DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on November 10, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1-2 are amended, claim 7 is cancelled, and claims 14-19 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-6 and 8-13 pending for examination.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2016/0228596)1,2 in view of Bonneh (US 2006/0084344)2. Supporting evidence provided by Brown (US 2018/0002832)1,2.
With respect to claims 1-2, Jackson teaches a resilient coform nonwoven that includes a matrix of thermoplastic meltblown fibers and an absorbent material (paragraph [0003]). The absorbent material constitutes from 1 wt% to about 55 wt% of the web (paragraph [0003]).
The weight percent of absorbent material range of Jackson substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Jackson, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to the coform nonwoven of Jackson comprising meltblown and spunblown fibers, the instant specification at page 5, lines 20-31 defines the term “spunblown fiber” as referring to macrofiber meltblown fibers, which are fibers formed by a method similar to forming conventional meltblown fibers, but differs in that the fibers have a larger diameter (with average diameters from about 5 to about 50 microns). Jackson further teaches that when two or more meltblowing die heads are used, larger fibers may be produced by the first meltblowing die head, such as those having an average diameter of about 10 micrometers or more, while smaller filaments may be produced by the second die head, such as those having an average diameter of about 10 micrometers or less (paragraph [0047]). Therefore the fibers produced by the first meltblowing die head are the claimed spunblown fibers, and the fibers produced by the second meltblowing die head are the claimed meltblown fibers.
Jackson further teaches it may be desirable for the first meltblowing die to produce about 30 percent of the basis weight of the meltblown fibrous nonwoven material (30% by weight spunblown fibers) while one or more subsequent meltblowing die heads produce the remaining 70 percent of the basis weight of the meltblown fibrous nonwoven web material (70% by weight meltblown fibers) (paragraph [0047]). Jackson further teaches the resilient coform nonwoven web may be incorporated into an absorbent article (paragraph [0057]). For example the resilient coform nonwoven web may be used as an absorbent member in a feminine hygiene article (paragraph [0058]).
Jackson further teaches that in general, the meltblown fibers constitute from 45 wt% to about 99 wt% of the web and are formed from a tacky thermoplastic polymer that allows the meltblown fibers to adhere to the absorbent material during web formation (paragraph [0030]). During the coform process the merged streams of thermoplastic polymer fibers and absorbent fibers are collected as a coherent matrix of fibers on a forming surface (paragraph [0052]). The resulting textured coform structure is a self-supporting nonwoven material (paragraph [0052]).
Jackson does not explicitly teach that the meltblown nonwovens are forming layers with a layer of spunblown fibers between first and second layers of meltblown fibers.
Bonneh teaches a nonwoven web material composed of at least two layers, a spunbond fiber layer and a meltblown fiber layer (paragraph [0001]). The nonwoven material provides softness while including a meltblown fiber layer (paragraph [0002]). The web material is useful in the making of hygiene products, wipes, and medical products (paragraph [0014]).
Since both Jackson and Bonneh teach nonwoven web materials comprising layers of meltblown fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the meltblown layers of Jackson to be separate layers, because nonwoven composites comprising layers of meltblown and spunbonded fibers are known in the art as being suitable for use in hygiene products and for providing softness.
Bonneh further teaches the composite can be varied as to the layer makeup depending on the use to which the web material is to be applied (paragraph [0006]). For example, the composite can be SM, SMS, SSMMS, SSMMMS, MSM, or the like, where S represents a spunbond layer and M represents a meltblown layer (paragraph [0006]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to try the different layer makeups of Bonneh with the meltblown layers of Jackson, which includes a makeup where the spunblown layer is positioned between a first layer of meltblown fibers and a second layer of meltblown fibers (MSM), in order to determine which provides the desired properties such as softness, strength, and absorbency for the desired end use. See MPEP 2143.
As discussed above, the meltblown fibrous nonwoven produced from the first die is the claimed spunblown fibers. It is noted that it is known in the art that spunblown fibers, while have a small diameter, have a strength comparable to the strength of a spunbond fiber (Brown; paragraphs [0012], [0035]). Therefore the ordinary artisan would consider the meltblown fibrous nonwoven produced from the first die (spunblown fibers) of Jackson as comparable to the spunbonded layers in the prior art such as Bonneh.
Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach wherein the coform nonwoven has a machine-direction/cross-machine direction tensile ratio of less than about 2.8 and greater than about 1, preferably less than about 2.7 and greater than about 1.5. It is reasonable to presume that the tensile ratio is inherent to Jackson in view of Bonneh. Support for said presumption is found in that Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches similar fiber sizes and production methods as the claimed invention.
Page 1, line 26 through page 2, line 7 of the instant specification describes a method of producing a nonwoven web by a conforming process that provides increased cross-direction tensile strength at least in part because of the spunblown fibers act as a reinforcing layer in the web. More specifically the method for manufacturing a nonwoven web includes providing a forming surface that is traveling in the machine-direction and incorporates a co-forming process that includes a first and second meltblown die head disposed above the forming surface. The first meltblown die extrudes a first gas stream and a second meltblown die extrudes a second gas stream. The first gas stream includes meltblown fibers and the second gas stream includes spunblown fibers. Further, a pulp nozzle is disposed above and perpendicular to the forming surface which extrudes a third gas stream that contains an absorbent material such as pulp fibers. The first, second, and third gas streams merge to form a fiber matrix, and a nonwoven web is formed as a result of the meltblown, spunblown, and pulp fibers collecting on the forming surface. Page 7, lines 1-8 similarly discuss how the inclusion of the spunblown fibers result in a nonwoven with increased CD tensile strength.
Similarly, Jackson teaches the use of two melt blowing dies 16 and 18 to form the conformed nonwoven (paragraphs [0046]). As discussed above, the first meltblowing die forms fibers with a diameter of 10 micrometers or more (spunblown fibers) and the second meltblowing die forms fibers with a diameter of about 10 micrometers or less (meltblown fibers) (paragraph [0047]). Each meltblowing die 16 and 18 is configured so that two streams of attenuating gas per die (26 and 28) converge to form a single stream which converge at an impingement zone 30 (paragraph [0048]). Absorbent fibers 32 are also added into the two streams 26 and 28 at the impingement zone 30 (paragraph [0049]). As can been seen in FIG. 1, the fibers after the impingement zone 30 are collected on a forming surface 58 traveling in the machine direction (indicated by arrow 62) (FIG. 1; paragraph [0052]).
Since Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches the same method for forming a coform nonwoven with an increased CD tensile strength, the coform of Jackson in view of Bonneh is expected to have the same properties, particularly the same MD/CD tensile ratio as the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 3, Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches all the limitations of the preceding claims. Jackson further teaches the fibers produced from the first meltblowing die head (spunblown fibers) have an average diameter of about 10 microns or more, or about 15 microns or more, or about 20 to about 50 micrometers (paragraph [0047]).
With respect to claim 4, Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jackson further teaches the overall basis weight of the coform nonwoven web is from about 10 gsm to about 350 gsm, more particularly from about 17 gsm to about 200 gsm, and more particularly from about 25 gsm to about 150 gsm, with a specific example being 34 gsm (paragraph [0047]).
With respect to claim 5, Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jackson further teaches that generally speaking, meltblown fibers may be substantially continuous or discontinuous (paragraph [0028]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to try the meltblown fibers being continuous or discontinuous, in order to determine which provides the desired resiliency (see e.g., paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 6, Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach wherein the spunblown fibers have a greater tenacity then the meltblown fibers. It is reasonable to presume that the tenacities are inherent to Jackson in view of Bonneh. Support for said presumption is found in that Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches similar fiber sizes and production methods as the claimed invention.
