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 .
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 1-19 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.\
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the second polymeric layer" in lines 14 and 15 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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) 1-9, 11-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0219424 in view of Kernstock, U.S. Patent No. 4,629,642.
Guo discloses a product comprising a plurality of glassless wetlaid nonwoven mats comprising a plurality of polymeric fibers and a binder, wherein the fibers have a finer denier of 1-4 denier and a length of 6-20 mm and also can include coarser fibers having a denier of 4-25 denier or more commonly 8-15 denier. See paragraph 0019. The binder has a loss on ignition of at least about 20%. See paragraph 0002. The polymeric fibers can be polyethylene terephthalate fibers, acrylic fibers, polyester, fibers and polypropylene fibers. See paragraph 0003. The structure can include a plurality of layers which correspond to the claimed core layers and wet laid layers. See paragraph 0020.
Thus, with regard to the claims as amended 10/21/25, a three layer structure corresponds to the claimed first and second core layers bonded to the glassless wet-laid polymeric layer.
Each layer include a binder and the polymeric fibers, and the binder can be acrylic or styrene butadiene. See paragraphs 0020-0023, 0027. The binder acts as an adhesive to hold the layers together and thus corresponds to the claimed binding elements. See paragraph 0042. The nonwovens are made by a wet laying process. See entire document including abstract and claims.
With regard to the coefficient of variation of the basis weight, it would have been obvious to have formed the structure so that it was as uniform as possible in order to provide a product having uniform properties throughout the structure.
With regard to the fiber diameter, since Guo teaches the same fiber deniers and the same type of polymers as the claimed fibers, it is reasonable to expect that the fibers would have the claimed fiber diameter.
Guo differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the claimed binder add-on percentage.
However, Kernstock teaches wetlaid nonwovens which include a binder can include 2-30 percent polymer binder. See abstract.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed an amount of binder as taught by Kernstock to bind the structure of Guo in view of the teaching of Kernstock of the suitability of this amount of binder for wet laid nonwovens.
Claim(s) 10, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Kernstock as applied to claims above, and further in view of Andrusko, U.S. Patent No. 5,182,162.
Guo in view of Kernstock differs from the claimed invention because it does not coloring or embossing the nonwoven.
However, Andrusko teaches nonwoven materials are useful for insulation as well as carpet backings and that such nonwovens can be colored/dyed and embossed, depending on the end use of the product. See col. 7, lines 3-6 and col. 7, line 60- col. 8, line 31.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided embossing and/or coloring and dyeing on the nonwoven layers depending on their final use and what appearance was desired in the final product.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references alone or in combination teach or suggest every feature of the amended independent claims. However, as set forth above, Guo teaches a plurality of layer bonded together by a binder. No specific structure is set forth with regard to the core layer, therefore, outer layers sandwiching the glassless polymer layer wherein the layers are held together by the binder correspond to the claimed core layers. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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