DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 16, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on February 16, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 2 and 8 are amended and claims 5-7 and 9-13 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-4, 8, and 14-20 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-4, 8, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdelwitz (US 5968855)1 in view of Standaert (US 2010/0233927)1,2.
With respect to claim 1, Perdelwitz teaches nonwoven fabrics suitable for use in absorbent products, such as disposable diapers, adult incontinence pads and sanitary napkins, and the like (nonwoven structure does not comprise a layer of a carpet) (col. 1, lines 7-12). The fabrics include fibers formed from a relatively high melt thermoplastic polymer (second material) and fibers formed of a relatively low melt thermoplastic polymer (first material) (col. 2, lines 34-45). The fabric is thermally treated by calendering so that the low melt fibers (first material) soften and bind the fibers together to provide integrity to the fabric while the high melt fibers (second material) maintain their discrete individual fiber integrity, crimp, and loft to provide the desirable loft, density, and pore size of the resultant calendered fabric (col. 2, lines 34-45).
The nonwoven fabric is preferably formed of a mixture of staple fibers (100% staple fibers) (col. 5, lines 1-2). The polymer composition of the low melt (first material) and high melt (second material) fibers are preferably selected so that the difference between the relative melting points of the low melt (first material) and high melt fibers (second material) of the fabric is at least about 10oC (col. 4, lines 14-18). Exemplary thermoplastic polymers useful for forming the thermoplastic fibers include polyolefins such as polypropylene and polyethylene, polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate, polyamides such as polyhexamethylene adipamide and polycaproamide, and blends and copolymers thereof (col. 4, lines 19-24). Perdelwitz further teaches a preferred mixture of fibers includes about 10 to about 90 weight percent of fibers formed of a low melt polymer composition (first material) (col. 4, lines 61-67).
Perdelwitz is silent as to the low melting point fiber (first material) being a first polyolefin material produced with at least one catalyst being a metallocene catalyst and having a melting point in the range of 130-170oC.
Standaert teaches fibers and filaments comprising a nucleated metallocene polypropylene characterized by improved mechanical properties (paragraph [0001]). A nonwoven made with the nucleated metallocene polypropylene has increased tensile strength (paragraph [0079]). In the example, the polypropylene has a melting point of 153.9oC (paragraph [0088]; Table 1). The fibers and filaments may be bicomponent fibers (paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the low melting point fiber of Perdelwitz, which may be polypropylene, to be the nucleated metallocene polypropylene with a melting point of 153.9oC taught by Standaert in order to provide a fiber with increased tensile strength.
Perdelwitz further teaches the thermoplastic fibers can be polypropylene and copolymers thereof (col. 4, lines 19-24), and the polymer compositions of the low melt fibers (first material) and the high melt fibers (second material) are selected so that the resultant fabric exhibits fabric integrity upon thermal treatment with minimal adverse impact on the desired fabric properties such as loft, density, and the like (col. 4, lines 1-5).
As discussed above, the low melt fiber (first material) is a nucleated metallocene polypropylene. With respect to the high melt fibers (second material) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the thermoplastic materials in col. 4, lines 19-24 of Perdelwitz, which includes polypropylene and polypropylene copolymers, in order to determine which provides the desired fabric integrity, loft, and density. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 2, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The recitation "wherein the product comprises one of: a geotextile, a filtration product, thermal insulation, an acoustic absorption product, and an acoustic dampening product" in claim 2 has not been given patentable weight because it is a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02. In the instant case, the body of the claim does not depend on the further limited preamble for completeness. Due to the similar structure and use as discussed in claim 1 above, it is expected the nonwoven of Perdelwitz in view of Standaert is capable of performing as the claimed products.
With respect to claim 3, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above. The recitation "a pipe-wrapping thermal insulation" in claim 3 has not been given patentable weight because it is a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02. In the instant case, the body of the claim does not depend on the further limited preamble for completeness. Due to the similar structure and use as discussed in claim 1 above, it is expected the nonwoven of Perdelwitz in view of Standaert is capable of performing as the claimed product.
With respect to claim 4, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above. The recitation "a sound dampening product" in claim 4 has not been given patentable weight because it is a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02. In the instant case, the body of the claim does not depend on the further limited preamble for completeness. Due to the similar structure and use as discussed in claim 1 above, it is expected the nonwoven of Perdelwitz in view of Standaert is capable of performing as the claimed product.
