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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 9, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 13, and 15-18 are rejected 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-9, 13, and 15-18, claims 1 and 9 recites that all nonwoven layers of the nonwoven laminate are prepared from fiber mats formed from the stable fibers. It is unclear what the scope of “stable fibers” necessarily entails as such fibers are not ordinarily known in the art. Note that the recitation of “the stable fibers” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Additionally, the verbiage of the claims is unclear and renders the claims indefinite. For example, it is unclear if the layers are fiber mats which are formed from the stable fibers, or if the layers are generally prepared from fiber mats which were originally formed from stable fibers. In other words, it is unclear if the limitation is reciting that the layers are fiber mats formed of the stable fibers (i.e. further defining the structure of the layers), or if the limitation is merely reciting the starting materials for the layers, in that they are prepared from fiber mats which were originally formed from stable fibers (i.e further reciting the starting materials used to form the layers).
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 1-9, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2021/0023815 to Venugopal in view of US Pub. No. 2007/0184741 to Groten.
Regarding claims 1-9 and 13, Venugopal teaches a nonwoven laminate comprising a spunbond nonwoven layer (A) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and optional spunbond nonwoven layer (B) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, a needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C) comprising monocomponent polyethylene terephthalate staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers which comprise at least a polyethylene terephthalate component and a copolyester component, an optional spunbond nonwoven layer (D) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and a spunbond nonwoven layer (E) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, wherein all layers are melt-bonded to each other (Venugopal, Abstract). Venugopal teaches that none of the layers are mechanically bonded to other layers (Id., paragraph 0051). Note that Venugopal recites that all of the fibers comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester (see additionally Id., paragraphs 0038-0043, 0054, claim 1). Venugopal teaches at Figs. 3-5 multicomponent fibers useful for spunbond nonwoven layers 2, 3, 5, and/or 6 (Id., paragraphs 0132-0134). Venugopal teaches that the needled staple fibre nonwoven layer (C) has a basis weight according to DIN EN 29073-1:1992-08 of ≤ 1700 g/m2, more preferably of 500 to 1700 g/m2 (Id., paragraph 0093).
Venugopal does not appear to teach that each of the layers comprise staple fibers. However, Groten teaches non-woven fabrics comprising threads not produced with the spun-bonding method for use in applications including high-strength materials for use as textile surface structures (Groten, Abstract, paragraph 0121), having a very high level of uniformity (Id., paragraph 0023). Groten teaches that the threads are made of high-strength polymer fibers, particularly polyester (Id., paragraphs 0052, 0059), and that the threads may comprise bicomponent fibers (Id., paragraph 0069). Groten teaches that the threads are made of fibers having fiber lengths ranging from one millimeter to several centimeters (Id., paragraphs 0026-0030). Note that such fiber lengths are within the scope of staple fibers. Groten teaches that the non-wovens may be deposited in several layers and stabilized by thermal methods (Id., paragraphs 0073-0074).
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 laminate of Venugopal, substituting the spunbond fibres with threads comprising staple fibers, as taught by Groten, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven laminate comprising fibers known in the art to provide a very high level of uniformity suitable for the intended application.
