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 .
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 1-3, 5-17, 19-24 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. The specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation “wherein para-aramid filament waste comprises filaments having variable denier, variable color or structural defects that are not present in commercially salable para-aramid filaments”. The specification provides support for the filaments having variable denier, color or structural defects but does not provide support for saying that such defects are not present in commercially salable para-aramid filaments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russel et al, WO 2009/127816 in view of Anantharamaiah et al, U.S. Patent No. 8,148,279 and Park, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0102896, and further in view of Erickson et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,416,936.
Russel discloses a nonwoven material for lining pipes. See page 1, line 13. Russel teaches that it is known to form nonwoven fabrics by needlepunching. See page 3, lines 6-7. Russel teaches fabrics having basis weight of up to 300 gsm. See page 10, line 2. Russel teaches using polyester and para and meta aramid fibers and blends of these fibers to form the nonwoven fabric. See page 13, lines 1-7. The fabric can have thickness of 2-500 mm. See page 14, lines 16-18.
Russel teaches a single layer nonwoven, and teaches blending the fibers when more than one type of fiber is used.
With regard to the limitations regarding re-purposed fibers, Erickson discloses forming a needle punched nonwoven fabric comprising a combination of waste or reclaimed fibers and virgin synthetic fibers by needlepunching. The waste fibers can be any synthetic fiber. See col. 2, lines 12-57.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed reclaimed fibers to form at least some of the fibers in Russel in order to avoid waste and damage to the environment. Since the fibers are reclaimed, it is reasonable to expect that unless further processed, they would be of variable lengths, colors, diameters and/or have imperfections or defects.
While Russel teaches that needlepunching is known, it also teaches forming the nonwoven by hydroentangling.
However, Anantharamaiah discloses durable nonwoven fabrics which comprise staple fibers. The fabrics can be formed by either needlepunching or hydroentangling. See abstract. The fibers which make up the nonwoven are staple length fibers which can polyesters or polyamides. See col. 2, lines 33-42. The fabric can be formed by carding the staple fibers, cross-lapping and needlepunching. See col. 6, lines 54-65. The fabrics can have a basis weight of at least 200 gsm. Anantharamaiah teaches that generally, increasing fabric weight also increases fabric strength. See col. 12, lines 49-61. The fabrics can be used in any area where durable nonwovens can be used. See col. 14, lines 45-53.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the nonwoven of Russel by needlepunching using the method as disclosed by Anantharamaiah, because needlepunching was a known and alternative method of forming nonwoven fabrics.
Russel differs from the claimed invention because it does not clearly teach that the staple fibers are crimped fibers.
However, Park discloses a nonwoven fabric formed from needled staple fibers. Park teaches that crimping some of the fibers in a needled nonwoven formed from staple fibers improves the needle-punching efficiency. See paragraph 0031.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed crimped fibers as some of the fibers in the nonwoven of Russel in order to improve the needle-punching efficiency.
Russel differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the relative percentages of the polyester and p-aramid fibers. However, since Russel teaches that the nonwoven can be formed from blends of such fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the relative proportions of each in order to provide a fabric having the desired properties.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russel in view of Park and Anantharamaiah, and Erickson et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,416,936, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wood, U.S. Patent No. 4,009,063.
While Russel discloses pipe linings, it does not clearly disclose a cured in place pipe comprising the pipe liner as claimed.
However, Wood teaches impregnating a fibrous nonwoven with a thermosetting resin and curing it in place. See entire document especially abstract and col. 4, lines 26-68.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed the pipe liner of Russel as modified by Park and Anantharamaiah and in the alternative Erickson, as a cured in place pipe liner as taught by Wood and to have provided the number of layers of nonwoven which provided a sufficiently strong pipe liner and to have used either new or reclaimed fibers in each of the layers, depending on what materials were available.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 112 (b) rejections.
With regard to the art rejections, Applicant argues that Russel teaches away from needle punching the fabric. However, at least with regard to the product claims, since hydroentangling and needle punching both provide entangled and densified nonwovens, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any process differences result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Further, with regard to Russel, Russel teaches that needling is disadvantageous because the fabrics are less uniform. However, in the same art, Anantharamaiah teaches that both hydroentangling and needle punching can be used to form nonwoven fabrics having the same basis weight as the fabrics of Russel. Anantharamaiah teaches that hydroentangling causes random but intricate entanglement and can product patterns, while needle punching improves properties of strength, absorption and resistance to unraveling. See col. 9, lines 37-40 and col. 10, lines 14-28. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that both hydroentangling and needle punching have benefits, that they were useful on nonwovens having a basis weight as claimed and would have been able to select either needle punching or hydroentangling depending on the structure desired in the final nonwoven.
With regard to the particular types of waste or reclaimed fibers, since Erickson teaches employing waste aramid fibers, it would have been obvious to have used fibers which differed in at least one of length, diameter, color or that had imperfections or defects, since the fibers are waste fibers which are being reused and where size, length, diameter, color or imperfections would not substantially change the final entangled nonwoven structure. Additionally, since the Russel teaches an internal pipe lining, the appearance of the nonwoven relative to the colors of the fibers would not be apparent since the structure is used inside of a pipe and therefore using different colored fibers which were readily available and economical would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that Erickson teaches forming a multi-layered nonwoven rather than a single layer fabric. However, Russel already teaches a single layered nonwoven fabric comprising a blend of the claimed fibers. Erickson is relied on for teaching that nonwovens can be formed from blends of both virgin and waste fibers. This teaching is applicable to both single layered and multilayered nonwoven fabrics. Erickson teaches incorporating reclaimed or waste fibers into a nonwoven, which is more specific than simply including waste materials. Since Erickson teaches employing any synthetic fiber as some of the fibers in forming a nonwoven, the person of ordinary skill would have had at least a reasonable expectation of success in employing waste fibers as at least some of the fibers in a nonwoven in order to realize a cost saving and to provide a benefit to the environment by reducing/reusing waste fibers.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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 at 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights