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 .
FINAL REJECTION
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.
Claim 11 is 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 10, 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashraf et al. (US 2015/0126949).
As to claims 1 and 21, Ashraf discloses a method of forming a nonwoven fabric (abstract), comprising: (a) forming or providing a first intermediate spunmelt (para 35) nonwoven layer (para 28, “nonwoven” “sheet or web”) including a first plurality of spunmelt fibers said spunmelt fibers being spunbond fibers (para 35), wherein the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer comprises a first plurality of discrete thermal bond sites (para 28); and (b) subjecting the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer to a through-air-bonding (TAB) (para 46) operation to provide the nonwoven fabric (para 46, abstract, para 27-28, 35-50, figs 1, 4)).
As to claim 6-8, Ashraf discloses the first plurality of spunmelt fibers comprises bi-component fibers including a first component comprising a first biopolymer composition and a second component comprising a second biopolymer composition (para 17 – two discreet components), and wherein the first biopolymer composition and the second biopolymer composition each comprise at least a poly(lactic) acid (PLA) (para 37, 44), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), a poly(hydroxycarboxylic) acids, or any combination thereof, wherein the first plurality of spunmelt fibers comprise bi-component fibers wherein the first component comprises a core component and the second component comprises a sheath component (para 4, 39-40, claim 8).
As to claim 10, Ashraf discloses the first biopolymer composition comprises a first PLA or first PLA composition and the second biopolymer composition comprises a second PLA or a second PLA composition, (para 4, 17 39-40).
As to claim 13, Ashraf discloses the first plurality of spunmelt fibers comprise spunbond fibers, meltblown fibers, staple fibers, or combinations thereof (para 28, 35-40).
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) 2, 22, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf, as applied to claims 1, 21 and 8 above, and further in view of Foss et al. (US 2012/0051672).
As to claims 2 and 22, Ashraf discloses the first plurality of spunmelt fibers comprises bi-component fibers comprising a core component including a first biopolymer or first biopolymer composition and a sheath component including a second biopolymer or second biopolymer composition (para 4, 17, 25-27, 33-40, claim 8); wherein the first biopolymer or first biopolymer composition has a first melting temperature and the second biopolymer or second biopolymer composition has a second melting temperature (para 4, 17, 25-27, 33-40, claim 8).;
Ashra does not disclose a method wherein the first melting temperature is larger than the second melting temperature. Foss discloses a method making a non-woven web with at least two components, wherein the first component has a larger melting point than the second component (para 14, 20, 27-28, 44 claim 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ashraf such that the first component has a larger melting point than the second component as taught by Foss above as doing such enables greater bond strength, and better control over fiber orientation and heating time (para 2, 11-17).
As to claim 5, Foss disclose that the percentage of bonding sites effects the strength of the nonwoven (para 27). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the percentage of bond site in Ashraf to be between 3 to 30% as one would have achieved such by performing routine experimentation to obtain only the expected results.
As to claim 9, Foss discloses the sheath component comprises an at least partially deformed configuration associated with the softening, at least partial flowing, and re-solidification into the at least partially deformed configuration, and wherein a thickness of the sheath component in the at least partially deformed configuration varies (para 20, 26-28 44). Additionally, varying the dimensions is obvious absent criticality demonstrated by the applicant. MPEP 2114.04.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Everhart et al. (US 2003/0114071).
As to claim 3, Ashraf discloses the method wherein the nonwoven fabric comprises a composite nonwoven fabric, and wherein the method further comprises (i) depositing at least one layer of fibers onto the first plurality of spunmelt fibers after subjecting the intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer to the TAB operation, and (ii) physically entangling the first plurality of spunmelt fibers and the at least one layer of fibers (figs 1, 4, discussion of said figs, para 4, 17, 25-27, 33-40, 43-59, claim 8).
Ashraf does not disclose the at least one layer of fibers comprises cellulosic fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ashraf such that the at least one layer of fiber comprises cellulosic fiber as taught by Everhart (para 7, 16, 17, 30, 98) as such improves absorption and is economically and environmentally desirable.
