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 .
Priority
Although the instant application claims priority to provisional application 62/199,614, the earliest enabling disclosure for the pending claims are found in provisional application 62/268,759. Specifically, although 62/199,614 discloses zone, it does not disclose microzones (and regions within a microzone). As such, the effective filing date for all pending claims is deemed to be 17 December 2015.
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 1-8 and 10-12; claims 13-15, 17, and 18; and claim 19 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.
Common to each of independent claims 1, 13, and 19 is the recitation of “the second plurality of three dimensional features collectively forming a contiguous area having substantially the same Z-direction maximum dimensions relative to the X-Y plane”. This recitation is indefinite, because as phrased, the entire contiguous area is recited the have the same Z-direction dimension (viz. a mesa like structure). However, the specification as filed is quite clear that “having substantially the same Z-direction maximum dimensions relative to the X-Y plane” applies solely to the plurality of projections in the second region, as opposed to the area spanned by the second region, such an area including both the projections and concavities between projections. The same issue also applies to the first plurality of three dimensional features; and it is the features, not the contiguous area spanned by the first plurality of three dimensional features, that have substantially different heights. For prior art rejection below, the recitations are interpreted to be in line with what is described in the specification.
As claims 2-8 and 10-12 depend on claim 1, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 1, claims 2-8 and 10-12 are also held to be rejected.
As claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 depend on claim 13, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 13, claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are also held to be rejected.
Claim Interpretation
As amended, each of claims 1, 13, and 19 require melt-spun bicomponent fibers. Melt spinning is a well-known technique in the art of nonwovens. Specifically, each of the following references originating from an Applicant different from the present Applicant state that melt spinning process is known to be effected via either a melt-blown process and/or a spinbonding process:
-“A specific example of meltspun microfibers are those which may be made by the meltblowing process, wherein the molten threads or filaments are extruded through a plurality of fine die capillaries into converging high velocity gas (e.g. air) streams which attenuate the filaments of molten thermoplastic material to reduce their diameter”. (U.S. 2004/0002273 A1 ¶ 0025, from Kimberly Clark, emphasis added).
-“As used herein the term “meltspun” includes “spunbond” or “meltblown”, and may or may not include bonding”. (U.S. 2013/0157537 A1 ¶ 0016, from Kimberly Clark, emphasis added).
-“Nonwoven fabrics are usually produced in a primary forming method using a melt-spinning process such as, for example, a spun-bond or a melt-blown process as described e.g. in DE 41 23 122 A1”. (U.S. 2015/0128545 A1 ¶ 0003, from Irema-Filter, emphasis added).
-“Conventional melt spinning processes produce fibers that can be collected into yarns and used as continuous fibers or chopped into staple fibers. Other examples of these types of melt spinning processes include spunbond and meltblowing processes”. (U.S. 2008/0160278 A1 ¶ 0012, from Du Pont, emphasis added).
-“The meltspun web 60 can be any melt-processed nonwoven materials with spun filaments. For instance, the melt spun web 60 can be A) at least one spunbond nonwoven, B) at least one meltblown nonwoven, or C) a composite of the spunbond and meltblown nonwovens”. (U.S. 2017/0354545 A1 ¶ 0028, from Welspun India, emphasis added).
-“As one of ordinary skill in the art will understand, a melt spinning process can be classified as a melt-blown process or a spunbond process depending on, for example, a temperature and a volume of air used to attenuate fibers and the location where the fibers are attenuated”. (U.S. 20050208300 A1 ¶ 0105, from Outlast Technologies, emphasis added).
Furthermore, even the present Applicant acknowledges that melt spun (aka spun melt) fiber encompasses meltblown and spunbond fiber. (See, e.g. U.S. 2022/0331480 A1 ¶ 0006 and U.S. 2006/0121207 A1 ¶ 0030).
In view of the foregoing, the long-established record from both the present Applicant and other Applicants show that each of meltblown and spunbond qualifies as melt-spin, with the two specifically recognized as examples of melt-spin. Prior art disclosing either is thus considered to have disclosed melt-spin.
Allowable Subject Matter
The example disclosed in Fig. 38 and Tables 4-7 is considered to contain allowable subject matter. However, in addition to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue mentioned above, further clarifications are needed (e.g. re: the contiguous nature and size of the claimed microzones).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 10-12; and claims 13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. 2008/0300562 A1 (“Ahoniemi”). Rejection of claim 8 is as further evidenced by U.S. 2003/0211800 (“Duncan”), U.S. 6,986,825 B1 (“Squires”), and U.S. 2006/0035555 A1 (“Narayanan”) or alternatively in view of well-known teachings in the art.
Considering claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10-12, Ahoniemi discloses a nonwoven suitable as a fluid pervious surface layer of an absorbent article, the nonwoven made of filaments and comprising a top surface defined by a plurality of protuberances and a bottom surface, the latter flatter than the former. (Ahoniemi ¶¶ 0009-0010, Figs. 1, 2, and 5, and clm. 1-9). Ahoniemi is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (nonwoven, in particular a fluid pervious one). Ahoniemi discloses that its nonwoven is at least partially constituted of filaments. (Id. ¶¶ 0061-0065). As such, usage of filaments is deemed disclosed with sufficient specificity or alternatively obvious. Furthermore, Ahoniemi discloses its nonwoven to be made of synthetic filaments in a meltblown or spunlaid process, wherein the synthetic filaments are bicomponent fibers. (Id. ¶¶ 0024 and 0059-0062). As noted above, fibers produced via the meltblown process is by definition one produced using a melt-spin process.
Ahoniemi discloses that the topography of the top surface is formed by drawing filaments through a foraminous surface having holes of different sizes arranged in a pattern, wherein size of a respective hole is positively correlated with height of the resulting respective protuberance formed by filaments drawn through the respective hole. (Id. ¶¶ 0038 and 0051-0054). In particular, one foraminous surface disclosed in Ahoniemi has a plurality of (identically shaped) small holes 52 arranged into various respective contiguous areas and a plurality of respective hearts 54 and circles 53 arranged into various respective contiguous areas. (Id. Fig. 5, reproduced infra). Each protuberance shaped by small holes 52 has a lower height h1, and a region spanned by such protuberances read on the claimed second region (having substantially the same Z-direction maximum dimensions). A floral pattern defined by four heart shaped holes 54 that surround a central circular hole 53 has different heights, thereby reading on the claimed first region (having different Z-direction maximum dimensions). With Ahoniemi disclosing that density is lower in a protuberance (implying higher protuberance has lower density), the foregoing reads on claims 2 and 4. Ahoniemi anticipates or renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10-12.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Considering claim 5, though not a preferred embodiment, Ahoniemi nonetheless states that additional thermal bonding can take place when using filaments. (Id. ¶ 0063).
Considering claim 6, this claim recites a product by process limitations. “[E]ven 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). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); MPEP § 2113). Formation of the fabric via hot-air through bonding as instantly claimed is not considered to provide a patentably distinct structure from the thermal bonding process of the prior art unless Applicant provides evidence showing otherwise.
Considering claim 8, Ahoniemi discloses the fibers to be meltblown or spunlaid fibers. (Ahoniemi ¶ 0062). Spunlaid is synonymous with spunbond. (See Duncan ¶ 0013, Squires col. 1 line 12-23, and Narayanan ¶ 0044). As such, Ahoniemi per se anticipates or renders obvious claim 8. Alternatively, were the foregoing to be challenged (which is not conceded), as discussed at ¶¶ 7-9 above, meltblown is a well-known alternative to spunbond, and usage of spunbond in lieu of meltblown would be obvious.
Considering claims 13, 15, 17, and 18, these claims recite the combination of claims already rejected above and are rejected for the same reason as indicated above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3; claim 14; and claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Ahoniemi, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. 2011/0123775 A1 (“Westwood”).
Considering claims 3, 14, and 19, Ahoniemi as discussed above renders obvious every limitation except that regarding difference in basis weight.
Westwood teaches that adjacent zones of the nonwoven could have different properties such as basis weight, wherein the nonwoven suitable for forming a back sheet of a diaper. (Westwood ¶ 0028 and Figs. 4-6). Westwood is analogous, as it is from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (nonwoven used for diapers). Person having ordinary skill in the art has reasonable expectation of success that the teachings of Westwood could be applied to Ahoniemi (or vice versa), given similarities between the references (e.g. both teach that the respective nonwovens can be made of autogenously bonded nonwoven formed from bicomponent filaments). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the teachings in Westwood regarding zones having respective different basis weights to the spunbond nonwoven of Ahoniemi, as Westwood teaches that this allows for region-specific tailoring of properties such as elasticity. (Id. ¶¶ 0007-0010).
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 1, 13, and 19 did not fully address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); this rejection is thus maintained has been withdrawn.
In view of amendments to claims 1, 13, and 19, the rejections over at least Yamanaka have been withdrawn.
In view of amendments to claims 1 and 13, the rejection over Ahoniemi has been withdrawn; new rejections over Ahoniemi have been instated above. Applicant’s arguments against prior art rejection over at least Ahoniemi has been considered, but they are not persuasive in view of discussion of ¶¶ 7-9 above.
Concluding Remarks
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 Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571)270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights