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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus and method of making, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/01/2026.
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 12-15 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.
Regarding claims 12-14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 15, in order to recite proper markush language, “selected from the group of” should be changed to “selected from the group consisting of”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramaratnam et al. (PG Pub. 2022/0364281).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7 and 9, Ramaratnam et al. teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising a plurality of fibers bonded with a bond pattern on a surface thereof to form a coherent web [Abstract]. The nonwoven fabric has a vertical axis extending in a machine direction and a horizontal axis extending in a cross direction [Fig. 4a]. The bond pattern comprises a plurality of spaced apart pairs of arrays extending the machine, cross and diagonal directions of the nonwoven fabric [Fig. 4a]. Each array comprises a plurality of spaced apart bond points having an oblong shape [Fig. 4a]. The nonwoven fabric has a percent bonded surface area [0006]. An average bond point packing value in the claimed range (Ramaratnam et al. states “In an exemplary embodiment, the step of forming the precursor web comprises the bond pattern comprising small bonding impressions with a bond impression area less than 1 mm.sup.2.” and “In an exemplary embodiment, the step of forming the precursor web comprises the smallest distance between the adjacent bonding impressions being at least 0.3 mm, preferably at least 0.4 mm, most preferably at least 0.5 mm.” in 0024 and 0026 and therefore reads on the claimed average bond point packing value). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The nonwoven has a basis weight in the claimed range [0038].
Regarding claim 2, Ramaratnam et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric wherein the bond points have an average surface area in the claimed range [0024] and a bond point density from about 50 to 60 individual bond points per square centimeter [0115].
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 10-14, Ramaratnam et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric exhibits a Martindale Abrasion Score in the claimed range [Fig. 14]. Ramaratnam et al. teaches the Handle-o-meter property and its importance of and implications of Handle-o-meter, but are silent regarding the claimed properties. However, given Ramaratnam et al. teach such a similar nonwoven web made of such similar materials made in such a similar fashion with such similar bond density, surface area bond points and distance between bond points, the claimed properties are necessarily inherent to the nonwoven fabric of Ramaratnam et al.
Regarding claim 8, the bond points have an oval-elliptical shape, rectangular or rod shape [0130 and Fig. 4a].
Regarding claim 15, the nonwoven fabric comprises at least 2 layers and at least one of the layers is meltblown [0008 and 0011].
Regarding claims 16-17, Ramaratnam et al. teaches an absorbent article and composite sheet material comprising the nonwoven fabric of claim 1 [0078 and 0159].
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.
Claims 3-6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaratnam et al. (PG Pub. 2022/0364281).
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 10-14, Ramaratnam et al. teaches the nonwoven fabric exhibits a Martindale Abrasion Score in the claimed range [Fig. 14]. Ramaratnam et al. teaches the Handle-o-meter property and its importance of and implications of Handle-o-meter, but are silent regarding the claimed properties. However, given Ramaratnam et al. teach such a similar nonwoven web made of such similar materials made in such a similar fashion with such similar bond density, surface area bond points and distance between bond points, the claimed properties are necessarily inherent to the nonwoven fabric of Ramaratnam et al. Further, given Ramaratnam et al. teach the importance of softness, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed softness in order to affect hand.
Regarding claim 6, Ramaratnam et al. teaches the bond pattern comprises alternating first and second arrays of individual bond points extending in the cross direction of the nonwoven fabric [Fig. 4a and 4b]. The individual bond points of the first array and second array each have a length and width. The lengths of the individual bond points of the first array are aligned in substantially the same direction and at an angle that is in the claimed range relative to the horizontal axis of the nonwoven fabric (Ramaratnam et al. states “The line shaped bonding impressions might be angled relative to the MD direction so that a shape tilt angle αT may be expressed as the smaller angle formed by the intersection of an axis along the machine direction and the shape length line. The shape tilt angle αT should not exceed 50 degrees, more preferably not exceed 40 degrees, and still more preferably not exceed 30 degrees, most preferably not exceed 20 degrees.” It is further noted that Fig. 4a shows the angle in reference to the cross direction, not in reference to the machine direction and therefore teaches the claimed angle that is in the claimed range relative to the horizontal axis of the nonwoven fabric. Given this teaching and given Figure 4a of Ramaratnam et al. is similar to that of Fig. 3a of the present specification, it is obvious Ramaratnam et al. teaches and envisaged the claimed angles of the first and second arrays of the individual bond points relative to each other and to the horizontal axis. Moreover, given the teachings of Ramaratnam et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed angles of the first and second array in order to tailor mechanical properties of the nonwoven and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 20210069029 teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising a plurality of fibers bonded with a bond pattern on a surface thereof to form a coherent web. The nonwoven fabric has a vertical axis extending in a machine direction and a horizontal axis extending in a cross direction [Fig. 1]. The bond pattern comprises a plurality of spaced apart pairs of arrays extending the machine, cross and diagonal directions of the nonwoven fabric [Fig. 17]. Each array comprises a plurality of spaced apart bond points having an oblong shape [Fig. 17 and 23]. The nonwoven fabric has a percent bonded surface area [0205]. An average bond point packing value in the claimed range (The present specification states “The average bond point packing value for a given bonding pattern is calculated by dividing the collective average bond point distance by the average surface area of the bond point for the bonding pattern.” Sakai teaches “The area of the sheet bonded portion 40: 0.10 to 0.75 mm.sup.2 (particularly 0.10 to 0.35 mm.sup.2)” in paragraph 0213 and teaches “…the distance d1 between the bonded portions 40 arranged in the stretchable direction is 3 to 12.9 mm, more preferably 5 to 6.4 mm, and the distance d2 between the bonded portions 40 arranged in the direction orthogonal to the stretchable direction is set to 2 to 10.5 mm, more preferably 2.3 to 4.6 mm.” in 0123 and therefore reads on the claimed “…an average bond point packing value from about 6.5 to 8.0mm-1”. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights