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 .
Amendments to claim 31, cancellation of claims 32-33, and addition of claim 53, in the response filed November 25, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 31, 35, 37-46, and 51-53 are currently pending in the above identified application.
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 31, 35, 37-46, and 51-53 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 31 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the two interior layers comprises a plurality of respective fibers formed from a polymer melt.” The limitation “the two interior layers” in line 3-4 has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recite the limitation “one or more interior layers” but does not explicitly recite two interior layers. It is unclear if the claim intends for there to be two interior layer or intends to refer to the one or more interior layers.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 39 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 39 requires the meltblown layer to be devoid of any LBEA and claim 37, upon which claim 39 depends, claims the one or more interior layers includes a first interior nonwoven layer that comprises a meltblown layer. Claim 52 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more interior layers are devoid of the LBEA.” However, claim 31, upon which claim 53 depends, recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the two interior layers comprising a plurality of respective fiber formed from a polymer melt consisting of (i) a polymer component…and (ii) an additive component dispersed throughout the polymer component, wherein the additive component includes a liquid-barrier-enhancing-additive (LBEA). Claim 31 requires the presence of the LBEA whereas claims 39 and 52 exclude the LBEA. Therefore, claims 39 and 52 fail to include all the limitation of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 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 31, 37-42, 44-46, 51, and 53 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 US Pub. No. 2014/0088535 to Xu.
Regarding claims 31, 37-42, 44-46, 51, and 53, Xu teaches a method of forming a nonwoven fabric comprising forming a plurality of nonwoven webs comprising at least a layer of fibers (plurality of fibers) that are made of a composition comprising a first polyolefin, specifically a polypropylene homopolymer, a second polyolefin that is different than the first polyolefin, and a softness enhancer additive (liquid-barrier-enhancing-additive) containing an unsaturated amide, such as erucamide or behenamide (claim 31) (Xu, abstract, para 0083, 0040, 0056, 0123-0138), reading on a plurality of respective fibers including a polymer component consisting of polypropylene and an additive component, specifically the second polyolefin and softness enhancer additive, dispersed through the polymer component, specifically the polypropylene homopolymer. Xu teaches the composition being at least 80% by weight of the polypropylene at least 10% by weight of the propylene copolymer (Id., para 0121), indicating that the composition forming the fibers would have the propylene copolymer and softness enhancer dispersed through the polypropylene homopolymer. Xu teaches the nonwoven fabric being a SMS material comprising a spunbonded (first outermost layer), a melt-blown (at least one interior nonwoven layer) and a further spunbonded stratum or layer (second outermost layer) (Id., para 0083, 0040, 0056, 0123-0138), reading on the plurality of nonwoven webs including two outermost layers and one or more interior layers between the two outermost layer. Xu teaches the nonwoven material may be made with the composition previously described to form one or more individual elements (Xu, para 0133), reading on the softness enhancer additive (LBEA) may be present in additional layer, such as the interior meltblown layer (claim 38), specifically at least one of the interior layers comprising a plurality of respective fibers formed from a polymer melt consisting of a polymer component consisting of a polypropylene homopolymer and an additive component dispersed throughout the polymer component and including a liquid-barrier-enhancing-additive in conjunction with the propylene copolymer. Xu teaches the softness enhancer additive being between 0.05% to 1% by weight of the fiber (Id., para 0123), reading on the plurality of meltspun filament comprising from 0.05 to 1% by weight of the LBEA. Xu teaches the introducing the additive into the melt prior to extrusion and added in a spun melting process as well as introducing consolidating bond shapes and patterns (Id., para 0056, 0089, 0130-0133, 0143), reading on the method including a melt of melt-spinning the polymer melt including the LBEA to form the plurality of respective fibers comprising a plurality of meltspun filaments and consolidating the plurality of nonwoven webs to provide the nonwoven fabric.
Regarding the nonwoven fabric being a barrier nonwoven fabric, this limitation is a recitation of the intended use of the nonwoven fabric. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. All nonwoven fabric can serve as a barrier, such as from the sun, large particles, or abrasion from external surface. Therefore, the nonwoven fabric of Xu is capable of being a barrier nonwoven fabric.
Regarding the behenamide and erucamide being a liquid-barrier-enhancing-additive, the limitation is a property of the material. In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose the specifically behenamide and erucamide being a liquid-barrier-enhancing-additive, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 37-38 and 40, Xu teaches the nonwoven web being a SMS material comprising a spunbonded (first outermost layer), a melt-blown (at least one interior nonwoven layer) and a further spunbonded stratum or layer (second outermost layer) (Xu, para 0083, 0040, 0056), reading on the method further comprising forming at least one interior nonwoven layer including a first interior nonwoven layer disposed between the first outermost layer and the second outermost layer.