With respect to claim 8, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Perdelwitz further teaches the thermoplastic fibers can be bicomponent fibers wherein at least one component of the fiber is a low melting material (first material) (col. 4, lines 24-28). The bicomponent fibers are sheath/ore fibers (col. 4, lines 24-32). Perdelwitz does not explicitly teach whether the low melting material (first material) is in the core or the sheath, however to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to try the low melting material (first material) in the core and the sheath of the bicomponent fiber in order to determine which provides the desired bonding properties. See MPEP 2143.
Perdelwitz further teaches nonwoven fabrics suitable for use in absorbent products, such as disposable diapers, adult incontinence pads and sanitary napkins, and the like (medical product, health care product, disposable or single-use product for use in hospitals) (col. 1, lines 7-12).
With respect to claim 14, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Perdelwitz further teaches the fabrics include fibers formed from a relatively high melt thermoplastic polymer (second material) and fibers formed of a relatively low melt thermoplastic polymer (first material) (col. 2, lines 34-45). The nonwoven fabric is preferably formed of a mixture of staple fibers (100% staple fibers) (col. 5, lines 1-2).
With respect to claim 15, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 14 above. Perdelwitz further teaches a preferred mixture of fibers includes about 10 to about 90 weight percent of fibers formed of a low melt polymer composition (first fiber) (col. 4, lines 61-67).
The percentage of low melt fibers (first fiber) range of Perdelwitz substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 15. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Perdelwitz, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claims 16-18, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Perdelwitz further teaches the nonwoven fabric is preferably formed of a mixture of staple fibers (100% staple fibers) (col. 5, lines 1-2).
With respect to claim 19, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach a normalized stiffness higher than 150 N/%. It is reasonable to presume that the normalized stiffness is inherent to Perdelwitz in view of Standaert. Support for said presumption is found in that Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches similar structure as the instant invention, as described in claim 1 above, and therefore are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Page 11 of the instant specification discusses how loose fibers reduce stiffness, and that prior to bonding non-woven materials having loose fibers can be structured, and then bonded thermally. Page 17 of the instant specification further discusses that bonding fibers such that the form bonds but do not completely melt away to keep the integrity of the fiber gives a non-woven with a higher modulus/stiffness.
Similarly, Perdelwitz discloses a non-woven of staple fibers with different melting points where the lower melting point fiber, which may include polyethylene or polypropylene, is heat treated to melt and bond the fibers while maintaining the structure of a non-woven fabric (see rejection of claim 1 above). This process at least provides a lofty and porous non-woven fabric where the fibers keep their form except at bonding points between the fibers, because only the low melting point sheath melts to form the bonds.
Since Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches the structure of the claimed invention as well as heating low melting point sheath bicomponent fibers to form a bonded non-woven, the invention of Coates is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 20, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Perdelwitz further teaches the nonwovens can be hydroentangled or needled to another layer (col. 6, lines 15-23). This would necessarily result in the entanglement of the nonwoven fabric through needling or hydroentangling.
Claims 2-3 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdelwitz (US 5968855)3 in view of Standaert (US 2010/0233927)1,4 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herzberg (US 5437909).
With respect to claims 2-3, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Perdelwitz in view of Standaert is silent as to the product being a pipe-wrapping thermal insulation.
Herzberg teaches thermal insulating materials having insulating properties, conformability, and the feel of down (col. 1, lines 6-10). The nonwoven thermal insulating batt has multiple layers of webs, each web comprising a blend of bonding staple fibers and staple fill fibers, the bonding fibers bonded to other bonding fibers and to said fill fibers at points of contact to enhance the structural stability of each of the layers of the batt (col. 2, lines 29-35). The adhesive component of the bondable fibers is preferably thermally bondable at a temperature below the melt temperature of the staple fill fibers (col. 3, lines 52-66). The amount of staple bonding fiber in the matt is preferably 5-100 wt% (col. 43, lines 34-43). Useful staple fill fibers include polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, wool, polyvinyl chloride, acrylic, and polyolefin such as polypropylene (col. 3, lines 19-23).