Regarding the claimed limitation wherein all layers of the nonwoven laminate are prepared from fiber mats formed from stable fibers, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the claimed limitation appears directed to the source of the claimed staple fibers and is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed bending force. However, Venugopal teaches an increased bending strength according to ISO 178:2019-04 of ≥ 330 MPa, a tensile strength of ≥ 780 N and a tear strength of ≥ 110 N (Venugopal, paragraphs 0058-0066). Note the overlapping ranges for similar or identical properties disclosed in Applicants’ specification. Since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, including similar or identical overlapping properties, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the claimed bending force naturally flows from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination does not appear to teach that layer (A) is needled before combining the layers. However, claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, which recites that the layers are bonded to each other by melt-bonding. Additionally, Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0038 teaches that each layer comprises at least one component, which contributes to melt bonding. Therefore, the recitation of needling before combining the layers is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches spunbond nonwoven layer (A), optional spunbond nonwoven layer (B) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and a needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C). Since spunbond nonwoven layer (B) is optional, spunbond nonwoven layer (A) and needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C) are within the scope of the claimed laminate.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches that the layered structure has an initial overall thickness of 7.0 mm, or a compression moulded final thickness of between 2 mm and 6 mm (Venugopal, paragraphs 0141-0144). Additionally, the prior art combination teaches a tensile strength of ≥ 780 N and a tear strength of ≥ 110 N (Id., paragraphs 0058-0066).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches that the copolyester in the layers has a melting point of ≤ 240ºC (Venugopal, paragraph 0068).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the prior art combination teaches that layers (A) and (E) comprise at least 30% copolyester, more preferred 30 to 70% copolyester, to achieve an increased bending strength and increased peel strength (Venugopal, paragraphs 0076-0078). Since the fibers of layer (A) are multicomponent which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the multicomponent fibers comprise at least 30% copolyester, more preferred 30 to 70% copolyester.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the prior art combination teaches that the outer layers 2 and 6 weigh between 10 and 500 g/m2 (Venugopal, paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches that the needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C) consists of 10 to 90% monocomponent staple fibers and 10 to 90% multicomponent staple fibers (Venugopal, paragraphs 0082-0084).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, the prior art combination teaches that the laminate is heated and shaped, suited for applications as an underbody shield material or wheel arch liner (Venugopal, paragraphs 0057, 0104, 0106).
Regarding claims 15-18, Venugopal teaches a nonwoven laminate comprising a spunbond nonwoven layer (A) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and optional spunbond nonwoven layer (B) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, a needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C) comprising monocomponent polyethylene terephthalate staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers which comprise at least a polyethylene terephthalate component and a copolyester component, an optional spunbond nonwoven layer (D) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and a spunbond nonwoven layer (E) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, wherein all layers are melt-bonded to each other (Venugopal, Abstract). Venugopal teaches that none of the layers are mechanically bonded to other layers (Id., paragraph 0051). Note that Venugopal recites that all of the fibers comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester (see additionally Id., paragraphs 0038-0043, 0054, claim 1). Venugopal teaches at Figs. 3-5 multicomponent fibers useful for spunbond nonwoven layers 2, 3, 5, and/or 6 (Id., paragraphs 0132-0134). Venugopal teaches that the needled staple fibre nonwoven layer (C) has a basis weight according to DIN EN 29073-1:1992-08 of ≤ 1700 g/m2, more preferably of 500 to 1700 g/m2 (Id., paragraph 0093).
Venugopal does not appear to teach that each of the layers comprise staple fibers. However, Groten teaches non-woven fabrics comprising threads not produced with the spun-bonding method for use in applications including high-strength materials for use as textile surface structures (Groten, Abstract, paragraph 0121), having a very high level of uniformity (Id., paragraph 0023). Groten teaches that the threads are made of high-strength polymer fibers, particularly polyester (Id., paragraphs 0052, 0059), and that the threads may comprise bicomponent fibers (Id., paragraph 0069). Groten teaches that the non-wovens may be deposited in several layers and stabilized by thermal methods (Id., paragraphs 0073-0074).
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 laminate of Venugopal, substituting the spunbond fibres with threads comprising staple fibers, as taught by Groten, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven laminate comprising fibers known in the art to provide a very high level of uniformity suitable for the intended application.
Additionally, 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 laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the laminate comprises the layers and fibers, such as claimed, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven laminate having the desired layer and fiber configurations suitable for the intended application.
Regarding the claimed limitation wherein all layers of the nonwoven laminate are prepared from fiber mats formed from stable fibers, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the claimed limitation appears directed to the source of the claimed staple fibers and is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed bending force. However, Venugopal teaches an increased bending strength according to ISO 178:2019-04 of ≥ 330 MPa, a tensile strength of ≥ 780 N and a tear strength of ≥ 110 N (Venugopal, paragraphs 0058-0066). Note the overlapping ranges for similar or identical properties disclosed in Applicants’ specification. Since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, including similar or identical overlapping properties, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the claimed bending force naturally flows from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art combination does not appear to teach that layers (A) and (E) are needled before combining the layers. However, claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, which recites that the layers are bonded to each other by melt-bonding. Additionally, Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0038 teaches that each layer comprises at least one component, which contributes to melt bonding. Therefore, the recitation of needling before combining the layers is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Claims 1-9, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2021/0023815 to Venugopal in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0311795 to Bartl and USPN 7,521,386 to Wenstrup.