Regarding claim 38-39, Xu teaches the nonwoven material may be made with the composition previously described to form one or more individual elements and being advantageous to form with the nonwoven element in direction contact with the wearer’s skin (Xu, para 0133), reading on the softness enhancer additive (LBEA) may be present in additional layer, such as the interior meltblown layer but is not required and therefore an interior layer, such as a second interior meltblown layer can be devoid of the LBEA (claim 39).
Regarding claims 41-42, Xu teaches the fiber having cross-sectional shapes other than round to increase opacity (Xu, para 0137), reading on the first outermost layer comprising a first plurality of spunbond fibers and the second outermost layer comprising a second plurality of spunbond fibers, wherein the first plurality of fibers, the second plurality of fibers or both comprise a non-round cross-section.
Regarding claim 44-46 and the claimed properties of greater low surface tension strike through value with the slip agent (LBEA) than a comparative nonwoven fabric of the same construction devoid of the slip agent (LBEA) (claim 44), the low surface tension strike through value that is from about 10% to 60% greater than a comparative nonwoven fabric of the same construction devoid of the slip agent (LBEA) (claim 45), and the nonwoven fabric comprising a low surface strike through value from about 10 to about 80 second (claim 46), in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose these features explicitly, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Xu teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, including the SMS structure, wherein the outermost spunbond layers and, optionally, the interior meltblown comprises the same amide material the claimed concentrations. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 51, Xu teaches the nonwoven having a basis weight from 8 to 35 gsm (Xu, para 0133).
Regrading claim 53, Xu teaches a temperature when rapid weight loss being for erucamide being 280°C (Xu, para 0132), reading on a decomposition temperature as measured by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) comprising from about 250°C to about 380°C, specifically 280°C. Examiner would like to note that a decomposition temperature as measured by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) has been defined as a temperature at which the LBEA starts to lose weight rapidly (see para 0035 of the published application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 31, 37-42, 44-46, 51, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2014/0088535 to Xu, as applied to claims 31, 37-42, 44-46, 51, and 53 above.
Regarding claims 31, 37-42, 44-46, 51, and 53, in the event it is shown that Xu does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Xu discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Xu, wherein process forms the nonwoven having the claimed structure and plurality of fiber formed from a composition (polymer melt) consisting of the polypropylene homopolymer first polyolefin and additive including the second polyolefin and softness enhancer additive being erucamide or behenamide for the meltblown fabric and the spunbond outer layers such as to form a plurality of spunmelt filaments, motivated by the desire of using predictably suitable nonwoven configuration and composition component taught as predictably suitable for use in the invention of Xu and by the desire to practice the invention of Xu based on the totality of the teaching of Xu.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2014/0088535 to Xu, as applied to claims 31, 37-42, 44-46, 51, and 53 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2007/0071972 to McCoy.
Regarding claim 35, Xu does not teach the additive, or LBEA, including ethylene bis-stearamide, ethylene bis-oleamide, or a combination thereof, Xu does not explicitly teaches the softness enhancer being ethylene bis-stearamide, ethylene bis-oleamide, or a combination thereof.
However, McCoy teaches a fiber having a softer feel in which a fiber-forming polymer, such as polypropylene, is melt-blended with a bisamide additive, most preferably ethylene bisstearamide (McCoy, abstract, para 0008-0012, 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Xu, wherein the softness enhancer is the ethylene bisstearamide of McCoy, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known additives predictably suitable for use as softness enhancer in fiber, including polypropylene containing fiber.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xu, as applied to claims 31, 37-42, 44-46, 51, and 53 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0272223 to Cheng.
Regarding claim 43, Xu teaches the nonwoven web comprising a combination of spunbonded and meltblown layers, such as SMMS or SSMMS (Xu, para 0083) and teaches Xu teaches the fiber having cross-sectional shapes other than round to increase opacity (Xu, para 0137). Xu teaches the nonwoven being used in a diaper (Id., para 0098-0112).
Xu does not appear to explicitly teach two outermost spunbond layer having the claimed cross-section.
However, Cheng teaches meltblown nonwoven are often added to spunlaid nonwoven to form SM, SMS, SSMMS, SSMMSS nonwoven substrate or other substrate which combine that attributes of S and M nonwoven structure, such as strong nonwoven substrates with some fluid barrier properties and the same can be done with finer fiber layer denominated with “N” to make SMNMS, SSMNS, SSMNNS, or other suitable combination of layers, suitable for use in a diaper (Cheng, abstract, para 0064-0067, 0074-0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Xu, wherein the nonwoven has a SSMSS structure as taught by Cheng with the outermost having a non-round cross-section as taught by Xu, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known combination of spunbond with meltblown layers predictably suitable for use in diaper applications and by the desire to impart opacity to the outermost layer as taught by Xu. The resulting structure reads on the claimed structure with a, b, c, e, and f being 1 and d being 0.