Both Perdelwitz in view of Standaert and Herzberg teach staple fiber nonwovens comprising polyolefin fibers with a lower melting point to melt bond with fibers of a higher melting point. It is therefore known in the art that the nonwoven structures of Perdelwitz in view of Standaert are suitable for thermal insulation materials and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonwoven of Perdelwitz in view of Standaert to be suitable for use as thermal insulation. It is noted that while Herzberg does not explicitly state that the thermal insulation is pipe-wrapping insulation, the nonwovens are conformable (Herzberg; col; 1, lines 6-10), and therefore would be capable of wrapping around a pipe. The selection of known materials based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 2 and 4 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdelwitz (US 5968855)5 in view of Standaert (US 2010/0233927)1,6 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coates (US 2011/0139543)1.
With respect to claims 2 and 4, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Perdelwitz in view of Standaert is silent as to the product being a contact sound-dampening product.
Coates teaches sound absorption material formed from a low density fibrous web containing a plurality of bicomponent fibers, each bicomponent fiber having a core material and a sheath material around the core material, the sheath material having a lower melting point than the core material (paragraph [0004]). The bicomponent fibers are formed of short-lengths chopped from extruded bicomponent fibers (paragraph [0013]). Polymers for the adhesive sheath include polyethylene and polypropylene (paragraph [0018]). The sheath material has a melting point that is sufficiently lower than the core material in order to allow the core material to retain its structural integrity while the sheath softens at a temperature around its melting point temperature (paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
Both Perdelwitz in view of Standaert and Coates teach staple fiber nonwovens comprising polyolefin fibers with a lower melting point to melt bond with fibers of a higher melting point. It is therefore known in the art that the nonwoven structures of Perdelwitz in view of Standaert are suitable for acoustic dampening materials and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonwoven of Perdelwitz in view of Standaert to be suitable for use as acoustic dampening material. The selection of known materials based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 19 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perdelwitz (US 5968855)7 in view of Standaert (US 2010/0233927)1,8 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pourdeyhimi (US 2006/0223405)1,2.
With respect to claim 19, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Perdelwitz in view of Standaert is silent as to the non-woven fabric having a normalized stiffness higher than 150 N/%.
Pourdeyhimi teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising bicomponent fibers which include an external fiber component and an internal fiber component (paragraph [0021]). The external fiber enwraps said internal fiber and has a lower melting point than the internal fiber component (paragraph [0021]). The bicomponent fibers are positioned onto a web and thermally bonded to produce a nonwoven fabric (paragraph [0021]). Pourdeyhimi further teaches that it is generally observed that the strength of the structure improves with bonding temperature, reaches a maximum, and then declines rapidly because of over-bonding and premature failure of the fibers at the fiber-bond interface (paragraph [0008]). The structure stiffness, i.e. tensile modulus, bending rigidity, and shear modulus, increases with bonding temperature (paragraph [0008]).
Since both Perdelwitz in view of Standaert and Pourdeyhimi teach nonwoven fabrics comprising bicomponent fibers used to bond the nonwoven fabrics, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize normalized stiffness by way of the bonding temperature of the nonwoven fabric to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a bonding temperature that provides the desired stiffness properties (i.e., tensile modulus, bending rigidity, and shear modulus) for use without deteriorating the strength of the fabric through premature failure of the fibers at the fiber-bond interface with too high of a bonding temperature while maintaining the desired loft, density, and pore size of the fabric (see e.g., col. 2, lines 41-45 of Perdelwitz). It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form, is overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed February 16, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 16, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 Applicant submits that with respect to the obvious to try rationale the Office has not identified (1) the problem the prior art was trying to solve, (2) that there is not a finite number of identifiable, potential solutions because Perdelwitz does not predict particular properties for listed materials other than those presented in the examples, and (3) that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
These arguments are not persuasive. As identified in the rejection of claim 1 above, the aim of Perdelwitz is to provide a nonwoven fabric that provides the desired loft, density, and pore size (col. 2, lines 34-45). Perdelwitz acknowledges that providing a bonded fabric with adequate liquid transport properties yet also has the desired strength, bulkiness, compressibility, resilience, loft, and the like is a problem the prior has of yet not solved (col. 2, lines 3-17). Perdelwitz proposes a solution of calendar bonding fabrics with fibers of relatively high melt thermoplastic polymer and relatively low melt thermoplastic polymer, such that when bonded the higher melting staple fibers advantageously maintain their discrete individual fiber integrity, crimp, and loft, thereby imparting desirable loft, density, and pore size to the resultant calendared fabric (col. 2, lines 34-45) and explicitly states this is achieved through the selection of the polymer compositions of the low and high melt fibers (col. 4, lines 1-5). Therefore the rejection identified (1), the problem the prior art was trying to solve, which is providing a calendered fabric with the desired loft, density, and pore size by maintaining the structure of the high melt fiber.
It is therefore clear from the teachings of Perdelwitz that the solution requires selection of a low melt thermoplastics material and a high melt thermoplastic material. Based on the teachings of Standaert, the Office proposed the low melting point thermoplastic material be a nucleated metallocene polypropylene with a melting point of 153.9oC in order to provide a fiber with increased tensile strength. Therefore, the only selection remaining to be made is the selection of the high melting point thermoplastic polymer. As identified in the rejection above, col. 4, lines 19-29 list suitable thermoplastic polymers useful for forming the thermoplastic fibers which includes polypropylene and polypropylene copolymers. In total, Perdelwitz identifies five suitable thermoplastics as well as blends and copolymers thereof, all of which are well-known polymers for use in the fabric art. As such, which respect to (2), a finite number of identifiable, potential solutions are presented by Perdelwitz. There is no requirement for Perdelwitz to predict the properties of each option through the use of examples. Perdelwitz has provided a list of suitable thermoplastic polymers which the ordinary artisan may choose from, and has provided sufficient guidance for the choice of one as the high melt polymer must have a melting point at least 10oC greater than the low melt polymer (col. 4, lines 6-18) and provide the desired loft, density, and pore size to the resulting fabric (col. 2, lines 34-45).
With respect to (3), as discussed above Perdelwitz provides sufficient information such that the ordinary artisan could pursue the potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, in addition to providing a short list of suitable thermoplastic polymers, Perdelwitz also provides further guidance for the choice, namely that the high melt polymer must have a melting point at least 10oC greater than the low melt polymer (col. 4, lines 6-18) and provide the desired loft, density, and pore size to the resulting fabric (col. 2, lines 34-45).
On page 9 of the response Applicant submits that the Office does not explain how the increased tensile strength provided by the metallocene polypropylene of Standaert would address and effect the liquid transport properties of Perdelwitz.
These arguments are not persuasive. It is well established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not requires an actual, physical substitution of elements. See MPEP 2145(III). There is no evidence in either Standaert or Perdelwitz to suggest that the use of a metallocene polypropylene would change the liquid transport properties of Perdelwitz. As discussed in the rejection above, polypropylene is listed by Perdelwitz as a suitable thermoplastic polymer (col. 4, lines 19-28). Additionally, Perdelwitz teaches that it is desired to provide a liquid transport material using high and low melting point polymers with at melting point difference of at least 10oC (col. 4, lines 6-18). Perdelwitz also discusses how the liquid transport properties can be adjusted by adjusting the amount of low melt fibers present (col. 4, lines 52-61). As explained in the rejection above the melting point of the metallocene polypropylene is known, therefore it is well within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to utilize the metallocene polypropylene of Standaert to increase the tensile strength of the fiber while maintaining the liquid transport properties of Perdelwitz.
On pages 9-10 of the response Applicant submits that the pipe-wrapping thermal insulation limitation in claim 3 brings to mind a shaped mat of insulation material that has the necessary mechanical and thermodynamic properties required to inhibit heat exchange between the medium flowing inside the pipe and the environment. On page 10 of the response Applicant submits that the sound dampening product of claim 4 has to meet certain density and thickness requirements and therefore is not simply intended use.
These arguments are not convincing. The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim” as drafted without importing “’extraneous’ limitations from the specification”. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
In the instant case, it is clear that the claimed body fully and intrinsically sets forth all limitations of the claimed invention as claim 1 provides a complete structural claim without any listed intended purpose. It is also clear that upon review of the entire disclosure what the inventors actually invented is a nonwoven as claimed in claim 1, with the ability to be used in multiple intended use areas (see e.g., claims 2-4, 8). Therefore, the intended use limitations in claims 2-4 and 8 do not provide structural limitations as claim 1 provides a complete claim body without the need for intended use for completion and it is clear from the disclosure that the invention disclosed is a general nonwoven fabric with multiple uses.