Page 1, line 26 through page 2, line 7 of the instant specification describes a method of producing a nonwoven web by a conforming process that provides increased cross-direction tensile strength at least in part because of the spunblown fibers act as a reinforcing layer in the web. More specifically the method for manufacturing a nonwoven web includes providing a forming surface that is traveling in the machine-direction and incorporates a co-forming process that includes a first and second meltblown die head disposed above the forming surface. The first meltblown die extrudes a first gas stream and a second meltblown die extrudes a second gas stream. The first gas stream includes meltblown fibers and the second gas stream includes spunblown fibers. Further, a pulp nozzle is disposed above and perpendicular to the forming surface which extrudes a third gas stream that contains an absorbent material such as pulp fibers. The first, second, and third gas streams merge to form a fiber matrix, and a nonwoven web is formed as a result of the meltblown, spunblown, and pulp fibers collecting on the forming surface.
Similarly, Jackson teaches the use of two melt blowing dies 16 and 18 to form the conformed nonwoven (paragraphs [0046]). As discussed above, the first meltblowing die forms fibers with a diameter of 10 micrometers or more (spunblown fibers) and the second meltblowing die forms fibers with a diameter of about 10 micrometers or less (meltblown fibers) (paragraph [0047]). Each meltblowing die 16 and 18 is configured so that two streams of attenuating gas per die (26 and 28) converge to form a single stream which converge at an impingement zone 30 (paragraph [0048]). Absorbent fibers 32 are also added into the two streams 26 and 28 at the impingement zone 30 (paragraph [0049]). As can been seen in FIG. 1, the fibers after the impingement zone 30 are collected on a forming surface 58 traveling in the machine direction (indicated by arrow 62) (FIG. 1; paragraph [0052]). It is also known in the art that spunblown nonwovens have a greater tensile strength than meltblown nonwovens (Brown; FIG. 13)
Since Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches the same method for forming meltblown and spunblown nonwovens, the meltblown nonwoven and spunblown nonwoven of Jackson in view of Bonneh are expected to have the same properties, particularly the same tenacity relationship, as the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 8, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Jackson further teaches the absorbent fibers are incorporated into the coform nonwoven web in a gradient structure where the absorbent fibers have a higher concentration between the outer surfaces of the coform nonwoven web than at the outer surfaces (paragraph [0051]). Bonneh further teaches the composite can be varied as to the layer makeup depending on the use to which the web material is to be applied (paragraph [0006]). For example, the composite can be SM, SMS, SSMMS, SSMMMS, MSM, or the like, where S represents a spunbond layer and M represents a meltblown layer (paragraph [0006]).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, it is noted that the ordinary artisan would consider the meltblown fibrous nonwoven produced from the first die (spunblown fibers) as comparable to the spunbond layer of the prior art.
To one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to try the different layer makeups of Bonneh, which includes multiple makeups where the spunblown layer is the outer layer (SM, SMS, SSMMS, SSMMMS), in order to determine which provides the desired properties such as softness, strength, and absorbency for the desired end use. See MPEP 2143.
It is noted that when the layers have an SM, SMS, SSMMS, SSMMMS makeup, the spunblown layer would make up the outer surface. Based on the teachings of Jackson, when the absorbent fibers are incorporated into the coform nonwoven web in a gradient, there is a higher concentration of absorbent fibers between the outer surfaces than at the outer surface. Therefore, when the spunblown layer makes up the outer surface of the coform nonwoven of Jackson in view of Bonneh is contains a minimum concentration of the absorbent fibers.
With respect to claim 9, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Jackson further teaches that in one embodiment the absorbent material includes fibers formed from a variety of pulping processes (paragraph [0043]).
With respect to claim 10, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jackson further teaches that besides or in conjunction with pulp fibers, the absorbent material may also include a superabsorbent that is in the form of fibers, particles, gels, etc. (paragraph [0044]).
With respect to claim 13, Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jackson further teaches the resilient coform nonwoven web may be incorporated into an absorbent article (paragraph [0057]). For example the resilient coform nonwoven web may be used as an absorbent member in a feminine hygiene article (paragraph [0058]). A garment side barrier or film (outer layer) is attached to an absorbent layer which is then attached to a body side liner (inner lining) (paragraph [0058]). The resilient coform nonwoven web is suitably used as the absorbent layer (paragraph [0058]).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 2016/0228596)3,4 in view of Bonneh (US 2006/0084344)2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura (WO 2019/167852)2,5. Supporting evidence provided by Brown (US 2018/0002832)1,2.