Claims 31, 35, 37-38, 40, 44-46, 51, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2008/0038982 to Motomura in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0182468 to Dharmarajan, optionally as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2014/0088535 to Xu .
Regarding claims 31, 35, 37-38, 40, 44-46, 51, and 53, Motomura teaches a process of forming a nonwoven fabric laminate comprising forming at least one melt-blown nonwoven fabric layer (one or more interior layers, that comprises a meltblown layer, claim 37-38 ) and mixed fiber spunbonded nonwoven fabric layers (two outermost layers, that are each a spunbond layer, claim 40) and laminating the spunbonded nonwoven fabric later on both surfaces of the at least one meltblown nonwoven layer (Motomura, abstract, para 0029-0030), reading on the method comprising providing or forming a plurality of nonwoven webs including two outermost layers and one or more interior layer between the two outermost layers. Motomura teaches the meltblown nonwoven fabric being formed from a thermoplastic resin (b), including polypropylene (polymer component consisting of a polypropylene homopolymer), formed into a melt and extruded to form filaments (Id., para 0148-0149, 0152, 0162) and teaches the use of additives including slip agents (Id., para 0066), reading on the meltblown layer, or interior layers comprising a plurality of respective fibers formed from a polymer melt consisting of a polymer component and an additive component and the method including a step of melt-spinning the polymer melt including the additive to form the plurality of respective fiber comprising a plurality of meltspun filaments. Motomura teaches the fibers of the meltblown nonwoven fabric and the mixed-fiber spunbonded nonwoven fabric layer being entangled (Id., para 0090-0092), reading on consolidating the plurality of nonwoven webs to provide the nonwoven fabric. Motomura teaches the nonwoven fabric laminate having high water resistance (Id., para 0087), reading on the nonwoven being a barrier fabric and exhibit liquid barrier properties. Motomura teaches the nonwoven fabric laminate being used in sanitary applications such as diapers (Id., para 0070, 0085, 0087).
Motomura is silent with regards to the specific material of the slip agent being erucamide, oleamide, stearamide, behenamide, one or more bis-amides, oleyl palmitamide, stearyl erucamide, or any combination thereof and the corresponding amounts.
However, Dharmarajan teaches the use of slip agents such as behenamide, erucamide, oleamide, and ethylene bis-oleamide (claim 35) mixed into a blend by melt-mixing then extruded into fibers to form nonwoven fabric used in applications, such as for diapers, having a layered nonwoven structure like SMS, and the slip agent additive being added in amounts ranging from about 0.4 to about 2 weight percent based on the total weight of the blend forming the fiber (Dharmarajan, abstract, para 0056-0057, 0065-0066, 0068), reading on a plurality of respective fiber formed from a polymer melt component consisting of the polymer component and an additive component dispersed through the polymer component and the additive component comprising behenamide, erucamide, oleamide, and ethylene bis-oleamide and the plurality of respective fibers comprising a plurality of meltspun filaments comprising from about 0.4 to about 2% by weight of the behenamide, erucamide, oleamide, and ethylene bis-oleamide additive. Dharmarajan teaches having the facing layer (outermost layer) devoid of slip agent provides an anchor for adhesion (Id., para 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven fabric laminate of Motomura, wherein the slip agent is the slip agent of Dharmarajan added in the disclosed amount, motivated by the desire to use conventionally known slip agents predictably suitable for use in nonwoven fabric, including those used in diaper applications.
The behenamide, erucamide, oleamide, and ethylene bis-oleamide being a liquid-barrier-enhancing-additive is a property of the material. In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose the oleamide or erucamide as being a liquid-barrier-enhancing-additive, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 44-46 and the claimed properties of greater low surface tension strike through value with the slip agent (LBEA) than a comparative nonwoven fabric of the same construction devoid of the slip agent (LBEA) (claim 44), the low surface tension strike through value that is from about 10% to 60% greater than a comparative nonwoven fabric of the same construction devoid of the slip agent (LBEA) (claim 45), and the nonwoven fabric comprising a low surface strike through value from about 10 to about 80 second (claim 46), in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose these features explicitly, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention, including the SMS structure, wherein the outermost spunbond layers and the interior meltblown comprises the same amide material the claimed concentrations and the nonwoven fabric exhibits high water resistance. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 51, the prior art combination teaches the nonwoven fabric having a total basis weight in the range of 15 to 40 g/m2 (Motomura, para 0070).
