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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 7/7/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites an elastic recovery rate of 40% or more and 99% or less, but does not recite the elongation from which the development medium recovers. Elastic recovery rate is always relative to first having been elongated to a particular degree, for example, elastic recovery from 50% elongation or 100% elongation, etc. Any material will have a point beyond which it can not be elongated and at which is will break, so the elastic recovery rate needs to be relative to the degree of elongation from which the material elastically recovers.
Also claim 5 recites “a fiber length” but claim 1 does not disclose that the material is fibrous or contains fibers. The claimed structure which includes a fiber as recited in claim 5 is not clear. It appears from the specification that the development medium is preferably a nonwoven fabric but this limitation is not present in claim 1. Therefore, the structure of claim 5 is not clear.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simmonds et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0108063.
Simmonds discloses a porous elastic nonwoven. The nonwoven has a recovery of 90% or more from extensions of 75% and porosity of 88-90%. See paragraphs 0009 and 0031. The fabric can include microfibers having a diameter of 10 microns or less and nanofibers having a diameter of less than 1 microns. See paragraph 0009. The nonwoven can have a basis weight of 28.7 gsm. See paragraph 0031. The nonwoven can have a thickness of 0.178 mm, which is 178 microns.
With regard to the limitation “A development medium”, because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Additionally, the limitation of “A development medium” is considered a statement of intended use. Since the structure disclose in Simmonds is identical to the claimed structure, it is capable of performing the intended use.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,814,569.
Suzuki discloses a elastic nonwoven fabric. See abstract. The fabric has an elastic recovery of 60% or more. See col. 4, lines 1-15. The fabric can comprise polyester fibers. See col. 4, lines 34-65. The fabric has a porosity of 85% or more. See col. 7, lines 1-24. The fabric can have a weight of 30 gsm. See example 1.
With regard to the limitation “A development medium”, because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Additionally, the limitation of “A development medium” is considered a statement of intended use. Since the structure disclose in Suzuki is identical to the claimed structure, it is capable of performing the intended use.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over either of Simmonds or Suzuki.
With regard to the abrasion fuzz, since the structures of Simmonds and Suzuki are the same as the claimed structure, either the claimed abrasion fuzz would have necessarily have been present or else it would have been obvious to have selected particular materials and treatments which provided the desired degree of abrasion fuzz.
Claim(s) 4-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of Simmonds or Suzuki as set forth above in view of Hassenboehler, Jr. et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,747,394 .
Simmonds and Suzuki both teach porous elastic fabrics as set forth above.
Simmonds and Suzuki differ from the claimed invention because they do not teach providing multiple layers and do not teach the claimed pore sizes, or fiber length.
However, Hassenboehler discloses nonwoven webs and laminates thereof. The webs can be elastic. See abstract. The fibers can have diameter of 0.5-10 microns for the meltblown layers and 8-50 microns for the spunbonded layers. See col. 1, lines 45-60. Hassenboehler teaches that the porosity of the nonwovens is directly related to the diameter of the fibers, wherein small diameter fibers produce smaller pore sizes and larger diameter fibers produce larger pore sizes in the nonwoven. See col. 2, lines 29-60. The laminates can have a final weight of 0.5-24 osy, which corresponds to about 17-813 gsm which encompasses the claimed range. See col. 5, lines 48-61. Hassenboehler teaches providing different layers with different porosities controls properties such as wicking, absorbencies and barrier properties. See col. 6, lines 1-15. Hassenboehler teaches that extruded polymeric fibers can be formed to a variety of lengths from continuous to a particularly defined length.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided multiple layers having different fiber diameters and thus different pore sizes as taught by Hassenboehler in order to provide fabrics having different wicking, absorbent and barrier properties and to have selected suitable fiber lengths which provided a suitably strong fabric.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dudek et al, U.S. patent Application Publication No. 2007/0059642 discloses a development medium which can be an absorbent material. See abstract. The development medium can include nonwoven fabrics, paper, fibrous woven materials, open celled foams and other porous materials. The absorbent medium can have a thickness of 2-20 mils. See paragraph 0019. Dudek does not clearly teach the particular properties of the nonwoven such as elasticity and porosity as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights