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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/28/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks filed 1/7/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1 and 22 has been amended. Claims 14 and 17-20 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 22 are not found sufficient to overcome the anticipation rejections made over the cited prior art of Anderson, WO 2020094837. Specifically, the cited prior art of Anderson, WO 2020094837 teach the claimed 100 wt. % of recycled polyester fibers, the claimed thickness of the non-woven and in combination with in view of Sutton, US 2007/0033898 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 3 below and further in view of Coates et al., US 2017/0130377 as previously set forth below teach the claimed differing staple lengths. Examiner’s arguments are set forth below.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicants assert that the cited prior art of Anderson, WO 2020094837 does not teach the limitation of wherein the plurality of recycled polyester fibers account for 100 wt. % of the total fiber amount in the cover and further wherein the cover has a thickness .25-5mm. In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to the content of the recycled polyester fibers, Anderson teaches “A carded, (or spunbond) and optionally cross-lapped, needle punched non-woven fabric may be a non-woven fabric of recycled polyester.” (page 5, 1-5 can page 5, 5-10). Anderson further teaches that the non-woven may comprise from 50-100 wt. % polyester fibers (page 5, 2)). With regard to Applicant’s arguments directed to using melt fibers or sheath/core conjugate fibers, based on the teachings of Anderson it appears that these melt fibers are optional. The Examiner is of the position that Anderson is very clear that the non-woven can be made from 100 wt. % recycled polyester fibers. As such, the Examiner is of the position that limitations of a non-woven cover having 100 wt. % recycled polyester fibers is anticipated by the teachings of Anderson.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments directed to the thickness of the cover as set forth in claims 1 and 22, Anderson teaches sheets/panels/covers have a thickness ranging from .1-5mm thick (page 13, 10-20). The Examiner is of the position that Anderson also anticipates this limitation.
With specific regard to claims 5 and 6, the Examiner maintains that the combination of Anderson, WO 2020094837 in view of Sutton, US 2007/0033898 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 3 below and further in view of Coates et al., US 2017/0130377 teach the claimed fibers of differing deniers and differing lengths.
The combination of cited prior art does teach using fibers of differing deniers but fails to teach a non-woven having fibers of differing lengths.
The published patent application issued to Coates et al., teach forming a non-woven fabric comprising staple length PET fibers including recycled PET fibers (title, abstract, section 0025 0041). Coates et al., teach forming a non-woven having fibers of differing lengths (30-100mm(3-10cm) and .5-12mm(.05-1.2cm)) (section 0047, 0062-0063 and 0070). Coates et al., specifically teach the addition of shorter staple has advantages in relation to the performance of the nonwoven material. The selected air flow resistivity achieved using short fibers may be significantly higher than the air flow resistivity of a conventional nonwoven material comprising substantially only conventional staple fibers having a long length of, for example, from at least about 30 mm and less than about 100 mm (3-10cm). Without being limited by theory, it is believed that this unexpected increase in air flow resistance may be attained as a result of the short fibers being able to pack more efficiently (e.g., more densely) in the nonwoven material than long fibers. The shorter length may reduce the degree of disorder in the packing of the fibers as they are dispersed onto a surface, such as a conveyor, or into a preformed web during production. The more ordered packing of the fibers in the material may in turn lead to an increase in the air flow resistivity. In particular, the improvement in fiber packing may achieve a reduced interstitial space in between fibers of the nonwoven material to create a labyrinthine structure that forms a tortuous path for air flow through the material, thus providing a selected air flow resistance, and/or selected air flow resistivity. Accordingly, it may be possible to produce comparatively lightweight nonwoven materials without unacceptably sacrificing performance (section 0070).
Therefore, motivated by the numerous advantages of using shorter staple fibers as set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the non-woven panel of Anderson in view Sutton with staple fibers of differing length (e.g., shorter staple fibers blended with longer staple fibers) as disclosed above by Coates et al. Since Anderson, Sutton and Coates are both concerned with forming non-woven articles from PET fibers and also concerned with similar uses/applications the Examiner is of the position that the references are analogous.
Since the Examiner maintains the primary reference of Anderson, WO 2020094837 anticipates the claim limitations as set forth above and the combination of Sutton and Coates et al., meets the claimed differing fiber deniers and lengths, the Examiner is of the position that the combination of cited prior art renders obvious the claimed differing fiber deniers and lengths as set forth in claims 5 and 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 3, 8,9,14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson, WO 2020094837.