Regarding claims 1-9, 13, and 15-18, Venugopal teaches a nonwoven laminate comprising a spunbond nonwoven layer (A) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and optional spunbond nonwoven layer (B) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, a needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C) comprising monocomponent polyethylene terephthalate staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers which comprise at least a polyethylene terephthalate component and a copolyester component, an optional spunbond nonwoven layer (D) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and a spunbond nonwoven layer (E) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, wherein all layers are melt-bonded to each other (Venugopal, Abstract). Venugopal teaches that none of the layers are mechanically bonded to other layers (Id., paragraph 0051). Note that Venugopal recites that all of the fibers comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester (see additionally Id., paragraphs 0038-0043, 0054, claim 1). Venugopal teaches at Figs. 3-5 multicomponent fibers useful for spunbond nonwoven layers 2, 3, 5, and/or 6 (Id., paragraphs 0132-0134). Venugopal teaches that the needled staple fibre nonwoven layer (C) has a basis weight according to DIN EN 29073-1:1992-08 of ≤ 1700 g/m2, more preferably of 500 to 1700 g/m2 (Id., paragraph 0093).
Venugopal teaches that in the prior art, upon heating a layered material, staple fibre layers will typically shrink, whereas the spunbond layers will typically not shrink, resulting in a moulded product which is not flat (Venugopal, paragraph 0006). However, Bartl teaches a thermally fusible interlining nonwoven including a fusing layer (A) having at least one staple fiber nonwoven containing at least 50% by weight of thermoplastic staple fibers, bonded to a layer (B) including at least one staple fiber nonwoven or a staple fiber nonwoven fabric having staple fibers, wherein the nonwoven is used in automobiles (Bartl, Abstract, paragraph 0003, claim 43). Bartl teaches that the staple fibers used can be homopolymers or copolymers of polyesters (Id., paragraphs 0054-0057), wherein each of the layers contains up to 100% by weight of staple fibers (Id., paragraphs 0038, 0052). Bartl teaches that the length of the staple fibers can change due to thermal shrinkage (Id., paragraph 0056). Bartl teaches that the method for bonding layers have to be fundamentally carried out in such a way as to prevent excessive shrinkage of the thermoplastic fibers during the fusing of the interlining material, since this would lead to irregularity of the fused area, for example, wave formation (Id., paragraphs 0073, 0088). Bartl teaches that the layers are bonding together first by means of a calendar apparatus, the nonwoven is preferably obtained by means of thermal treatment (Id., paragraphs 0082-0095).
Additionally, Wenstrup teaches a moldable heat shield with a nonwoven core layer and nonwoven shell layers, wherein the core layer has a blend of polyester staple fibers and low melt polyester staple fibers, and the shell layers comprise staple fibers of polyester (Wenstrup, Abstract). Wenstrup teaches that the shell layers are used to construct a low weight skin attached to the core on one or both sides, wherein the invention has superior molding process performance and superior sound and heat absorptive performance, wherein heat shielding parts include vehicle hood liners (Id., column 1 lines 5-30).
Venugopal teaches that in the prior art, upon heating a layered material, staple fibre layers will typically shrink, whereas the spunbond layers will typically not shrink, resulting in a moulded product which is not flat. Bartl, which shares the same assignee as Venugopal, acknowledges that staple fiber layers for use in automobiles will shrink. However, Bartl establishes a manner to prevent shrinkage in layered nonwovens comprising polyester staple fiber, such as by initially calendaring followed by thermal bonding, thereby remedying the issues set forth in Venugopal. Additionally, Wenstrup establishes that layered polyester staple fibers were known in the art as being predictably suitable for moldable heat shielding parts, where superior molding process performance and superior sound and heat absorptive performance are desired.
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 laminate of Venugopal, wherein all the fibers are staple fibers and the shrinkage of the fibers is controlled, as taught by Bartl and Wenstrup, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven laminate comprising fibers known in the art to be predictably suitable for similar molding applications, and having superior molding process performance and superior sound and heat absorptive performance.
Regarding the claimed limitation wherein all layers of the nonwoven laminate are prepared from fiber mats formed from stable fibers, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the claimed limitation appears directed to the source of the claimed staple fibers and is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed bending force. However, Venugopal teaches an increased bending strength according to ISO 178:2019-04 of ≥ 330 MPa, a tensile strength of ≥ 780 N and a tear strength of ≥ 110 N (Venugopal, paragraphs 0058-0066). Note the overlapping ranges for similar or identical properties disclosed in Applicants’ specification. Since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, including similar or identical overlapping properties, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the claimed bending force naturally flows from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination does not appear to teach that layer (A) is needled before combining the layers. However, claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, which recites that the layers are bonded to each other by melt-bonding. Additionally, Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0038 teaches that each layer comprises at least one component, which contributes to melt bonding. Therefore, the recitation of needling before combining the layers is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches spunbond nonwoven layer (A), optional spunbond nonwoven layer (B) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and a needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C). Since spunbond nonwoven layer (B) is optional, spunbond nonwoven layer (A) and needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C) are within the scope of the claimed laminate.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches that the layered structure has an initial overall thickness of 7.0 mm, or a compression moulded final thickness of between 2 mm and 6 mm (Venugopal, paragraphs 0141-0144). Additionally, the prior art combination teaches a tensile strength of ≥ 780 N and a tear strength of ≥ 110 N (Id., paragraphs 0058-0066).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches that the copolyester in the layers has a melting point of ≤ 240ºC (Venugopal, paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches that layers (A) and (E) comprise at least 30% copolyester, more preferred 30 to 70% copolyester, to achieve an increased bending strength and increased peel strength (Venugopal, paragraphs 0076-0078). Since the fibers of layer (A) are multicomponent which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the multicomponent fibers comprise at least 30% copolyester, more preferred 30 to 70% copolyester.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches that the outer layers 2 and 6 weigh between 10 and 500 g/m2 (Venugopal, paragraph 0125).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches that the needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C) consists of 10 to 90% monocomponent staple fibers and 10 to 90% multicomponent staple fibers (Venugopal, paragraphs 0082-0084).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, the prior art combination teaches that the laminate is heated and shaped, suited for applications as an underbody shield material or wheel arch liner (Venugopal, paragraphs 0057, 0104, 0106).
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed bending force. However, Venugopal teaches an increased bending strength according to ISO 178:2019-04 of ≥ 330 MPa, a tensile strength of ≥ 780 N and a tear strength of ≥ 110 N (Venugopal, paragraphs 0058-0066). Note the overlapping ranges for similar or identical properties disclosed in Applicants’ specification. Since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, including similar or identical overlapping properties, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the claimed bending force naturally flows from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 15-18, Venugopal teaches a nonwoven laminate comprising a spunbond nonwoven layer (A) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and optional spunbond nonwoven layer (B) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, a needled staple fiber nonwoven layer (C) comprising monocomponent polyethylene terephthalate staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers which comprise at least a polyethylene terephthalate component and a copolyester component, an optional spunbond nonwoven layer (D) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, and a spunbond nonwoven layer (E) comprising fibers which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester, wherein all layers are melt-bonded to each other (Venugopal, Abstract). Venugopal teaches that none of the layers are mechanically bonded to other layers (Id., paragraph 0051). Note that Venugopal recites that all of the fibers comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester (see additionally Id., paragraphs 0038-0043, 0054, claim 1). Venugopal teaches at Figs. 3-5 multicomponent fibers useful for spunbond nonwoven layers 2, 3, 5, and/or 6 (Id., paragraphs 0132-0134). Venugopal teaches that the needled staple fibre nonwoven layer (C) has a basis weight according to DIN EN 29073-1:1992-08 of ≤ 1700 g/m2, more preferably of 500 to 1700 g/m2 (Id., paragraph 0093).
