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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, claims 1-9 are withdrawn from consideration.
Amendments to the claims 2-20, filed on 8 December 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants' election without traverse of claims 10-20 in the reply filed on 8 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8 December 2025.
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 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knox (FR 2694940 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Knox teaches an article made from two or more layers of porous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) that have been densified, the densified PTFE layers can contain one or more reinforcement layers of a fabric-like material, such as a woven fabric made of porous PTFE filaments ([0007]-[0010] of Knox). Knox also teaches that the article can be a membrane wherein an exposed surface has a series of concentrically arranged elastomeric ribs (figures 2 to 3 and [0012] of Knox).
Regarding Claim 16: Knox teaches that the first polymer layer further comprises PTFE ([0012] of Knox).
Regarding Claim 17: Knox teaches that the article further comprises a permeable fibrous substrate having a particle filtration efficiency ([0010]-[0012] of Knox). (In the instant case, said "particle filtration efficiency" is considered by the examiner, for the purposes of examination, to be for any particles of any size, since the specification as filed is silent as to what "particles" are being referred to.)
Regarding Claim 20: Knox teaches the claimed article, but does not explicitly recite --the article further comprises a three-dimensional bond interface--. However, in that the article comprises a woven fabric made of porous PTFE filaments bonded to another sheet ([0009] and [0010] of Knox), the article would inherently possess said three-dimensional bond interface.
Claims 10, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Langdon (US 2012/0271265 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: Langdon teaches a zero-strain stretch laminate including a first layer (ref. #10), a second layer (ref. #20), a third layer (ref. #30), and an optional fourth layer (ref. #40), wherein the first and optional fourth layer can be a layer of nonwoven web formed predominately of polymer fibers, wherein the second layer can be a layer of elastomeric film, and wherein the third layer can be formed of a plastically deformable and/or ductile polymeric film (figure 1, [0006], [0033], [0040]-[0042], and [0047]-[0049] of Langdon). Langdon also teaches that the laminate and its components be suitably breathable (i.e., apertures or micro-apertures) ([0049] of Langdon). It is also taught by Langdon that the first and/or forth layer are adhered to an adjacent layer by any suitable adhesive, and are formed of nonwoven web materials, in which activation or incremental stretching results in roughly linear zones of separation, elongation and/or breaks in fibers of the nonwoven web material, substantially perpendicular to the stretch direction ([0041] and [0053] of Langdon).
Regarding Claim 13: Langdon teaches that the article further comprises a rough surface ([0006], [0041], [0053], and [0054] of Langdon).
Regarding Claim 14: Langdon teaches that the article further comprises a three-dimensional bond interface (figure 1, [0006], [0033], and [0040]-[0042] of Langdon). (In the instant case, the nonwoven first layer being bonded to the adjacent layer by adhesive would result in such a bond interface, due to the form of the nonwoven web of the first layer.)
Regarding Claim 15: Langdon teaches an article comprising: a first polymer layer comprising a first surface and a second surface, the first surface comprising a rough surface; and a second layer comprising a surface adjacent to and bonded to the second surface of the first polymer layer (figure 1, [0006], [0033], [0040]-[0042], [0047]-[0049], and [0053]-[0054] of Langdon)
Regarding Claim 17: Langdon teaches that the article further comprises a permeable fibrous substrate having a particle filtration efficiency ([0049] of Langdon). (In the instant case, because the article of Langdon is breathable it would have some degree of particle filtration efficiency.)
Regarding Claims 18 and 19: Langdon teaches that the article further comprises fractured fibers/fibrils ([0053] of Langdon).
Regarding Claim 20: Langdon teaches that the article further comprises a three-dimensional bond interface (figure 1, [0006], [0033], and [0040]-[0042] of Langdon). (In the instant case, the nonwoven first layer being bonded to the adjacent layer by adhesive would result in such a bond interface, due to the form of the nonwoven web of the first layer.)
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 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langdon (US 2012/0271265 A1) as applied to claims 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Kaufman (US 2010/0068484 A1).
Langdon is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claims 11 and 16: Langdon discloses the article, but fails to disclose --one or both of the first polymer layer and the second layer further comprises PTFE-- {instant claim 11} or --the first polymer layer further comprises PTFE-- {instant claim 16}.
Kaufman discloses a microporous biodegradable film that can be laminated to a nonwoven web material, the nonwoven web material can be polytetrafluoroethylene ([0021], [0050], and [0051] of Kaufman). Kaufman also discloses that the breathable film can be used with the nonwoven web as a layer of an absorbent article ([0063] of Kaufman).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the nonwoven web of Kaufman with the article disclosed by Langdon in order to have --one or both of the first polymer layer and the second layer further comprises PTFE-- {instant claim 11} or --the first polymer layer further comprises PTFE-- {instant claim 16}. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the nonwoven web of Kaufman with the article disclosed by Langdon, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07. (In the instant case, Kaufman discloses an absorbent article comprising a portion/sheet comprising a laminate comprising a nonwoven web of PTFE, and Langdon discloses an absorbent article comprising a component that is formed from a laminate comprising a nonwoven web formed of polymeric fibers (as recited above). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use PTFE fibers as the fibers of the nonwoven web of Langdon, since such a modification would amount to a mere design choice.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Langdon (US 2012/0271265 A1): Langdon teaches --an article--, wherein Langdon's article further comprises the structure --a zero-strain stretch laminate including a first layer (ref. #10), a second layer (ref. #20), a third layer (ref. #30), and an optional fourth layer (ref. #40), wherein the first and optional fourth layer can be a layer of nonwoven web formed predominately of polymer fibers, wherein the second layer can be a layer of elastomeric film, and wherein the third layer can be formed of a plastically deformable and/or ductile polymeric film; wherein the laminate and its components be suitably breathable (i.e., apertures or micro-apertures); and wherein the first and/or forth layer are adhered to an adjacent layer by any suitable adhesive, and are formed of nonwoven web materials, in which activation or incremental stretching results in roughly linear zones of separation, elongation and/or breaks in fibers of the nonwoven web material, substantially perpendicular to the stretch direction-- (figure 1, [0006], [0033], [0040]-[0042], [0047]-[0049], and [0053] of Langdon). However, Langdon is silent with respect to the presence of --flattened nodes in the porous microstructure of the first polymer layer-- {instant claim 12} along with --fractured fibrils-- {instant claim 1}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Langdon with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Langdon in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights