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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 3, 2025, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0221300 to Sommer in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0233994 to Sommer (herein referred to as “Sommer II”) and US Pub. No. 2018/0291543 to Ramaratnam.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-16, Sommer teaches a laminate made of non-crimping or low-crimping continuous filaments to form a first spunbond layer and depositing a second spunbond layer having a greater crimp than the filaments of the first spunbond layer (Sommer, Abstract, paragraph 0006). Sommer teaches that the lower spunbond layer is a relatively compact, stiff layer having greater tensile strength than the upper spunbond layer (Id., paragraph 0010). Sommer teaches that the continuous filaments of the lower spunbond layer and the second spunbond layer consist of at least one polyolefin preferably polypropylene (Id., paragraphs 0013, 0016). Sommer teaches that the melt flow rate of the polypropylene of the first spunbond layer is preferably 19 to 40 g/10 min (Id., paragraph 0035), and that the melt flow rate of the polypropylene of the second spunbond layer may also be between 19 to 40 g/10 min or between 15 and 40 g/10 min (Id., paragraph 0036). Sommer teaches that the weight of the total laminate per unit of area is 8 to 80 g/m2 (Id., paragraphs 0024-0027). Sommer teaches that the continuous filaments of the first lower spunbond layer have a titer of 1.0 to 2.5 denier, preferably from 1.2 to 2 denier, and that the continuous filaments of the second upper spunbond layer have a titer of 1.2 to 4 denier, particularly less than 2.2 (Id., paragraph 0028). Sommer teaches that the laminate is characterized by a high stability and/or dimensional stability, and relatively great softness and/or voluminosity, good hand, and low cost, which is suitable for hygiene applications, for example, for diapers and the like (Id., paragraph 0029).
Sommer teaches that the invention also teaches a laminate having at least two spunbond layers, wherein at least one upper spunbond layer is deposited on the first lower spunbond layer (Sommer, paragraphs 0023-0025). Sommer does not appear to teach the claimed crimped surface layer and crimped intermediate layer and the claimed linear mass densities. However, Sommer II teaches a spunbond nonwoven laminate having a stack of at least two and at most four spunbond nonwoven layers (Sommer, Abstract), suitable for products in the field of hygiene (Id., paragraph 0065). Sommer II teaches that the degree of crimping of the filaments is different in each of the spunbond nonwoven layers (Id., paragraphs 0011-0013), wherein the filaments comprise polyolefins, particularly polypropylenes (Id., paragraph 0049). Sommer II teaches that the fineness of the crimped filaments is preferably from 0.8 to 3 denier, and that the weight per unit area is between 10 and 50 g/m2 (Id., paragraph 0033). Sommer II teaches that the laminate has a high thickness and/or a relatively high degree of crimping, but in which a high level of homogeneity and stability of the individual layers is ensured (Id., paragraph 0008).
Additionally, Ramaratnam teaches a multi-denier nonwoven composite fabric having improved softness and tactile feel (Ramaratnam, Abstract). Ramaratnam teaches that the composite fabric includes at least a first nonwoven web made from substantially continuous fibers having a first denier, and a second nonwoven web made from substantially continuous fibers having a second denier that is less than the first denier, and a third nonwoven web made from substantially continuous fibers having a third denier that is greater than the second denier (Id., paragraphs 0005-0006). Ramaratnam teaches that the spunbond fibers in the first layer of fibers have a standard denier range of 1.5 to 3 denier, that the spunbond fibers in the second layer of fibers may have a denier in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 denier (Id., paragraph 0052). Ramaratnam teaches that in addition to a web of standard denier spunbond, there may be a web of lower denier spunbond fibers with a denier in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 denier, and a web of lower denier spunbond fibers with a denier in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 denier (Id.). Ramaratnam teaches an example wherein two base high denier layers are calendared to two top low denier layers (Id., Example 5). Ramaratnam teaches that the fibers used include polyolefins such as polypropylene (Id., paragraph 0062). Ramaratnam teaches that the web may be used in applications were a soft, skin-facing surface is desired, including topsheets for absorbent articles (Id., paragraph 0073). Ramaratnam teaches that lower denier spunbond fibers increase coiling of the fibers, which increases the loft of the material, and improve softness while the higher denier fibers provide integrity and strength (Id., paragraphs 0055-0057).
Sommer teaches a laminate suitable for hygiene applications, made of a non-crimping continuous filament first spunbond layer and at least a second spunbond layer having a greater crimp than the filaments of the first spunbond layer. Sommer teaches that the continuous filaments of the first lower spunbond layer have a titer of 1.0 to 2.5 denier, preferably from 1.2 to 2 denier, and that the continuous filaments of the second upper spunbond layer have a titer of 1.2 to 4 denier, particularly less than 2.2. Sommer II teaches a laminate having at least two spunbond layers having different degree of crimping, suitable for hygiene applications, having a high thickness and/or a relatively high degree of crimping, and a high level of homogeneity and stability. Sommer II teaches that the fineness of the crimped filaments is preferably from 0.8 to 3 denier. Additionally, Ramaratnam teaches a multi-denier nonwoven composite fabric suitable for hygiene applications such as topsheets, having improved softness and tactile feel, comprising at least a first nonwoven web made from substantially continuous fibers having a first denier, and a second nonwoven web made from substantially continuous fibers having a second denier that is less than the first denier, and a third nonwoven web made from substantially continuous fibers having a third denier that is greater than the second denier, including a web of standard denier and a web of lower denier spunbond fibers. Ramaratnam teaches that lower denier spunbond fibers increase coiling of the fibers, which increases the loft of the material, and improve softness while the higher denier fibers provide integrity and strength. Since Ramaratnam teaches that the composite fabric may comprise only a first and second nonwoven web (see Ramaratnam at paragraph 0026), Ramaratnam establishes that the lower denier second nonwoven web may be an outer layer, similar to the non-crimping spunbond layer of Sommer.
Based on the combined teachings 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 make the nonwoven fabric laminate of Sommer, wherein the at least one upper spunbond layer comprises the crimped spunbond nonwoven layers of Sommer II having different degrees of crimping, and wherein the layers comprise different fiber deniers, such as a first web, a second web and a third web having deniers within the claimed ranges, as taught by Ramaratnam, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional hygiene article comprising multiple crimped spunbond fiber layers to predictably increase the thickness, and having fiber deniers known in the art to predictably improve softness for hygiene applications.
Regarding the claimed basis weights, the prior art combination teaches that a weight of the total laminate per unit area is preferably 10 to 40 g/m2 (Sommer, paragraph 0027, Ramaratnam, claim 15). Note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Alternatively, Ramaratnam teaches that the lower denier spunbond fibers may comprise between 2% and 55% of the total weight of the web (Ramaratnam, paragraph 0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nonwoven fabric laminate of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the weight of the layers, such as within the claimed ranges and the claimed total value and the claimed ratio, as taught and suggested by Sommer and Ramaratnam, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to vary the properties of the laminate based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claims 11-13, the prior art combination teaches hygiene articles including topsheets for absorbent articles (Sommer, paragraph 0029; Ramaratnam, paragraph 0073). Additionally, note that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, the article of the prior art combination appears capable of use as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786