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 Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks filed 7/24/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 8(withdrawn), 11(withdrawn), 13-14(withdrawn) and 16(withdrawn) have been amended. Claims 17-20 have been added. Applicant’s amendments are found sufficient to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejections with respect to the recitation of “preferably”. Specifically, Applicants’ have deleted the term preferably from claims 3, 4 and 6. However, Applicants’ arguments are not found persuasive to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejections with respect to the recitation of “primary fibers”. As such, the Examiner maintains these 112 2nd paragraph rejections with regard to the claims reciting “primary fibers” as set forth below. Regarding the claims rejected under the combination of Weik et al., US 10825439B2 in view of JP 2001123351 A and further in view of Coates et al., US 9315930 B2, Applicants’ have amended the claims such that they are no longer are limited to core-spun fibers. As such, the reliance on the cited JP ‘351 reference is no longer applicable and hereby withdrawn. However, Applicants’ claims are still rendered obvious over the combination of Weik et al., for reasons set forth in the following new ground of rejection below. In addition, Applicants’ new claims raise new 112 2nd paragraph indefinite rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 2,3, 4, 7 and 20 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.
4. Claims 2, 3 and 4 are still considered indefinite because it is not clear if the non-woven further includes “primary” structural fibers and “primary” sheath/core binding fibers separate from the structural and sheath/core binding fibers recited in claim 1. It is also not clear what constitutes said “primary” structural fibers and “primary” sheath/core binding fibers.
5. Claim 7 is considered indefinite because of the recitation of “in particular”. The term “in particular” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
6. Claim 20 is indefinite because it is not clear if the primary structural fibers and primary sheath/core fibers are the same as the same structural fibers and sheath/core fibers of claim 1. The recitation of “primary” structural fibers and “primary” sheath/core fibers lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-7 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Weik et al., US 10825439B2 in view Milding et al., US 6037282.
The applied reference has a common assignee/inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
The patent issued to Weik et al., teach sound absorbing textile comprising a support layer (a) and microporous flow layer (b) wherein the sound absorbing textile has a flow resistance ranging from 250 Ns/m3 to 5000 Ns/m3 (title and abstract). With regard to the claimed areal density, Weik et al., teach a weight per unit area in the range from 50-350 g/m2 (column 7, 40). The Examiner is of the position that areal density and weight per unit area are the same concept since both are a measurement mass per unit area (e.g., are essentially the same concept within textile engineering). With regard to the support layer, Weik et al., teach that the support layer comprises coarse stable fibers having titers from 3-17dtex and fine staple fibers having titers ranging from .3-2.9 dtex (abstract). With regard to the microporous flow layer (b), Weik et al., teach using microfibers with a diameter of less than 10 microns (abstract). Weik et al., teach that the coarse staple fibers of the support layer are present in amounts ranging from 10-90 wt. % (column 3, 55-65). The Examiner considers the coarse staple fibers of the support layer sufficient to meet the limitation of the claimed structural fibers. Additionally, in view of the 112 2nd paragraph rejection set forth above, the coarse stable fibers of the support layer are also found sufficient to meet the claimed “primary” structural fibers. With regard to the claimed sheath/core binder fibers, Weik et al., further teach that the sound absorbing textile can further include sheath/core binding fibers (column 5, 15-65). Weik et al., teach that the binding sheath/core fibers are present in amounts ranging from 5-50 wt. % (column 5, 15-65). The Examiner is of the position that the binding fibers are found sufficient to meet the limitation of the claimed sheath/core binder fibers. Suitable binder fibers include those made from polyesters and co-polyesters (column 5, 15-40).
The cited prior art of Weik et al., does specifically teach using reprocessed or recycled fiber materials produced via a mechanical tearing process.
The patent issued to Milding et al., method of producing a nonwoven material wherein a fiber web is formed by wet-forming, foam-forming, dry-forming or airlaying, said web comprising between 1 and 100% recycled fibers with a fiber length of between 5 and 60 mm and a fineness of between 0.1 and 20 dtex, which are constituted by fibers which have been freed by mechanical tearing of nonwoven waste or textile waste (title, abstract and claim 7). Milding et al., teach that mechanical tearing of the waste material (e.g., the freeing of the fibers) is often incomplete so that the recycled fibers can be present partly in the form of flocks. These flocks give non-uniformities in the produced material, which can have certain positive effects like the material having a more textile-like appearance and, in the case where the material is to be used as drying material, the cleaning capacity of the material is increased due to the mechanical friction effect which the non-uniformities produced (column 2, 50-60). Milding et al., teach fibers can be recycled by mechanical shredding of the waste, whereby the material is cut into small bits which, with the help of spiked rollers, are torn up so that the fibers are freed. Regarding claims 17 and 18, absence evidence to the contrary, the Examiner is of the position that the mechanical shredding/tearing process would produce the claimed irregular shapes and deformed (e.g., binder fibers with two cores with a deformed sheath) states as claimed. The waste in this case can be constituted by mixed materials, comprising not only natural fibers of different types, such as pulp fibers, cotton, jute, ramie etc. but also synthetic fibers, e.g. polyester, polypropylene, regenerated cellulose etc. The equipment for mechanical recycling fibers from nonwoven and textile material is commercially available from many different machine suppliers (column 2, 15-30).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recycle the fiber materials of Weik et al., via a mechanical tearing process such as the one disclosed by Milding et al., to provide recycled fibers with the certain positive effects disclosed above. The Examiner is also of the position that person of ordinary skill in the art would further be motivated to use recycled fibers to reduce post consumer waste and for environmental reasons.
For these reasons, the Examiner is of the position that the combination of cited prior art renders claims 1, 17 and 18 and 20 obvious.
With regard to claim 2, Weik et al., teach the claimed structural fibers (primary) having the claimed titer dtex as set forth above. Weik et al., teach that the length of said structural fibers range from 20-80mm (column 4, 30-40).
With regard to claim 19, Weik et al., exemplify binding fibers with a length of 51 mm (example 1).
With regard to claim 4, Weik et al., teach titer of the binding fibers of 4.4 dtex. This value is within the range of the titer of the structural staple fibers.
With regard to claim 5, the patent issued to Milding et al., teach using recycled/repurposed fibers to form the non-woven in amount from 1-100 wt. % (Milding et al., Claim 7).
With regard to claim 6, in view of the inclusion of 0 wt. % in the recited range, the Examiner is treating the primary structural fibers and primary core spun binder fibers as optional components. With regard to the claimed amount of structural staple fibers, Weik et al., teach that the coarse staple fibers of the support layer in present in amount ranging from 10-90 wt. %. Regarding the amount of recycled/repurposed sheath/core binding fibers, Weik et al., teach that the binding sheath/core fibers are present in amounts ranging from 5-50 wt. % (column 5, 15-65). Additionally, the patent issued to Milding et al., teach using recycled/repurposed fibers to form the non-woven in amount from 1-100 wt. % (MIlding et al., Claim 7). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the textile of Weik et al., with recycled fibers in an amount ranging from 1-100 wt. % as taught by Milding et al. As such, the Examiner is of the position that the combination of cited prior art renders claim 6 obvious.
With regard to claim 7, Milding et al., teach that the waste material shredded and can be used in amounts ranging from 1-100 wt. % (Milding et al., Claim 7).
Conclusion
9. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