Venugopal teaches that in the prior art, upon heating a layered material, staple fibre layers will typically shrink, whereas the spunbond layers will typically not shrink, resulting in a moulded product which is not flat (Venugopal, paragraph 0006). However, Bartl teaches a thermally fusible interlining nonwoven including a fusing layer (A) having at least one staple fiber nonwoven containing at least 50% by weight of thermoplastic staple fibers, bonded to a layer (B) including at least one staple fiber nonwoven or a staple fiber nonwoven fabric having staple fibers, wherein the nonwoven is used in automobiles (Bartl, Abstract, paragraph 0003, claim 43). Bartl teaches that the staple fibers used can be homopolymers or copolymers of polyesters (Id., paragraphs 0054-0057), wherein each of the layers contains up to 100% by weight of staple fibers (Id., paragraphs 0038, 0052). Bartl teaches that the length of the staple fibers can change due to thermal shrinkage (Id., paragraph 0056). Bartl teaches that the method for bonding layers have to be fundamentally carried out in such a way as to prevent excessive shrinkage of the thermoplastic fibers during the fusing of the interlining material, since this would lead to irregularity of the fused area, for example, wave formation (Id., paragraphs 0073, 0088). Bartl teaches that the layers are bonding together first by means of a calendar apparatus, the nonwoven is preferably obtained by means of thermal treatment (Id., paragraphs 0082-0095).
Additionally, Wenstrup teaches a moldable heat shield with a nonwoven core layer and nonwoven shell layers, wherein the core layer has a blend of polyester staple fibers and low melt polyester staple fibers, and the shell layers comprise staple fibers of polyester (Wenstrup, Abstract). Wenstrup teaches that the shell layers are used to construct a low weight skin attached to the core on one or both sides, wherein the invention has superior molding process performance, wherein heat shielding parts include vehicle hood liners (Id., column 1 lines 5-30).
Venugopal teaches that in the prior art, upon heating a layered material, staple fibre layers will typically shrink, whereas the spunbond layers will typically not shrink, resulting in a moulded product which is not flat. Bartl, which shares the same assignee as Venugopal, acknowledges that staple fiber layers for use in automobiles will shrink. However, Bartl establishes a manner to prevent shrinkage in layered nonwovens comprising polyester staple fiber, such as by initially calendaring followed by thermal bonding, thereby remedying the issues set forth in Venugopal. Additionally, Wenstrup establishes that layered polyester staple fibers were known in the art as being predictably suitable for moldable heat shielding parts.
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 laminate of Venugopal, wherein all the fibers are staple fibers and the shrinkage of the fibers is controlled, as taught by Bartl and Wenstrup, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional nonwoven laminate comprising fibers known in the art to be predictably suitable for similar molding applications, and having superior molding process performance.
Regarding the claimed limitation wherein all layers of the nonwoven laminate are prepared from fiber mats formed from stable fibers, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the claimed limitation appears directed to the source of the claimed staple fibers and is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art combination does not appear to teach that layers (A) and (E) are needled before combining the layers. However, claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, which recites that the layers are bonded to each other by melt-bonding. Additionally, Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0038 teaches that each layer comprises at least one component, which contributes to melt bonding. Therefore, the recitation of needling before combining the layers is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed February 9, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the nonwoven fabrics of Groten are continuous threads, wherein the threads are produced from fibers by spinning, and thereby the fibers are converted into a different entity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires all fibers of the nonwoven laminate being staple fibers. Groten teaches that the threads are made of fibers. The fibers themselves are not converted into a different entity, as they remain fibers which are twisted. Therefore, the fibers of Groten are within the scope of the fibers of the nonwoven laminate being staple fibers, as the fibers themselves are not changed.
Applicants argue that Groten does not disclose or suggest fabrics from fiber mats formed from staple fibers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation directed to the layers being prepared from fibers mats formed from stable fibers is indefinite for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the limitation appears merely directed to the source of the staple fibers. The limitation does not appear to differentiate the structure of the prior art combination from the claimed invention.
Applicants’ remaining argument directed to advantages and technical effects were previously addressed. The previous response is incorporated herein.
Additionally, Applicants’ arguments directed to Abed are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 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
Prosecution Insights