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 .
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) 9-10 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al (2003/0188819) and Blenke (US 6,537,403) in view of each other.
Claim 9: Campbell et al taught that it was known alter a portion of a substrate by providing a nip 155 between a first device having an outer surface, anvil 170, and a second device including a source of vibration energy, horn 160, and feeding a substrate through the nip to alter a portion of the substrate [0096] wherein prior to the nip one applied thermal energy (from an ultrasonic source) to raise a temperature of a portion of the substrate to a temperature below the melting point of the portion of the substrate wherein the temperature was between 160-250 degrees F (71-121 degrees C), see anvil 140, horn 130 and nip 120, paragraph [0090]. The reference to Campbell et al taught that the material was not necessarily bonded with the preheating (thus the heating is such that it was below the melting temperature of the webs fed therethrough). The reference taught that as the webs passed through the second nip 155, the webs were bonded together and thus the substrates were altered at the second nip during processing [0096].
Campbell does not explicitly teach rotating anvil 170 and horn 160 at different surface velocities. Campbell is used to make absorbent articles such as diapers [0065]. Blenke teaches a similar method to make absorbent articles such as diapers (col. 5, lines 16-25) using ultrasonic bonding in which a rotating anvil (86) and a rotating ultrasonic horn (28) form a nip in between them, convey the substrate through the nip, and apply vibration energy to bond the layers of the substrate (Abstract, col. 5, line 54-col. 6, line 11, Fig. 1). Blenke teaches that the peripheral velocities of the horn and anvil may be different (col. 6, lines 36-41; col. 26, lines 12-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have permitted Campbell’s anvil and horn to rotate at different speeds as a known set of conditions of interest which would yield predictable results. Alternatively, Blenke teaches all the elements of claim 9 except applying thermal energy upstream of the nip. Campbell teaches applying thermal energy upstream of the nip, as discussed above, to provide a particular bond strength or different relative bond strengths as discussed at [0091]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have added Campbell’s preheating to Blenke’s anvil and horn rotating at different speeds in order to produce particular desired bond strengths.
There are only two possibilities for different speeds, that the horn speed is greater than the anvil speed or that the anvil speed is greater than the horn speed, and they are both rendered obvious. Where the horn speed is higher, the shear rate is necessarily higher than if it were a lower speed. The process results in partial or complete melting and increases flowing, demonstrating that the apparent viscosity has been lowered (Blenke, col. 4, lines 55-65).
Claim 10: The ultrasonic horn (Campbell 160 and Blenke 28) is a sonotrode. (See definition in instant specification at p. 7, lines 22-25).
Claim 14: The process may be applied intermittently (Campbell [0073]).
Claim 15: Campbell taught that the material was fed from the first nip to the second nip and thus one kept the webs preheated prior to introduction into the second nip and the substrate did not contact the first device until it entered the nip therein (Fig. 4).
Claim 16: The entire substrate is heated and thus thermal energy was applied to both sides of the substrate.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Campbell ‘819 in view of Blenke ‘403 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Rocha (US 2010/0180407).
Campbell and Blenke are discussed above but do not teach that the first device has a plurality of recesses in the outer surface of the first device having a shape configured to produce projection suitable for use in a touch fastener. Rocha teaches use an ultrasonic horn (13) and roller (15) to laminate together two layers (11, 90) [0089] to make diapers [0049] wherein the roller (15) has recesses (17) for simultaneously molding projections (19) to be used as touch fasteners for the diaper [0089, 0086, 0049]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have provided recesses in Campbell’s anvil 170 in order to have formed Rocha’s touch fasteners for the diaper.
Claim 14: Rocha further teaches intermittent operation (Abstract).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Campbell ‘819 in view of Blenke ‘403 as applied to claims 9-10 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Couillard (US 2002/0062900).
Claim 11: Campbell et al is discussed above in paragraph 3 and applicant is referred to the same for a complete discussion of the reference. It should be noted that the reference suggested the claimed vibration energy having a sinusoidal amplitude (3.1 mil=78.7 microns peak-to -peak; therefore about 39 microns zero-to-peak) and the applied energy input (20 kHz) (see paragraph [0109] of Campbell). The reference failed to teach the specified pressure applied to the substrate as it was passed through the rotary ultrasonic system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have looked to related references for operative forces for ultrasonic bonding of diapers.
Couillard teaches ultrasonic bonding [0001] to make absorbent articles such as diapers [0064]. Couillard teaches applying a force of at least 400 pounds per inch of width (approximately 1.75 kN per 25 mm width) [0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a force of at least 1.75 kN per 25 mm in the ultrasonic bonding operation of Campbell and Blenke because Couillard teaches that such is a suitable process for the ultrasonic bonding process.
Claim 14: The process may be applied intermittently (Campbell [0073]; Couillard [0003, 0065, 0141]).
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Campbell ‘819 in view of Blenke ‘403 and Couillard ‘900 as applied to claims 11 and 14 above, and further in view of Rocha ‘407 as applied to claims 13-14 above.
Claims 1 and 7: Campbell et al is discussed above in paragraph 3 and applicant is referred to the same for a complete discussion of the reference. It should be noted that the reference suggested the claimed vibration energy having a sinusoidal amplitude (3.1 mil=78.7 microns peak-to -peak; therefore about 39 microns zero-to-peak) and the applied energy input (20 kHz) (see paragraph [0109] of Campbell). The reference failed to teach the specified pressure applied to the substrate as it was passed through the rotary ultrasonic system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have looked to related references for operative forces for ultrasonic bonding of diapers.
Couillard teaches ultrasonic bonding [0001] to make absorbent articles such as diapers [0064]. Couillard teaches applying a force of at least 400 pounds per inch of width (approximately 1.75 kN per 25 mm width) [0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a force of at least 1.75 kN per 25 mm in the ultrasonic bonding operation of Campbell and Blenke because Couillard teaches that such is a suitable process for the ultrasonic bonding process.
Campbell and Blenke are discussed above but do not teach that the first device has a plurality of recesses in the outer surface of the first device having a shape configured to produce projection suitable for use in a touch fastener. Rocha teaches use an ultrasonic horn (13) and roller (15) to laminate together two layers (11, 90) [0089] to make diapers [0049] wherein the roller (15) has recesses (17) for simultaneously molding projections (19) to be used as touch fasteners for the diaper [0089, 0086, 0049]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have provided recesses in Campbell’s anvil 170 in order to have formed Rocha’s touch fasteners for the diaper. The rotation and vibration aid in molding the projections and therefore improve packout.
Claim 2: The process may be applied intermittently (Campbell [0073]; Couillard [0003, 0065, 0141], Rocha (Abstract)).
Claim 3: See discussion of Campbell, re claim 9 above.
Claim 5: Couillard teaches that the velocities may be variable (col. 6, lines 12-25; col. 26, lines 4-15)
Claim 6: The ultrasonic horn (Campbell 160 and Blenke 28) is a sonotrode. (See definition in instant specification at p. 7, lines 22-25).
Claim 8: The substrate comprises more than one layer (e.g., webs 100, 102 of Campbell, which are themselves multilayer [0088].)
Claim(s) 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell ‘819 in view of Blenke ‘403 as applied to claims 9-10 and 15-16 above, in view of either one of Newcomb (US 3312580) or James (US 3360412).
Claim 17: Campbell is discussed above and applicant is referred to the same, the reference failed to teach that one skilled in the art would have included a means for conveying the material into the nip which included a spreader upstream of the nip in order to mitigate folding of the material prior to being fed into the nip. The references to James or Newcomb suggested that it was known at the time the invention was made to provide a spreader prior to the bonding nip in order to prevent wrinkling and folding over of the material prior to introduction into the nip. More specifically, applicant is referred to James at column 9, lines 65-68 and Newcomb at column 2, lines 22-30. Clearly prior to introduction into a bonding nip, it was notoriously well known to incorporate a spreader in order to remove wrinkles from the material prior to introduction into the nip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a spreader prior to the bonding nip in Campbell et al as suggested by either one of James or Newcomb in order to avoid wrinkles in the material prior to introduction into the nip. Blenke teaches that the bonding results in partial or complete melting at the nip (col. 4, lines 61-65). There are only two possibilities for different speeds, that the horn speed is greater than the anvil speed or that the anvil speed is greater than the horn speed, and they are both rendered obvious. Because the nip compresses the substrates, melting will necessarily pool upstream of the nip.
Claim 18: See discussion of Campbell, re claim 9 above.
Claim 20: The process may be applied intermittently (Campbell [0073]).
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell ‘819 in view of Blenke ‘403 and (Newcomb (US 3312580) or James (US 3360412)) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Couillard ‘900 for the same reasons it was applied to claims 1 and 11 above..
Rocha taught a process for treating a material to form a hook component of a fastener on the material via passing the material through a nip formed between an ultrasonic device and another molding surface having cavities thereon for forming the fastener components therein. The reference clearly required shaping of the material as it was fed through the nip and additionally even included the use of multiple horns therein to treat the material. There is no indication one would have preheated the material therein prior to feeding the material to the nip where the material was exposed to the ultrasonic treatment. Campbell et al taught that prior to introduction into the nip for treating the material it was well understood to preheat the material therein (and it should be noted that preheating the material in Campbell resulted in better bonding and one would have readily appreciated that preheating the material in Rocha would have resulted in easier shaping of the material with the nip to produce the hook fasteners therein).
It should be noted that the Rocha taught the use of intermittent application of the vibration energy in the processing therein and that one skilled in the art additionally would have known to use a sonic horn in the form of a blade therein rather than a rotary horn.
Response to Arguments
The rejections based on EP ‘139 were an artifact of the original non-final rejection and were intended to be withdrawn in the previous action. They have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitations are unconvincing, as explained in the rejections above. The amendment to claim 1 relating to packout are obvious further in view of Rocha, as it was applied to claim 7.
The amendment to claim 9 is unconvincing because there are only two possibilities for different speeds, that the horn speed is greater than the anvil speed or that the anvil speed is greater than the horn speed, and they are both rendered obvious. Where the horn speed is higher, the shear rate is necessarily higher than if it were a lower speed. The process results in partial or complete melting and increases flowing, demonstrating that the apparent viscosity has been lowered (Blenke, col. 4, lines 55-65).
The amendment to claim 9 is unconvincing because there are only two possibilities for different speeds, that the horn speed is greater than the anvil speed or that the anvil speed is greater than the horn speed, and they are both rendered obvious. Because the nip compresses the substrates, melting will necessarily pool upstream of the nip.
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 MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712