With respect to claim 11, Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Jackson in view of Bonneh is silent as to meltblown fibers from the second die (meltblown fibers) being formed from a first thermoplastic polymer having a melt flow rate and the meltblown fibers from the first die (spunblown fibers) being formed from a second thermoplastic polymer having a melt flow rate, wherein the melt flow rate of the second thermoplastic polymer is less than that melt flow rate of the first thermoplastic polymer, specifically wherein the melt flow rate of the first thermoplastic polymer is from about 30% to about 500% greater than the melt flow rate of the second thermoplastic polymer.
Nishimura teaches a laminated nonwoven fabric comprising a spunbonded nonwoven fabric layer composed of fibers made of a polyolefin-based resin (A) and a meltblown nonwoven fabric layer composed of fibers made of a polyolefin-resin (B) (paragraph [0012]).
The melt flow rate (MFR) of the polyolefin resin (A) is preferably 75 to 850 g/10 min, more preferably 120 to 600 g/10 min, and even more preferably 155 to 400 g/10 min (paragraph [0027]). By setting the MFR in this range the fiber thinning behavior during spinning of the spunbonded nonwoven fabric layer is stabilized, and stable spinning is possible even if the fiber is drawn at a high spinning speed to increase productivity (paragraph [0027]). In addition, by stabilizing the thinning behavior, thread swaying is suppressed, making it less likely that unevenness will occur then the thread is collected into a sheet (paragraph [0027]). Furthermore, since it becomes possible to stably perform drawing at a high spinning speed, the orientation and crystallization of the fiber can be promoted, and the fiber can have high mechanical strength (paragraph [0027]).
The polyolefin resin (B) of the fibers constituting the meltblown fabric layer preferably has an MFR of 200 to 2500 g/10 min, more preferably 400 to 2000 g/10 min, and further preferably 600 to 1500 g/10 min (paragraph [0028]). By setting the MFR in this range stable spinning can easily be performed and fibers made of the polyolefin resin (B) having a size of several microns can be obtained (paragraph [0028]).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, it is noted that the ordinary artisan would consider the meltblown fibrous nonwoven produced from the first die (spunblown fibers) as comparable to the spunbond layer of the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the meltblown from the first die (spunblown fibers) comprise a polyolefin resin with a MFR of 155-400 g/10 min in order to stabilize the fiber thinning behavior during spinning thus enabling stable spinning even at high spinning speed, suppress unevenness when collected into a sheet, and promote orientation and crystallization of the fiber to provide a fiber with high mechanical strength. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the meltblown produced from the second die (meltblown fibers) to comprise a polyolefin resin with a MFR of 600-1500 g/10 min in order to ensure stable spinning can be performed and fibers with having a size of several microns can be obtained.
With respect to claim 12, Jackson in view of Bonneh and Nishimura teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above. Nishimura further teaches the MFR ratio MFRB/MFRA is preferably in the range of 1 to 13, more preferably 1.5 to 12 (paragraph [0032]). By setting the MRF ratio within the above range adhesion is facilitated when laminating the meltblown nonwoven fabric to the spunbonded nonwoven fabric, and the effect of improving physical properties such as peel strength can be obtained (paragraph [0032]).
It is noted that the claimed percentages can be converted to a MFRB/MFRA ratio of 1.3-6. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, it is noted that the ordinary artisan would consider the meltblown fibrous nonwoven produced from the first die (spunblown fibers) as comparable to the spunbond layer of the prior art.
The MFR ratio range of Nishimura substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 12. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Nishimura, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the melt flow rates to have a melt flow rate ratio of 1.5-12 as described by Nishimura, in order to facilitated adhesion of the meltblown fabric to the spunblown fabric to improve physical properties such as peel strength.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on November 10, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the response Applicant submits that merely teaching similar fiber sizes of the meltblown and spunblown fibers would not inherently teach a coform nonwoven with increased CD strength, let alone with the same MD/CD tensile ratio as required by amended independent claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jackson in view of Bonneh teaches similar fiber sizes and production methods as the claimed invention. Therefore, absence evidence to the contrary, the prior art product is substantially identical in structure and are produced by substantially identical products and thus is thus expected to exhibit the same properties.
