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 April 2, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 52, 57, and 58-59 are amended, claims 1-51 and 54 are cancelled, and claims 64-71 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 52-53 and 55-63 pending for examination.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) 52-53 and 56-63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2004/0077247).
With respect to claim 52, Schmidt teaches a laminate including a low loft first layer (first stratum (A)) and a high loft second layer (second stratum (B)) made from thermoplastic spunbond filaments (paragraph [0009]). In Fig. 1A the first layer (low loft layer) 110 (first stratum (A)) is adjacent to the second layer (high loft layer) 120 (second stratum (B)) (Fig. 1A; paragraph [0032]). The first layer (first stratum (A)) of the laminate is denser than the second layer (second stratum (B)) (paragraph [0033]). Particularly, the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) preferably has a density greater than about 20 kg/m3 and the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) has a density less than 50 kg/m3 (paragraphs [0034]-[0035]).
The high loft layer (second stratum (B)) comprises multicomponent filaments containing at least two component polymers having different melting points, and the lowest melting component polymer (first component) forms at least a portion of the peripheral surface of each of the filaments (paragraph [0041]). The component polymers are selected to have a melting point difference of at least 5oC (paragraph [0041]). The difference in melting point is advantageously used to bond the nonwoven by forming interfiber bonds at cross-over contact points throughout the web while allowing the high melting point components to maintain the physical and dimensional integrity of the web (paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
The filaments of the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) are preferably multicomponent filaments (paragraph [0040]). When the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) is a multicomponent spunbond nonwoven web, the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) is made using the same equipment as the high loft material (second stratum (B)) (paragraph [0078]). 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 multicomponent fibers of the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) to contain at least two component polymers having melting points that differ by at least 5oC as in the high loft material (second stratum (B)) in order to bond the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) through interfiber bonds while maintaining the physical and dimensional integrity of the web.
With respect to the low melting point component (first component) of each of the multifilaments in the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) and the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) forming at least 20% of the area of the surface of the filaments, both the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) filaments and the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) filaments may be core-sheath filaments (paragraphs [0040]-[0041]) which would result in the low melting point component (first component) forming 100% of the area of the surface of the filament.
It the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of low melting point component (first component) is present on the surface of the fiber to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a multicomponent fiber that provides the desired interfiber bonding while maintaining the physical and dimensional integrity of the nonwoven (see e.g., Schmidt paragraphs [0041]-[0042]). It has been held 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the ratio of the filamentary density of the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) and the high loft layer (first stratum (B)), Example 1 of Schmidt provides a low loft layer (first stratum (A)) with a basis weight of about 122 gsm and a thickness of 2.6 mm (paragraph [0118]) and a high loft layer (second stratum (B)) with a basis weight of about 82 gsm and a thickness of 8.1 mm (paragraph [0119]). This results in a bulk density of about 47 kg/m3 for the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) and a bulk density of about 10 kg/m3 for the high loft layer (seconds stratum (B)), providing a bulk density ratio of the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) to the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) of 4.7.
It is the position of the examiner that the bulk density ratio is representative of the claimed filamentary density. Bulk density is known in the prior art as the mass of a dry, porous material divided by its total volume, including void spaces. Therefore, a low bulk density has a higher volume compared to mass resulting in a material that has high void volume, and thus has less area taken up by filaments. According to page 67, lines 4-6, the filamentary density is the area taken up by filaments in each segment divided by segment area. Similar to bulk density, a low filamentary density appears to represent a material that has a high void area compared to filament area. Bulk density measures the “amount” of filament through mass, versus the filamentary density measures the “amount” of filament through area. These values are considered comparable because in order to increase the area of filaments covered by a cross-section as in the instant specification, mass would need to be added. Similarly in order to reduce the area covered by the filaments mass would need to be removed.
It is noted that even though the filamentary density is referred to as a “density”, it is calculated using areas from a 2-dimensional cross-section. Conversely, a bulk density is a 3-dimensional measurement. Since the length, width, and thickness dimensions in both the Example of Schmidt and the instant specification’s method for determining the filamentary density are constant, it is the position of the Examiner that a comparison of the bulk densities of the stratum is comparable to the filamentary density as both measure the amount of filaments to a total measurement of filaments + void space.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the bulk density of the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) and the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) to have a relationship within the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a low loft layer (first stratum (A)) which provides the necessary sound attenuation properties (Schmidt; paragraph [0034]) and a high loft layer (second stratum (B)) which has the desired weight while taking up the necessary space for use of the laminate (Schmidt; paragraph [0035]). Optimizing the layers would necessarily optimize their ratio. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable or optimum ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
As mentioned above, changing the bulk density would necessarily change the filament area and void area in a cross-section. Therefore, optimizing the bulk density would also optimize the filamentary density.
With respect to claim 53, Schmidt teaches all the limitations of claim 52 above. Schmidt further teaches a third layer, which is a low loft, high density layer (third stratum (C)) may be placed on the side of the high loft, low density layer (second stratum (B)) which is opposite the first layer (first stratum (A)) (paragraph [0084]). The third layer (third stratum (C)) would also be a spunbond layer (paragraph [0084]).
The filaments of the low loft layer (third stratum (C)) are preferably multicomponent filaments (paragraph [0040]). When the low loft layer (third stratum (C)) is a multicomponent spunbond nonwoven web, the low loft layer (third stratum (C)) is made using the same equipment as the high loft material (second stratum (B)) (paragraph [0078]). 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 multicomponent fibers of the low loft layer (third stratum (C)) to contain at least two component polymers having melting points that differ by at least 5oC as in the high loft material (second stratum (B)) in order to bond the low loft layer (third stratum (C)) through interfiber bonds while maintaining the physical and dimensional integrity of the web.
