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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/8/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) as evidenced by Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) or over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 21-22, Midkiff et al. teach a nonwoven spunbond fabric comprising a plurality of multicomponent fibers that are formed together into a web having a basis weight in the claimed range, an air porosity in the claimed range and a plurality of discrete bonds and the fabric having a bonding area percentage in the claimed range wherein the multicomponent fibers comprises a sheath and at least one core formed of the same pure polymer material [Abstract, 1:5-6, 3:20-35, 5:1-37 and 6:61-65].
Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are bonded together in a web, but are silent regarding the bonding edge profile being curvilinear. However, Midkiff et al. teach different shapes can be used for the edge profile and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a curvilinear bonding edge profile (including round or oval) as is known in the art as evidenced by Zhang et al. and obvious giving the limited number of options in order to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative, Zhang et al. teach bonding edge profiles are curvilinear, elliptical (oval) or circular (round) in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the curvilinear, (oval) or circular (round) bonding edge profile of Zhang et al. in Midkiff et al. in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a diameter of at least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33].
Regarding claim 4, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are bonded together in a web and teach the fabric is pleated and thus meets the limitation of the fabric is sufficiently flexible to be folded on itself since if it can be pleated it can be folded on itself.
Regarding claim 6, the pure polymer material is selected from PP, PET or PLA [Abstract and 1:5-12].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claim 5, Midkiff et al. or the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in Midkiff et al. or the previous combination in order to attain superior mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 7-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155).
Regarding claim 7, Midkiff et al. or the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed tear strength. However, Jordan et al. teach tear strength in the claimed range in order to have sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage package [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tear strength of Jordan et al. in Midkiff et al. or the previous combination in order to ensure sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage package and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Midriff et al. or the previous combination is relied upon as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above and fully incorporated herein by reference. Midriff et al. are silent regarding the claimed filter being a filtered container. However, Jordan et al. teach using a nonwoven in a filtered container for use in forming a beverage with the filtered container comprising at least one piece of a nonwoven formed into a container defining an interior space and ingredients disposed in an interior space to form a beverage in order to provide a beverage package with sufficient strength [0031, 0034 and 0075]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the filtered container and specifics as taught by Jordan et al. with the nonwoven of Midkiff et al. or the previous combination in order to provide a beverage package with sufficient strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a diameter of at least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33].
Regarding claim 11, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are bonded together in a web, but are silent regarding the bonding edge profile being curvilinear. However, Midkiff et al. teach different shapes can be used for the edge profile and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a curvilinear bonding edge profile as is known in the art and obvious giving the limited number of option in order to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the pure polymer material is selected from PP, PET or PLA [Abstract and 1:5-12].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claim 12, The previous combination. are silent regarding the claimed notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in the previous combination in order to attain superior mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 8-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 14, Midkiff et al. or the previous combination is relied upon as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above and fully incorporated herein by reference. Midriff et al. or the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed beverage capsule and filtered container. However, Trombetta et al. teach a beverage capsule for use in a beverage preparing machine with the beverage capsule comprising a body defining an interior space having an opening and a nonwoven fabric disposed in an interior space, ingredients disposed in to an interior space to form a beverage and a cover disposed over the opening and using a nonwoven in a filtered container for use in forming a beverage with the filtered container comprising at least one piece of a nonwoven formed into a container defining an interior space and ingredients disposed in an interior space to form a beverage in order to form a beverage capsule for filtering beverages for drinking Abstract, 0047 and Figures]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the beverage capsule and specifics of Trombetta et al. in Midkiff et al. or the previous combination in order to form beverage capsule for filtering beverages for drinking and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a diameter of at least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33].
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are bonded together in a web, but are silent regarding the bonding edge profile being curvilinear. However, Midkiff et al. teach different shapes can be used for the edge profile and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a curvilinear bonding edge profile as is known in the art and obvious giving the limited number of option in order to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, the pure polymer material is selected from PP, PET or PLA [Abstract and 1:5-12].
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in the previous combination in order to attain superior mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) or Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155).
Regarding claim 20, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed tear strength. However, Jordan et al. teach tear strength in the claimed range in order to have sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage package [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tear strength of Jordan et al. in the previous combination in order to ensure sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage package and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) or Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012).
Regarding claims 8-11 and 13, Jordan et al. teach using a nonwoven in a filtered container for use in forming a beverage with the filtered container comprising at least one piece of a nonwoven formed into a container defining an interior space and ingredients disposed in an interior space to form a beverage. Jordan et al. are silent regarding the specifics of the nonwoven. However, Midkiff et al. teach a nonwoven spunbond fabric comprising a plurality of multicomponent fibers that are formed together into a web having a basis weight in the claimed range, an air porosity in the claimed range and a plurality of discrete bonds and the fabric having a bonding area percentage in the claimed range wherein the multicomponent fibers comprises a sheath and at least one core formed of the same pure polymer material in order to yield high permeability and high filtration efficiency[Abstract, 1:5-6, 3:20-35, 5:1-37 and 6:61-65]. Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a diameter of at least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33]. Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are bonded together in a web, but are silent regarding the bonding edge profile being curvilinear. However, Midkiff et al. teach different shapes can be used for the edge profile and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a curvilinear bonding edge profile (including round or oval) as is known in the art as evidenced by Zhang et al. and obvious giving the limited number of option in order to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative, Zhang et al. teach bonding edge profiles are curvilinear, elliptical or circular in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the curvilinear, elliptical or circular (round) bonding edge profile of Zhang et al. in the previous combination in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention.
The pure polymer material is selected from PP, PET or PLA [Abstract and 1:5-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fabric of Midkiff et al. in Jordan et al. in order to yield high permeability and high filtration efficiency and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claim 12, The previous combination. Are silent regarding the claimed notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in the previous combination in order to attain superior mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) or Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012).
Regarding claims 8, 10-11 and 13-14, 16-17 and 19, Trombetta et al. teach a beverage capsule for use in a beverage preparing machine with the beverage capsule comprising a body defining an interior space having an opening and a nonwoven fabric disposed in an interior space, ingredients disposed in to an interior space to form a beverage and a cover disposed over the opening and using a nonwoven in a filtered container for use in forming a beverage with the filtered container comprising at least one piece of a nonwoven formed into a container defining an interior space and ingredients disposed in an interior space to form a beverage Abstract, 0047 and Figures]. Trombetta et al. are silent regarding the claimed specifics of the nonwoven. However, Midkiff et al. teach a nonwoven spunbond fabric comprising a plurality of multicomponent fibers that are formed together into a web having a basis weight in the claimed range, an air porosity in the claimed range and a plurality of bonds and the fabric having a bonding area percentage in the claimed range wherein the multicomponent fibers comprises a sheath and at least one core formed of the same pure polymer material in order to yield high permeability and high filtration efficiency[Abstract, 1:5-6, 3:20-35, 5:1-37 and 6:61-65]. Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers have a diameter of at least 2 denier [2:25-43 and 6:31-33]. Midkiff et al. teach the multicomponent fibers are bonded together in a web, but are silent regarding the bonding edge profile being curvilinear. However, Midkiff et al. teach different shapes can be used for the edge profile and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a curvilinear bonding edge profile (including round or oval) as is known in the art as evidenced by Zhang et al. and obvious giving the limited number of option in order to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative, Zhang et al. teach bonding edge profiles are curvilinear, elliptical or circular in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the curvilinear, elliptical or circular (round) bonding edge profile of Zhang et al. in the previous combination in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and so posts and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. The pure polymer material is selected from PP, PET or PLA [Abstract and 1:5-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fabric of Midkiff et al. in Trombetta et al. in order to yield high permeability and high filtration efficiency and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316) or Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Lin et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0015316).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed notched Izod impact strength. However, Lin et al. teach polymer with the claimed notched Izod impact strength in order to provide superior mechanical properties and strength [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polymer with the notched Izod impact strength as taught by Lin et al. in the previous combination in order to attain superior mechanical properties and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155) or Trombetta et al. (PG Pub. 2014/0161936) in view of Midkiff et al. (US Pat. 5,709,735) in view of Zhang et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0229012) in view of Jordan et al. (PG Pub. 2005/0136155).
Regarding claim 20, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed tear strength. However, Jordan et al. teach tear strength in the claimed range in order to have sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage package [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the tear strength of Jordan et al. in the previous combination in order to ensure sufficient tear strength so as to not tear when handling or in use in such application as a beverage package and arrive at the claimed invention
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited art does not teach an edge profile that is curvilinear. Midkiff et al. teach different shapes can be used for the edge profile and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a curvilinear bonding edge profile (including round or oval) as is known in the art as evidenced by Zhang et al. and obvious giving the limited number of options in order to provide desired mechanical and handling properties to the web and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. In the alternative, Zhang et al. teach bonding edge profiles are curvilinear, elliptical (oval) or circular (round) in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the curvilinear, (oval) or circular (round) bonding edge profile of Zhang et al. in Midkiff et al. in order to affect functionality of aesthetics of the web and/or cavities are at least slightly tapered and arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims edge profile is in fact taught by the cited art.
Applicant argues Midkiff teaches away from the discrete bonding the claimed bonding percentage. Midkiff teaches: “The fabric of this invention may be a multilayer laminate incorporating the high stiffness filter medium polymer fiber web and may be formed by a number of different techniques including but not limited to using adhesive, needle punching, ultrasonic bonding, thermal calendering and any other method known in the art.” Midkiff states: “As used herein, "ultrasonic bonding" means a process performed, for example, by passing the web between a sonic horn and anvil roll as illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 4,374,888 to Bornslaeger.” Midkiff teaches bonding made be achieved by any bonding technique, including ultrasonic bonding and thermal calendering therefore, it is clear Midkiff does teach discrete bonding. The statement of not using thermal bonding which has low bonding percentage in combination with this other teaching clearly points to bonding as long as it does not leave large unbonded areas and since bonding including 50% is taught, it is clear large unbonded areas are not left and therefore the cited art reads on the claimed percentage bonded. Further, Midkiff says the binding is according to US Pat. 4,374,888 which states binding is discrete and in the claimed range. Therefore, it is clear Midkiff does teach discrete bonding in the claimed range.
Applicant argues Midkiff does not teach the claimed weight. Midkiff explicitly states “Areas in which the web of this invention may find utility are in filtration. More particularly, webs produced according to this invention are useful in heavier basis weight applications. Filter fabrics may have basis weights ranging from about 0.25 osy (8.5 gsm) to about 10 osy (340 gsm).”. Midkiff is not limited to heavier weight fabrics. Midkiff is relied upon for all that is taught and heavier weight fabric are particular embodiment. Midkiff is not limited to particular embodiments, but is relied upon for all that is taught. Midkiff is drawn to filter fabrics as a whole and includes fabrics with the claimed weight.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the prior art.
Art Not Used by Relevant
PG Pub. 2018/0334644 teaches a nonwoven comprised of sheath core fibers with similar properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789