The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Applicant’s rebuttals against the inherency position will be addressed below.
On page 7 of the response Applicant submits that neither Jackson nor Bonneh mention tensile strength, let alone provide proper motivation to form a coform nonwoven web with increased CD tensile strength so that the coform nonwoven web has the required MD/CD tensile ratio.
These arguments are not persuasive. The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Thus the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. See MPEP 2112(I). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the claims MD/CD ratio is inherent over the teachings of Jackson in view of Bonneh, and an absence of teachings with respect to tensile strength and the MD/CD ratio does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that Jackson fails to teach the required configuration of meltblown layers and a spunblown layer and Bonneh fails to provide proper motivation to form a coform nonwoven with the required configuration of amended independent claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jackson is relied on to teach the coform nonwoven, not Bonneh, and Bonneh is relied on to teach the layered structure, not Jackson, resulting in the combination of Jackson in view of Bonneh teaching the structure of the claimed invention.
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that Bonneh fails to teach or provide proper motivation for forming a nonwoven web with a better balance of strength properties as taught by the present disclosure and rather teaches a configuration to improve softness of the web.
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Bonneh does not provide motivation for forming a nonwoven web with a better balance of strength properties, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
On pages 8-9 of the response Applicant submits that Bonneh merely mentions a MSM layer configuration but teaches that the configuration must be a meltblown layer positioned between two spunbond layers in order to improve softness.
These arguments are not persuasive. Bonneh explicitly teaches that MSM materials are suitable as the nonwoven web material in paragraphs [0006] and [0018]. The layer makeup can be varied depending on the end use to which the material is to be applied (paragraph [0006]). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123(I). The presence of alternate embodiments where the meltblown is sandwiched between the spunbond layers does not discredit the broader teaching which includes an MSM layer configuration.
On page 9 of the response Applicant submits that Bonneh is silent as to the use of spunblown fibers and rather teaches the use of spunbond continuous layers. Applicant concludes that since Jackson teaches the use of spunbond fibers in addition to the alleged spunblown fibers in paragraph [0047], one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use spunbond fibers in the configuration of Bonneh rather than spunblown fibers.
These arguments are not persuasive. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Jackson is interpreted as teaching the claimed spunblown fibers in the coform web due to the use of a similar process as the claimed invention. Paragraph [0059] of Jackson mentions that the coform web is used to form a wipe which may be formed entirely from the coform web or it may contain other materials such as spunbond webs and meltblown webs. Based on this teaching the ordinary artisan would be motivated to use the coform of Jackson with a spunbond or a meltblown web, but would not be motivated to entirely replace the coform as appears to be suggested by Applicant.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the meltblown fibrous nonwoven produced from the first die of Jackson is the claimed spunblown fibers. It is noted that it is known in the art that spunblown fibers, while having a small diameter, have a strength comparable to the strength of a spunbond fiber (Brown; paragraphs [0012], [0035]). Therefore the ordinary artisan would consider the meltblown fibrous nonwoven produced from the first die (spunblown fibers) of Jackson as comparable to the spunbonded layers in the prior art such as Bonneh.
On pages 9-10 of the response Applicant submits that the combination of fiber configuration and required MD/CD tensile ratio is not trivial, and directs to the instant examples which have ratios within and outside the claimed range.
These arguments are not persuasive. Sample 1 in Example 1 and the comparative samples in Example 2 were produced exclusively from meltblown fibers (instant specification; page 17, lines 10-11 and page 18, lines 15-17). The product of Jackson in view of Bonneh is not made exclusively from meltblown fibers but is the claimed spunblown fibers positioned between meltblown fiber layers as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore the product of Jackson in view of Bonneh is not expected to have properties similar to a single layer of meltblown fibers. As such the comparative examples in the specification do not convincingly show that the product of Jackson in view of Bonneh will not necessarily have the claimed MD/CD ratio.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Previously presented
3 Cited in IDS
4 Previously presented
5 Machine translation used as reference