Regarding claim 53, the prior art combination teaches the additive being erucamide (Dharmarajan, para 0056). As evidenced by Xu, Xu teaches a temperature when rapid weight loss being for erucamide being 280°C (Xu, para 0132), reading on a decomposition temperature as measured by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) comprising from about 250°C to about 380°C, specifically 280°C. Examiner would like to note that a decomposition temperature as measured by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) has been defined as a temperature at which the LBEA starts to lose weight rapidly (see para 0035 of the published application).
Claims 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2008/0038982 to Motomura in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0182468 to Dharmarajan, optionally as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2014/0088535 to Xu, as applied to claims 31, 35, 37-38, 40, 44-46, 51, and 53 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0041335 to Dwiggins
Regarding claims 41-43, the prior art combination does not explicitly teach the outermost spunbond layer consisting of non-round cross-sectional first layer continuous fibers.
However, Dwiggins teaches a nonwoven fabric useful as a component in a personal hygiene product, such as diapers, that is free of non-ribbon shaped (round-shaped) spunbond fibers and includes a meltblown layer between and in direct contact with ribbon-shaped spunbond layers (Dwiggins, abstract, para 0027, 0034, 0037). Dwiggins teaches the nonwoven fabric having enhanced low surface tension liquid resistance and air permeability (Id., para 0001, 0047). Dwiggins teaches the ribbon-shaped spunbond layer comprising polypropylene (Id., para 0066, 0071). Dwiggins teaches the spunbond fibers being formed as homogenous solid fibers (Id., para 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the spunbond layers on either side of the meltblown layer consist of the homogenous ribbon fibers (non-round cross section fibers) of Dwiggins, motivated by the desire to form conventionally known spunbond layer predictably suitable for use in spunbond-meltblown containing laminates used in diapers products and by the desire to impart enhanced low surface tension liquid resistance and air permeability. As the spunbond nonwovens consist of ribbon fibers (non-round cross-sectional fibers), SMS reads on R11-M1-N0-R21 (claim 42).
Regarding claim 43, the prior art combination teaches the laminate having the structure S/S/M/S/S (Motomura, para 0083). With the outer spunbond layer having ribbon cross section as taught by Dwiggins and traditional round for other spunbond, the laminate reads on the claimed structure in claim 43.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to the application of Xu.
Applicant argues that the claims now requires the incorporation of the specific LBEA during the fiber formation in at least one of the interior layer of the nonwoven web and Xu merely teaches that LBEA is present in the outermost layers and does not describe any specific step for maximizing liquid barrier performance and the present method deliberately selects LBEAs with a decomposition temperature above the polymer melt-processing temperature so that is survives extrusion and migrates correctly to the fiber surface after spinning. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Xu does require the presence of the additive in the outermost layer, Xu is also open to the presence of the additive in additional layers as well, which encompasses the interior meltblown layer(s). Xu discusses migration of the additive due to the surface and the importance of processing temperature to remain lower than the TGA rapid weight loss temperature of the component (Xu, para 0130). The migration of the additive to the surface of the fiber due to processing temperature is known and there not a unexpected result. While Xu teaches avoid too high a temperature, the upper limit is placed based on the TGA rapid weight loss and not the temperature weight loss begins. Xu teaches the processing temperature being 20°C or even 25°C lower than the TGA Rapid weight loss temperature (Id., para 0130). For erucamide, this would be below 255°C based on the temperature disclosed by Xu (Id., para 0132). The processing temperature is not a claimed feature and therefore, if the processing temperature is a key feature of the instant invention, the claims should be updated accordingly.
Applicant argues that since the additive is added as a softness enhancer to reduce the tacky or rubbery feel of the fibers there would have no reason to use the claimed LBEAs within the fibers of the interior layer(s) as currently claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, while required for the outer layer, Xu teaches the inclusion in additional layers, which would encompass the interior meltblown layer. Examiner would also like to highlight that the additive is not excluded from the outer most layers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2003/0157859 to Ishikawa teaches a polyolefin resin-based, including a polypropylene based, nonwoven fabric, including spunbonded, meltblown and combinations thereof, comprising a fatty acid amide, including erucamide, added to the melt in an amount of 0.05 to 1 wt% that retain good vapor permeability, waterproofness, softness and high mechanical strength in combination with spin easiness and good use feeling based on hand and good touch feeling.
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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached on 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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 on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights