DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that in Keck it is not obvious that V4 > V1+V2 because of paragraph 98.
Examiner does not find this persuasive because, as illustrated below, V4 corresponds to the suction from the vacuum belt while V1 and V2 correspond to the flow from the outlet passages. If V4 was not greater than V1+V2 then the fibers could be blown off the vacuum belt.
PNG
media_image1.png
789
1151
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraph 98 indicates the negative pressure applied to the belt can be 25 inches water column (inwc) in order to pull the materials applied from V1,V2, and V3 into the forming surface. Pressure can be used to determine air flow rate, however, the calculation depends on various factors.
Even without calculation an additional obviousness finding can be made. Since the air flow rate is proportional to area of the vacuum belt, it would be obvious that the belt could have a greater air flow rate than the outlets in order to increase the production rate of the system. In other words, the bigger the vacuum surface, the greater the air flow through the total surface must be to maintain the vacuum. Thus, making the vacuum belt larger would result in a greater air flow. It would be obvious to make the vacuum belt larger in order to increase production.
An approximate calculation can be made by assuming the vacuum belt has a particular open area ratio and applying the orifice flow equation; or using various handbook approximations, such as the American Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 2011 handbook, which describes an equation for approximating air flow though a leaky surface: Q = 2,610 * A * sqrt(deltaP) where Q (cfm) is the leakage over an area A (sq ft) having a pressure difference deltaP (inwc).
Either the orifice flow equation or the ASHRAE approximation for a 25 inwc pressure differential (paragraph 98 of Keck) across an 80x80cm vacuum belt (Paragraph 135 of Keck indicates the nonwoven can be 80cm x 80cm.; it is assumed that the vacuum belt can be the same size) results in airflows greater than those disclose for the outlets by Keck (paragraph 143). For example, ASHRAE’s equation results in about 13000 CFM/sq ft of leakage area. Thus, depending on the size and openness of the vacuum belt (see attached catalog for vacuum belts), an airflow could be approximated which would obviously be larger than the air flow of the outlets.
Applicant argues that “Keck does not describe anywhere that the distance between the outlet passage (44) and the screen belt surface of the deposit screen belt (58) can be adjusted”
Examiner does not find this persuasive because Keck states “adjusting the distance from the nozzle 44 to the impingement zone 30” (paragraph 95) and the “Distance from between die tip and forming surface,” (P0118 to P0124). Thus, the impingement zone depends on the distance from between die tip and forming surface; thus, the distance from the nozzle 44 to the impingement zone implies that the distance from the nozzle 44 to the forming surface is also adjustable.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-8, 11-12, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keck (US 20030211802 A1)
In reference to claim 1, Keck discloses a method of making a nonwoven fabric from fibers (Abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
making continuous filaments of thermoplastic material by a meltblow spinneret (“providing at least one stream comprising meltblown filaments” [Claim 34]);
making pulp short fibers by a defibrator in which a short-fiber/air stream is made from the pulp short fibers and is guided through an outlet passage and emerges therefrom and flows with an initial volume flow V1 and a flow direction S1 toward an air-permeable foraminous deposition belt (“providing at least one stream comprising at least one secondary material” [Claim 34] and “the teeth 38 of the picker roll 36 have separated the mat of secondary fibers 40 into separate secondary fibers 32” [P0088] and “gas is supplied in sufficient quantity to serve as a medium for conveying the secondary fibers 32 through the nozzle 44” [P0089]See Fig. 3);
flowing the continuous filaments from the meltblow spinneret as a filament-air stream with an initial volume flow V2 toward the short-fiber/air stream (See Fig. 3)
combining the filament-air stream and the short-fiber/air stream above the foraminous deposition belt in a contact zone and depositing the combined streams as a continuous-filament/short-fiber mixture in a deposition zone on the foraminous deposition belt to form the nonwoven fabric; and (“c. converging the at least one stream containing at least one secondary material with the at least one stream of meltblown filaments to form a composite stream; d. depositing the composite stream onto a shaped forming surface as a matrix of meltblown filaments and at least one secondary material to form a first deposited layer;” [Claim 34])
Keck further discloses “applying a pressure differential to the matrix while on the forming surface;” [Claim 34]. See Fig. 3 and “the vacuum is operated at a condition which is sufficient to pull the meltblown filament and secondary material into the forming surface but not high enough to pull the secondary material and meltblown filaments through the forming surface” (P0098).
Therefore, it would be obvious that the aspirating air or process air with a volume flow V4 greater than the sum of the volume flows V1 and V2 from below through the foraminous deposition belt in the deposition zone of the fibers or of the continuous-filament/short-fiber mixture in order to ensure that a vacuuming airflow was achieved.
As shown below, V4 corresponds to the suction from the vacuum belt while V1 and V2 correspond to the flow from the outlet passages. If V4 was not greater than V1+V2 then the fibers could be blown off the vacuum belt.
PNG
media_image1.png
789
1151
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraph 98 indicates the negative pressure applied to the belt can be 25 inwc (about 1 PSI vacuum) in order to pull the materials applied from V1,V2, and V3 into the forming surface.
Keck further discloses that “The following parameters can be adjusted and varied for each extruder and die head in order to change the characteristics of the resulting meltblown filaments:… Distance from between die tip and forming surface,” (P0118 to P0124). Keck states “adjusting the distance from the nozzle 44 to the impingement zone 30” (paragraph 95).
Keck states “adjusting the distance from the nozzle 44 to the impingement zone 30” (paragraph 95) and the “Distance from between die tip and forming surface,” (P0118 to P0124). Thus, the impingement zone depends on the distance from between die tip and forming surface; thus, the distance from the nozzle 44 to the impingement zone implies that the distance from the nozzle 44 to the forming surface is also adjustable.
In reference to claim 2 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck further discloses two meltblow spinnerets are provided and continuous filaments flow from the second meltblow spinneret as a second filament-air stream with an initial volume flow V3 to toward the short-fiber/air stream, (Fig 3)
the volume flow V4 is greater than the sum of the volume flows V1, V2, and V3, and the filament-air stream in the travel direction of the foraminous deposition belt flows upstream of the short-fiber/air stream and the second filament-air stream flows in the travel direction of the foraminous deposition belt flows downstream of the short-fiber/air stream (“the vacuum is operated at a condition which is sufficient to pull the meltblown filament and secondary material into the forming surface but not high enough to pull the secondary material and meltblown filaments through the forming surface” [P0098]).
In reference to claim 3 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck further discloses that the filament-air stream flows with respect to its flow direction S2 at least in regions or sections at an angle α1 to the flow direction S1 of the short-fiber/air stream,
the second filament-air stream flows with respect to its flow direction S3 at least in regions or sections at an angle α2 to the flow direction S1 of the short-fiber/air stream, and
the angle α1 or the angle α2 is greater than 10° (See Fig 3 and “merging a secondary gas stream 34 containing the secondary fibers 32 between the two streams 26 and 28 of thermoplastic polymer fibers 20 and 21 so that all three gas streams converge in a controlled manner” [P0086]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to set the angle of the streams to significantly less than parallel (i.e., greater than 10 degrees) in order to ensure the streams are combined as required by Keck).
In reference to claim 4 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck further discloses wherein the short-fiber/air stream flows from the outlet passage or an outlet passage end perpendicularly or substantially perpendicularly to a surface of the foraminous deposition belt with regard to its flow direction S1 (See Fig 3).
In reference to claim 5 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck further discloses aspirating secondary air in a space between the short-fiber/air stream and the filament-air stream and/or in a space between the short-fiber/air stream and the second filament-air stream (See Fig 3. If the belt pulls a vacuum then surrounding air including the air between the streams would be pulled down as well).
In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck further discloses wherein the short-fiber/air stream is accelerated in the outlet passage by a blower of the defibrator “gas is supplied in sufficient quantity to serve as a medium for conveying the secondary fibers 32 through the nozzle 44” [P0089. See Fig. 3).
