. Difloe explicitly seeks to provide a distribution of the load as discussed in Column 4, lines 47-52, which states "With an embedment however, a load is deflected over a larger area, and the entire batt 10 becomes a load supporting entity. Such distribution of the load also retards the inherent reduction in loft which results from repeated compressions. Thus, the present invention improves the recognized recoil/resilience properties and creates a new type of highloft fiber structure 10.” ’
Regarding these contentions, Difloe’s embedments 24/26/30/38 in FIGS. 1a, 1b, 3a and FIG. 7 are applied above as meeting the claimed filament in claim 1. Difloe teaches that, in embodiments, the embedment of choice is a continuous monofilament or multifilament polymer extrusion 24 and 26 (FIGS. 1a and 1b), and other workable materials include grid-like mesh 30 (FIGS. 3a and 3b) as an embedment (col. 4, lines 28-30 and 35-37). Difloe also teaches that the embedment can take the form of a continuous filament product 24 and 26 (col. 4, lines 56-58). This particular embodiment consists of one or more strands of extruded synthetic fibers that continuously wind throughout (or run the length of) the fiber mass/batting 10 (col. 4, lines 58-61). Therefore, these continuous filaments meet the claimed filament without any modification. In addition, Difloe teaches in an embodiment that a continuous filament 38 can be placed between two cross-lapped sheets that are subsequently bonded (first and second nonwoven materials as claimed) (FIG. 7, col. 5, lines 7-15). As alternatively applied to claims 1 and 4 above, the proposed modification is to apply the continuous filaments 24/26/30 between two cross-lapped sheets in a similar manner as continuous filament 38. The examiner notes that this would not would not result in a loss of the underlying effect sought by Difloe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0298548 A1 (Gladish) teaches fibers being entangled to form clusters or loose webs, which in some embodiments are multinode fiber structures that mimic natural down (Abstract and FIGS. 5-8). Gladish teaches webs that are expected to have a range of fabric weights and weigh about 5 to about 25 g/m2, with a thickness of about 10 to about 50 micrometers ([0883]). Gladish also teaches force-spun microporous membranes, wherein a suitable thickness of the membrane thickness may be from about 7 micrometers to about 50 micrometers ([0083]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789