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. 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, 3-19, 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Jr. et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0255100 in view of KR100284438.
Li discloses a composite geotextile. Th geotextile comprises a nonwoven fabric and a woven fabric wherein the nonwoven fabric is needle punched through the woven. See paragraph 0011. The fibers of the nonwoven which extend through the woven fabric are heat bonded to the woven. See paragraph 0016 and paragraph 0030. Li teaches selecting the size of the needles and the size of the fibers to provide an opening size distribution that is needed for the target application. See paragraph 0040. The nonwoven can have a basis weight of 6-8 osy. See paragraph 0040. The woven fabric can be formed from yarns or slit films of high modulus polymeric materials. See paragraph 0041. The woven can have a basis weight of 5.8 osy. See paragraph 0041.
Li teaches the method of forming the nonwoven, forming the woven and then needle punching to combine the layers and then fusing the fibers which extend through the woven.
With regard to the limitation that the fabric consists of only the woven and nonwoven layer, Li discloses a two layer fabric consisting of the woven and nonwoven layers. See claims 1-9 of Li.
Li differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the claimed denier and basis weights of the fabric layers and does not disclose the particularly claimed properties such as ultraviolent retention, biaxial adhesion strength, biaxial wide width tensile strength, abrasion resistance, and impact energy.
However, KR ’438 discloses a geosynthetic material comprising a woven layer and a nonwoven layer. The nonwoven layer can comprise polymeric fibers having a denier of 5-10 and a weight of 20-25 gsm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, both in view of the teaching of Li of selecting fiber denier size and in view of the teaching of KR ‘438 to have selected fiber deniers and basis weights as claimed in order to provide a structure having the desired strength and porosity. With regard to the particularly claimed properties, since Li teaches incorporating UV stabilizers, it would have been obvious to have added sufficient UV stabilizers to provide the desired degree of stability to the fabric. It further would have been obvious to have selected fiber deniers, basis weights and amount of needling and degree of fusion which produced the properties of adhesion strength, tensile strength, abrasion resistance and impact energy, recognizing that one of ordinary skill would have known that the fiber denier, the basis weight of the fabric layers, the degree of entangling due to needle punching as well as the degree bonding of the nonwoven extending layer would control fabric strength, adhesion strength, abrasion resistance and impact energy.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Li does not teach a two layer fabric. However, Li clearly teaches a two layer fabric as shown by at least claims 1-9, as well as throughout the disclosure. While Li does teach that the fabric can be bonded to a geonet, it also teaches the two layered fabric per se.
Applicant argues that Li does not teach the claimed fiber denier size and basis weight and that to modify as set forth in the Action would destroy the intended purpose of Li because Li connects the fiber denier and the needle size to producing specific filtration properties. However, this teaching would provide a rationale for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the fiber denier, basis weight and needle size which produced the desired filtration properties. The person of ordinary skill would not be limited to filtering only the exact particles desired by Li but would have recognized from Li that fiber denier, basis weight and needle size are result effective variables which can be modified to provide particular filtration properties. This would not destroy the intended purpose of Li which is to form a geotextile having filtration properties, but would modify the particular filtration properties of Li.
Applicant argues that the combination impermissibly changes Li’s principle of operation because KR ‘438 includes a bentonite layer and selects the denier values for fusibility rather than filtration.
However, it is not required that the bentonite layer of KR ‘438 be incorporated into the structure of Li. KR ‘438 is relied on for the teaching that the particularly claimed deniers and basis weights were known in the art as suitable for forming geotextiles. Similarly, as set forth above, Li teaches selecting basis weights, needle sizes and fiber deniers to provide the desired filtration properties to the structure.
Applicant argues that the particular claimed structure is expectedly and advantageously lighter and less expensive, with the same, similar or better abrasion, impact resistance , peel strength, UV resistance and water flow of three layered composites. However, as set forth above, Li already teaches a two layer structure.
Further, with regard to unexpected results, Applicant argues that small deniers of 2-18 provide the composite with higher ultraviolet, impact, water-flow and abrasion resistance than larger fibers, as well as greater adhesion and peel strength over larger denier fibers, as well as significantly higher peel strength adhesion. However, the showing does not compare the closest prior art to the claimed invention, does not establish that any woven fabric would provide the same results or that the woven fabric has no impact on the results, does not provide any data to show that the results are significant, does not establish that the results are for any type of fiber material or that the results are found over the entirety of the claimed range.
Therefore, considering the totality of the evidence, the rejection is maintained for the reasons of record.
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
Prosecution Insights