In reference to claim 7-8 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck further discloses that “the meltblown fibers are carried by the high velocity gas stream and are deposited on a collecting surface to form a web of randomly dispersed meltblown fibers. Such a process is disclosed, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 3,849,241 to Butin, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety”
US 3,849,241 discloses the structure as claimed (See Fig 1-2 of US 3,849,241)
In reference to claim 11-12 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck further discloses that “The following parameters can be adjusted and varied for each extruder and die head in order to change the characteristics of the resulting meltblown filaments:… Polymer throughput (pounds per inch of die width per hour--PIH)… Air temperature,…Air flow (standard cubic feet per minute, SCFM, calibrated for the width of the die head),” (P0118 to P0124). It would be obvious to optimize the process and thereby arrive the claimed mass flow rates.
In reference to claim 14 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck disclose the short-fiber is applied at 4 lb/inch/hr (Example 1, the fiber and polymer are applied equally) which is about 71 kg/h/m.
In reference to claim 17 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See Fig 2 of Keck.
Claim 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keck (US 20030211802 A1) and in view of Schwarz (US 6013223 A).
In reference to claim 9 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck does not disclose a meltblow spinneret as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, nonwovens (title), Schwarz discloses a meltblow spinneret as claimed (Fig 2).
The combination would be achievable by using the meltblow spinneret of Schwarz to perform meltblow spinning in Keck.
Schwarz discloses that this arrangement improves the quality of the fibers because the air is parallel to the melt (Summary of Invention section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method such that a meltblow spinneret as claimed was used.
In reference to claim 10 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck does not disclose a water spraying as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, nonwovens (title), Schwarz discloses that “It is the molecular orientation within the polymeric fibers that gives the fiber its strength. This orientation is enhanced by using a cross flow air or water mist quench below the spinnerette for additional cooling” (C1L30-35)
The combination would be achievable by using the water spray of Schwarz to perform meltblow spinning in Keck.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method such that a water spray as claimed was used.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keck (US 20030211802 A1) and in view of Anderson (US 4100324 A).
In reference to claim 13 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck further discloses that “The following parameters can be adjusted and varied for each extruder and die head in order to change the characteristics of the resulting meltblown filaments:… Distance from between die tip and forming surface,” (P0118 to P0124).
Keck states “adjusting the distance from the nozzle 44 to the impingement zone 30” (paragraph 95) and the “Distance from between die tip and forming surface,” (P0118 to P0124). Thus, the impingement zone depends on the distance from between die tip and forming surface; thus, the distance from the nozzle 44 to the impingement zone implies that the distance from the nozzle 44 to the forming surface is also adjustable.
Keck does not disclose specific spacing distances.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, nonwovens (title), Anderson discloses a similar method and describes an example wherein the spacing is 30.25 inches (Example VII, about 770 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method such the spacing can adjusted and varied for each extruder and die head in order to change the characteristics and that the spacing is set to 770 mm as this is taught to be useful spacing in the art.
Claim 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keck (US 20030211802 A1) and in view of Sisman (US 12378710 B2).
In reference to claim 15 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Keck further discloses that the “nonwoven web may also have a barrier layer. …the liquid barrier layer can comprise an embossed… the multiple layers can be thermally and/or ultrasonically laminated together to form an integrated laminate” (P0131-0132). Keck does not recite the use of calendaring.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, nonwovens (abstract), Sisman discloses a similar method and describes that calendaring is useful for bonding layers (“nonwoven interlining, which allows the process in which the produced layers are joined with a hot, embossing calender“ C2L66-C3L2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use calendaring as claimed.
In reference to claim 16 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Sisman further discloses wherein the embossing pattern is configured to be uninterrupted and a basic pattern geometry of the embossing pattern has a pressing area in the range from 20 to 50 mm2 (“the embossing calendar having a thermal bonding area of between 5 square millimeters and 40 square millimeters” [Claim 10]).
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 NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744