The published WO document issued to Anderson teach a room divider/screen comprising
a hollow board material with a first sheet (210) and a second sheet (215), wherein a plurality of distance members (220) are arranged between the first sheet (210) and the second sheet (215), the plurality of distance members (220) being connected to the first sheet (210) and to the second sheet (215), respectively, wherein a first and a second lath (231, 232), each optionally comprising a plurality of strips (238) arranged on top of each other, are arranged in parallel between the first sheet (210) and the second sheet (215) along opposite edges of the hollow board material, the first and second lath (231 , 232) being connected to the first sheet (210) and to the second sheet (215), respectively, thereby providing a hollow board material, and wherein at least one of the first and the second sheet (210, 215), at the outer surface, is covered with a fabric (270) to provide a room divider panel (200) (claim 1). The Examiner is of the position that the non-woven fabric (270) meets the limitation of the claimed “cover”. Said fabric (270) is a non- woven fabric; the non-woven fabric preferably being a carded, and optionally cross-lapped, needle punched non-woven fabric (claim 2). Anderson teaches that the non-woven fabric is a non-woven fabric of polyester, such as recycled polyester; preferably the non- woven fabric of polyester having a surface weight of 50 to 500 gsm (g/m.sup.2), such as 100 to 400 gsm (g/m.sup.2) or 150 to 300 gsm (g/m.sup.2) (claim 4). With regard to the claimed types of recycled fibers, since Anderson teaches using recycled fibers, the fibers would have been derived from any of the claimed sources. Anderson teaches that the non-woven fabric of polyester comprises 50 to 90 wt.% staple fibers of polyester, and 10 to 50 wt.% melt fibers, the non-woven fabric of polyester being a carded (claim 5). With regard to claims 8 and 9, Anderson teaches forming the web via blending the fibers, carding, cross-lapping and needling as set forth above. The Examiner is of the position such processes entangle the fibers. Since Anderson teach the use of melt fibers, the Examiner is of the position that the non-woven would also have the claimed thermal bond sites.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2,4,7,10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, WO 2020094837 in view of Sutton, US 2007/0033898 A1.
The published WO document issued to Anderson is set forth above. Anderson does not teach the all of the limitations of the claimed non-woven as set forth in claims 2, 4, 7-10, 12 and 22.
The patent issued to Sutton teach a non-woven panel that can be used as a privacy screen or room/desk divider (title and abstract). Said non-woven panel can be positioned within a room, or around or on a desk item or furniture, to divide a large area into smaller areas, or to provide some privacy to people within the room, to reduce ambient noise (acoustic), or to provide a decorative or aesthetic item, or to provide two or more of these functions (section 0013). The Examiner is of the position that a non-woven panel that can be used around or on a desk item is sufficient to meet the limitation of a “protective cover”. Sutton teach that the non-woven panel can be made of PET fibers wherein a portion of those PET fibers are recycled PET (rPET) fibers (section 0014). Sutton teach that the ratio of recycled to PET fibers range from 5:95 to 95:5 w/w (section 0015). With regard to the limitations pertaining to the length and diameter of the fibers, Sutton teach a staple length of about 75cm (7.5cm) and diameter of 2 or 6 denier (section 0025 and 0046), Sutton exemplifies a non-woven panel wherein fibers of both 2 and 6 denier are used (Examples 1 and 2). Sutton teach that the panel can be made to be ridged or less ridged and more flexible (section 0031). The Examiner is of the position that Sutton renders obvious the features of claims 2,4 and 7, namely the use of a non-woven “protective cover”, the fiber types/amounts, length, denier and the fabric structure of a non-woven. With regard to claims 10 and 12, the claimed thermal bonding, Sutton teach passing the web through heated calendaring rollers to provide a smooth surface (section 0049 and 0044). The Examiner is of the position that the heated calendaring would result in a plurality of individual bond sites. With regard to claim 12, the calendaring results in a smooth surface (a patten) over 100 % of the surface area. With regard to claim 22, Sutton teach that the thickness of the non-woven panel ranges from 6-16mm (paragraph 0016). Since Anderson teach that the sheet/cover/panel can be made with 100 wt. % recycled polyester fibers, the Examiner is of the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sheet/cover/panel article of Anderson can be made with rPET fibers of Sutton.
Therefore, motivated by the desire to form a privacy room/desk divider it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the non-woven fabric used in the room divider of Anderson with the PET fibers of Sutton. Sutton specifically teach the recycled fibers are economically and environmentally advantageous as well as unexpectedly providing a good quality room divider (paragraph 0024). It would have also been obvious to heat bond/calendar the non-woven and form the non-woven having a thickness ranging from 6-16mm as taught by Sutton for the purpose of providing desired surface/outer features, structural features and/or visibility/privacy properties. The Examiner is of the position that the cited prior art references are analogous since they are both concerned with forming non-wovens suitable for use as screens, covers and/or dividers.
With regard to claims 13 and 15, Sutton does not explicitly teach the formation of a microporous film on the outer surface due to the melting of the fibers, or the claimed MVTR of claim 15.
The Examiner is of the position that since Sutton teach heat calendaring the surface of the non-woven panel such that the surface is smooth the fibers would soften to the extent to form a film like smooth looking surface. With regard to the claimed MVTR, though this limitation is not expressly taught, the Examiner is of the position the heated calendaring would impart some porosity depending on the heating temperature of the calendar rollers, thickness of the non-woven panel and/or how much pressure is used to compact the non-woven panel. The MVTR can also be tailored based on desired end use of the non-woven panel such as acoustic/air flow properties. As such, the Examiner is of the position that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA).
With regard to claim 16, the combination of cited prior art does teach using the non-woven panel (ridged or more flexible) to cover items such as a desk, but does not explicitly teach using the non-woven to cover or encapsulate the crops set forth in claim 16. However, given the fact that combination of cited prior art teach the claimed structural limitations of a non-woven comprising recycled PET fibers and the same use as a cover, the Examiner is of the position that the non-woven panel can be used in the capacity to cover the claimed crops. Applicants have not set forth any other distinguishing features of the protective cover that would evidence otherwise.
6. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, WO 2020094837 in view of Sutton, US 2007/0033898 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of SIGL WO 01/92619
The combination of Anderson and Sutton does teach that the surface of the non-woven panel can be patterned but does not explicitly teach the percentage of surface patterning. (section 0036).
The published WO document issued to SIGL teach a non-woven cover wherein said surface can be point bonded at percentage of about 15-30 % (page 8). SIGL references forming different patterns or shapes (page 8). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to thermal point bond the surface of the non-woven panel of Anderson in view of Sutton for the purpose of providing an aesthetics or designs to the surface as taught by SIGL. Since Sutton and SIGL are both concerned with forming non-woven fabrics of similar materials and used for similar purposes, the Examiner considers the references analogous.
7. Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, WO 2020094837 in view of Sutton, US 2007/0033898 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above and further in view of Coates et al., US 2017/0130377.
The combination of cited prior art does teach using fibers of differing deniers but fails to teach a non-woven having fibers of differing lengths.
The published patent application issued to Coates et al., teach forming a non-woven fabric comprising staple length PET fibers including recycled PET fibers (title, abstract, section 0025 0041). Coates et al., teach forming a non-woven having fibers of differing lengths (30-100mm(3-10cm) and .5-12mm(.05-1.2cm)) (section 0047, 0062-0063 and 0070). Coates et al., specifically teach the addition of shorter staple has advantages in relation to the performance of the nonwoven material. The selected air flow resistivity achieved using short fibers may be significantly higher than the air flow resistivity of a conventional nonwoven material comprising substantially only conventional staple fibers having a long length of, for example, from at least about 30 mm and less than about 100 mm (3-10cm). Without being limited by theory, it is believed that this unexpected increase in air flow resistance may be attained as a result of the short fibers being able to pack more efficiently (e.g., more densely) in the nonwoven material than long fibers. The shorter length may reduce the degree of disorder in the packing of the fibers as they are dispersed onto a surface, such as a conveyor, or into a preformed web during production. The more ordered packing of the fibers in the material may in turn lead to an increase in the air flow resistivity. In particular, the improvement in fiber packing may achieve a reduced interstitial space in between fibers of the nonwoven material to create a labyrinthine structure that forms a tortuous path for air flow through the material, thus providing a selected air flow resistance, and/or selected air flow resistivity. Accordingly, it may be possible to produce comparatively lightweight nonwoven materials without unacceptably sacrificing performance (section 0070). Therefore, motivated by the numerous advantages of using shorter staple fibers as set forth above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the non-woven panel of Anderson in view Sutton with staple fibers of differing length (e.g., shorter staple fibers blended with longer staple fibers) as disclosed above by Coates et al. Since Anderson, Sutton and Coates are both concerned with forming non-woven articles from PET fibers and also concerned with similar uses/applications the Examiner is of the position that the references are analogous.
Conclusion
8. 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 571-270-9672. 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