As to claims 4 and 12, Everhart discloses the claimed wt% of cellulosic fibers (para 30)
As to claim 11, Ashraf discloses nonwoven fabric comprises a composite nonwoven fabric, and wherein the method further comprises (i) forming or providing a second intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer including a second plurality of spunmelt fibers, wherein the second intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer comprises a second plurality of discrete thermal bond sites; (ii) positioning at least one layer of fibers between the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer and the second intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer, and (iii) physically entangling the first plurality of spunmelt fibers, at least one layer of a plurality of fibers. and the second plurality of spunmelt fibers together (figs 1, 4, discussion of said figs, para 4, 17, 25-27, 33-40, 43-59, claim 8).
Everhart discloses and renders obvious use of a plurality of cellulosic fibers for the at least one layer of fibers as detailed above.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Topolkaraev et al. (US 2010/0318050).
As to claim 14, Ashraf does not disclose annealing as claimed in claim 14. However, Topolkaraev discloses subjecting a first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer to an annealing operation prior subjecting the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer to the TAB (para 37) operation (para 44, 84-89, 154-161). fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ashraf by subjecting the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer to an annealing operation prior subjecting the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer to the TAB operation as taught by Topolkaraev above as such improves tenacity and thermal bonding (para 6)
As to claim 15, Topolkaraev discloses heating to the below the melting point (para 4). Topolkaraev does not expressly disclose the annealing operation comprises heating the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer to a temperature to within, but not at or exceeding, about 7°C below a highest melting point component of the intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer. However, such would have been obvious, as Topolkaraev discloses that the annealing temperature effects the bonding strength (para 161). As such, one of ordinary skill would have achieved the claimed temperature through routine optimization.
As to claims 16-17, Topolkaraev discloses the annealing operation further comprises maintaining the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer under physical constraint during heating of the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer, said constraint comprising physically constraining the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer between two belts, between a belt and a drum, or via a stenter constraint (fig 2, para 78-87).
As to claim 18, Topolkaraev discloses prior to releasing the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer from the physical constraint, the temperature of the first intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer is reduced to about 20° C. to about 35° C (para 173).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clark et al. (US 2005/0136776).
As to claims 19-20, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ashraf by intermixing abrasive particles in a co-forming operation with the first plurality of spunmelt fibers as taught by para 42 of Clark as such is known and preferable (para 42) in the art and has a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf and Foss, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Isele et al. (US 2011/0196325).
As to claim 23, the first and second biopolymers of Ashraf as modifed by Foss inherently have and a melt index. Ashraf and Foss, do not, however, disclose the melt index difference recited in claim 23. Para 79 of Isele discloses the MFI effects the fiber diameter, strength and throughput. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use first and second biopolymers with the MFI difference recited in claim 23, as a POSTIA would have readily achieved such by performing routine experimentation to optimize the above variables.
As to claims 24-25, para 28 of Foss discloses a melting temperature difference between the first melting temperature and the second melting temperature is from 5 to 20°C.
As to claim 26, Ashraf discloses the limitations of the claim for the reasons detailed in the rejection of claims 6 and 10 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but are either not persuasive or moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
As to claim 1 and Ashraf, the applicant asserts Ashraf does not disclose “consolidating the spunmelt web via a bonding process other than through-air-bonding, such as by thermal calendering, to provide an intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer, wherein the intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer”. This argument is not commensurate with scope of the claims since claim 1 does not require thermal calendaring, nor does it exclude through-air-bonding. Ashraf clearly discloses subjecting the intermediate spunmelt nonwoven layer to TAB in para 46. See body of rejection above.
Applicant cites para 37 and 16 of the specification and asserts Ashrtaf does not disclose such limitations. The limitations disclosed in these paragraphs are not recited in the claim, and limitations recited in the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP 2111.
The applicant asserts the secondary references do not make up for the alleged deficiencies of Ashraf. This argument is not persuasive because Ashraf is not deficient as it discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 6-8, 10 and 13 as detailed above.
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 CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights