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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claim 1 has been amended as requested. Applicant’s amendments are found sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nobbee et al., US 2002/0004351 in view of McGinty et al., US 6010970. Specifically, the combination of Nobbee et al., in view of McGinty et al., does not specifically teach a first surface having an impression pattern having the claimed depth. As such, this rejection is hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following new ground of rejection is set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nobbee et al., US 2002/0004351 A1 in view of McGinty et al., US 6010970 and further in view of Olson, 20150101772 A1.
The published patent application issued to Nobbee et al., teach a gas permeable package comprising a bonded, gas permeable, fibrous sheet material consisting of continuous lengths of bonded plexifilamentary fibril strands (paragraph 0025). Nobbee et al., teach a flash spun sheet made from ethylene and propylene polymers (paragraph 0046). Nobbee et al., teach that the bonded plexifilamentary sheet in not inherently smooth and teach passing the material through smooth calendar roller in improve the printability of the sheet (paragraph 0053). The Examiner is of the position that such a service would be capable of receiving embossing. Nobbee et al., teach polyethylene flash spun sheet with a melt index of .70 g/10 mins, a melt flow ratio of 34 and a density of .96 g/cc (paragraph 0082). With regard to the claimed melting range, Nobbee et al., teach hot calendaring the sheet at temperature of 135°C (paragraph 0098). With regard to the claimed gurly hill seconds, Nobbee et al., exemplify 2 examples where the gurly hill seconds are under 10 (see examples 13 and 22 (tables 10 and 11).
While Nobbee et al., does teach that the flash spun sheet is capable of being printed with graphics and bar codes, Nobbee et al., does not specifically teach that the first surface comprises an impression pattern.
The patent issued to McGinty et al., also teach a plexifliamentary sheet for a sterile package that is highly printable (title, abstract and column 2, 35-55). McGinty et al., teach that the sheet can be embossed to have a linen pattern or bar codes (comparative example 2, column 3, 15-25, column 16, 55-column 17, 10). The Examiner is of the position that both references are analogous since they are both concerned with forming similar flash spun sheets for sterile packaging and both references teach printing the surface of the flash spun sheet and/or forming a flash spun sheet that is capable of receiving printing. The Examiner is of the position that embossing and/or printing meets the limitation of providing a surface with an impression pattern. The Examiner is of the position that a printed and/or embossed surface meets the limitation of an impression and/or pattern. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to surface print and/or emboss the flash spun sheet of Nobbee et al., to provide information, graphical and/or design features as taught by McGinty et al.
The combination of Nobbee et al., and McGinty et al., do not specifically teach the claimed embossing depth range.
With specific regard to the claimed embossing impression depth, the published patent application issued to Olson teach embossing fibrous products for the purpose of increasing the density and reducing the bulk of multi-ply fibrous products (title, abstract and paragraphs 0019-0024). Olson teach that the depth of embossments are from about 1.25 to about 3.5 times the caliper of the un-embossed base sheet(s), for example, about 1.5 to about 2.5 times, for example, from about 1.5 to about 2.0. In the embodiment where two plies are used, this is sufficient to maintain good ply lamination with a consumer preferred appearance while reducing the finished product caliper to something less than the expected caliper of the two un-embossed plies combined. This allows for the production of high-performance structured base sheet products with a higher finished product density. Embossing depths for use in the present invention are generally at least about 30 mm (762 .mu.m), for example, at least about 35 mm (889 .mu.m), for example, at least about 40 mm (1016 .mu.m) at least about 45 mm (1143 .mu.m), for example, at least about 50 mm (1270 .mu.m). As described herein embossing depth corresponds to the height of the majority elements on the emboss roll. Olson further teach that he linear elements, coupled with the defined depth of embossment provide more surface area, which minimizes the impact on sheet properties while resulting in an aesthetically pleasing product that can be packaged in the desired size, e.g., wound to the desired roll size, without giving up sheet count. (paragraphs 0030-0031).
Therefore, motivated by the desire to provide more surface area, create a more density, decrease bulk and an aesthetically pleasing product to be packaged, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to emboss the articles of Nobbee et al., in view of McGinty et al., to the depths taught by Olson.
With regard to the claimed moisture vapor transmission rates, Nobbee et al., does not teach the claimed rates. However, Nobbee et al., does teach that the bonded flash spun non-woven is gas permeable. The Examiner is of the position that since the cited prior art of Nobbee et al., teach the claimed smooth bonded polyethylene flash spun plexifilamentary sheet that is gas permeable and having overlapping ranges of the claimed melt flow index, density and melting range, the Examiner is of the position the claimed moisture transmission rate would be exhibited once produced. Support the claimed supposition is found in the use like materials having similar or the same properties. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789