Applicant has alleged that structure is required by the intended use, but has failed to identify the specific structure. With respect to the pipe-wrapping thermal insulation Applicant has asserted that the mat is shaped with specific thermodynamic and mechanical properties needed. However Applicant has not identified what additional structure not already provided by claim 1 is needed to provide this shaped mat with undefined properties. Perdowitz in view of Standaert teaches the structure of the claimed invention and therefore would be capable of use in the claimed manner, providing a degree of thermal insulation to a pipe.
With respect to the contact sound-dampening product, Applicant submits that the nonwoven must meet certain density and thickness requirements. However Applicant does not identify the specific density and thicknesses required. Perdowitz in view of Standaert teaches the structure of the claimed invention and therefore would be capable of use in the claimed manner, providing a degree of acoustic dampening.
Furthermore, the selection of known materials based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. As presented above, Herzberg and Coates were provided to show that the structure of a thermally bonded nonwoven with high and low melting point materials are known as suitable in thermal insulation uses (Herzberg) and acoustic insulation uses (Coates).
On pages 10-11 of the response Applicant submits that the inherency position does not show the stiffness in claim 19 is necessarily present in the combination of Perdelwitz in view of Standaert because it does not take into account other variable such as the specific polymer components used, their compositions, their physical properties, the choice of bonding techniques, the variables of time, pressure, flow rates, all of which would affect the properties of such nonwovens, including normalized stiffness.
These arguments are not persuasive. The specification and prior art are silent as to how the parameters listed by Applicant affect the final stiffness of the fabric, and evidence has not been provided to show that the specific parameters used by Perdelwitz in view of Standaert would necessarily not have the claimed stiffness. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c). As identified in the rejections and the inherency position, Perdelwitz in view of Standaert teaches the same polymer components and compositions as the claimed invention. The same bonding method is also used. Therefore the nonwoven of Perdelwitz in view of Standaert is expected to have the same properties as the claimed invention.
On page 11 of the response Applicant submits that the Office has not established with evidence or reasoning the necessary predicates to the application of routine optimization as a rationale supporting a conclusion of obviousness because this is not a situation where the skilled person was confronted with a limited set of predictable solutions to a known problem that are obvious to try.
These arguments are not persuasive. Routine optimization requires (A) optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation and (B) an articulated rationale supporting the rejection. See MPEP 2144.05(II). A limited set of predictable solutions to a known problem that are obvious to try is not a consideration required for routine optimization.
With respect to (A), Pourdeyhimi teaches that it is generally observed that the strength of the structure improves with bonding temperature, reaches a maximum, and then declines rapidly because of over-bonding and premature failure of the fibers at the fiber-bond interface (paragraph [0008]). The structure stiffness, i.e. tensile modulus, bending rigidity, and shear modulus, increases with bonding temperature (paragraph [0008]). Therefore optimization is within the prior art conditions and through routine experimentation.
With respect to (B), since both Perdelwitz in view of Standaert and Pourdeyhimi teach nonwoven fabrics comprising bicomponent fibers used to bond the nonwoven fabrics, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize normalized stiffness by way of the bonding temperature of the nonwoven fabric to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a bonding temperature that provides the desired stiffness properties (i.e., tensile modulus, bending rigidity, and shear modulus) for use without deteriorating the strength of the fabric through premature failure of the fibers at the fiber-bond interface with too high of a bonding temperature while maintaining the desired loft, density, and pore size of the fabric (see e.g., col. 2, lines 41-45 of Perdelwitz). It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
On page 12 of the response Applicant submits that Perdelwitz discloses that excessive stiffness can be avoided by adjusting the content of the low melt fibers and Pourdeyhimi discloses that stiffness generally can be increased with increased bond temperature. From this Applicant concludes that one of skill in the art would not have been able to manipulate the low melt fiber content and/or the bonding temperature to reliably and predictable obtain the stiffness of claim 19.
These arguments are not persuasive. As evidenced by the citations provided by Applicant, it is well known in the art how to adjust the stiffness of a nonwoven. Therefore, it is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to provide an optimized stiffness by adjusting the content of the low melt fibers and the bonding temperature used as guided by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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 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 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 Cited in IDS
3 Previously presented
4 Cited in IDS
5 Previously presented
6 Cited in IDS
7 Previously presented
8 Cited in IDS
Prosecution Insights