With respect to the low melting point component (first component) of each of the multifilaments in the low loft layer (third stratum (C)) forming at least 20% of the area of the surface of the filaments, the low loft layer (third stratum (C)) filaments may be core-sheath filaments (paragraph [0040]) which would result in the low melting point component (first component) forming 100% of the area of the surface of the filament.
It the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of low melting point component (first component) is present on the surface of the fiber to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a multicomponent fiber that provides the desired interfiber bonding while maintaining the physical and dimensional integrity of the nonwoven (see e.g., Schmidt paragraphs [0041]-[0042]). It has been held 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claims 56-57, Schmidt teaches all the limitations of claim 52 above. In Example 1 of Schmidt the filaments of the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) and the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) are polyethylene/polypropylene side-by-side fibers (paragraphs [0118]-[0119]).
With respect to claim 58, Schmidt teaches all the limitations of claim 52 above. Schmidt further teaches polymers suitable for use in the bicomponent fibers include polyolefins such as polypropylene and polyethylene and polyesters (paragraph [0043]). With respect to which polymer would be the first component, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to choose from the list the material with the lower melting point in order to provide the necessary interfiber bonds while maintaining the structure of the other polymer thus allowing the web to maintain its physical and dimensional integrity (see e.g., paragraphs [0041]-[0042] of Schmidt).
With respect to claim 59, Schmidt teaches all the limitations of claim 52 above. Schmidt further teaches polymers suitable for use in the bicomponent fibers include polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate and the like (paragraph [0043]) and polylactic acid (claim 13).
With respect to claim 60, Schmidt teaches all the limitations of claim 60 above. Schmidt discloses the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach wherein the fabric delamination strength is equal to or higher than 0.5 N. It is reasonable to presume that the delamination strength is inherent to Schmidt. Support for said presumption is found in that as described in the rejections above, Schmidt teaches the structural limitations of the claimed nonwoven fabric. Additionally, page 30, line 31 through page 31, line 5 of the instant specification describes how a fully bonded fabric with no or low level of strata structure will have good surface stability and a high delamination strength. Similarly, Schmidt teaches interfiber bonding within the layers (paragraph [0042]) and air-bonding the layers together (paragraph [0120]). Since Schmidt teaches the use of the same materials and a similar bonding structure, particularly the formation of a cohesive nonwoven, the nonwoven of Schmidt is expected to have the same properties as the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 61-62, Schmidt teaches all the limitations of claim 52 above. Schmidt further teaches a third layer (second layer (ii)), which is a low loft, high density layer may be placed on the side of the high loft, low density layer (second stratum (B)) which is opposite the first layer (first stratum (A)) (together make the first layer (i)) (paragraph [0084]).
With respect to claim 63, Schmidt teaches all the limitations of claim 61 above. In Example 1 of Schmidt the filaments in both the low loft layer (first stratum (A)) and the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) are polyethylene/polypropylene side-by-side fibers (the same components arranged in the same way) (paragraphs [0118]-[0119]).
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2004/0077247) as applied to claim 52 above and further in view of Nakahira (US 2017/0327983).
With respect to claim 55, Schmidt teaches all the limitations of claim 52 above.
Schmidt is silent as to the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) containing at least some cavities with a length to height ratio of 10:1.
Nakahira teaches a non-woven fabric comprising a base portion configured by entangling some of a plurality of ultrafine fibers and a fiber bundle configured by the entangling of other ultrafine fibers and that is entangled with the base portion, wherein the fiber bundle has a lower void fraction than the base portion (paragraphs [0008]-[0011]). The void fraction of the fiber bundle is preferably 90% or more and less than 99% (paragraph [0053]). The fibers become denser as the void fraction decreases, making it difficult for gases to pass between the fibers (paragraph [0053]). With a void fraction of 99% or higher, the fibers will be weakly entangled and the mechanical strength becomes insufficient (paragraph [0053]). The non-woven fabric may be used as acoustic absorbents (paragraph [0076]).
Since both Schmidt and Nakahira teach sound attenuating nonwovens comprising high loft and low loft layers, 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 void fraction of the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) of Schmidt to have a void fraction of 90-99% in order to provide the ability for gas to pass between the fibers while maintaining the mechanical integrity of the nonwoven.
Schmidt in view of Nakahira does not explicitly teach the voids in the high loft layer (second stratum (B) having an aspect ratio of 10:1. However it is reasonable to presume that the void aspect ratio is inherent to Schmidt in view of Nakamura. Support for said presumption is found in that the void fraction of the high loft layer (second stratum (B)) is 90-99%, therefore it is expected that at least some of the voids will have an aspect ratio of 10:1. The instant specification at page 17, lines 6-14 discloses that areas with fewer interfilamentary conjunction exhibit larger void volumes and also a larger total void volume for a given area. The examples of the instant specification have % cavities of over 15% (Example 1, page 44) and over 20% (Examples 3-5, page 48; Example 10, page 53; Example 11, page 56; Example 15, page 60). The void fraction of Schmidt in view of Nakahira shows there is little interfilamentary conjunction in the high loft layer (second stratum (B)), and it is evident from the cavity percentages of the instant examples that the void fraction of 90-99% of Schmidt in view of Nakahira is sufficient to provide at least some cavities with an aspect ratio of at least 10:1. See MPEP 2112.
Response to Arguments
Response – Drawings
The objections to the drawings have been overcome by Applicant’s arguments in the response received on April 2, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 57-59 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed April 2, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §102 and 103
The rejections of:
claim(s) 52-54, 56-58, and 60-63 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold (US 6649547);
claim(s) 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold (US 6649547); and
claim(s) 59 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold (US 6649547) and further in view of Hassman (US 2010/0307338)
have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed April 2, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights