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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 12/30/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 and 6 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 considered indefinite because it is not clear if the non-woven further includes “primary” structural fibers and “primary” core spun binding fibers separate from the structural and core spun binding fibers recited in claim 1. It is also not clear what constitutes said “primary” structural fibers and “primary” core spun binding fibers.
5. Claims 3 and 4 are further indefinite because of the term “preferably”. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
6. Claim 6 is indefinite because of the term “preferably”. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In addition, since it is not clear if the primary structural fibers and primary core spun fibers are the same as the same structural fibers and core spun fibers of claim 1, the recitation of the ranges that includes 0 wt. % conflicts from claim 1 that recites a range of 50-90 wt. % structural fibers and 10-50 wt. % core spun fibers. In addition, if the primary structural fibers and primary core spun fibers are the same as the structural fibers and core spun fibers, the recitation of “primary” structural fibers and “primary” core spun 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Weik et al., US 10825439B2 in view of JP 2001123351 A and further in view of Coates et al., US 9315930 B2.
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 a titers 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 core-spun 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).
Weik et al., does not specifically teach using core spun binder fibers.
The published JP application teach forming fabrics from core-spun sheath/core bicomponent fibers. The published JP application teach that the sheath-core structure spun yarn exhibits good touch, fabric hand, moderate hardness, wrinkle-proof, high dimensional stability (see translation). The published JP application teach that the spun yarn having a core-sheath structure referred to in the present invention is obtained by covering the periphery of a polyester-based short fiber group containing the binder fiber forming the core with a cellulose-based short fiber group to form a sheath portion. It also refers to a composite spun yarn having a core-sheath structure. Here, the fibers constituting the core portion and the fibers constituting the sheath portion are various mixed fiber spun yarns, or a polyester-based short fiber is mixed in the sheath portion of the core-sheath structure spun yarn. In such a state, care must be taken because the touch and texture of the cellulosic fiber are impaired. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the sound absorbing composite of Weik et al., with core-spun binder fibers as taught by the JP application for the purpose of providing a composite substrate that has good tough, moderate hardness and good dimensional stability.
The combination of cited prior art does specifically teach using reprocessed or recycled fiber materials.
The patent issued Coates et al., teach forming non-woven acoustic type fabrics using recycled/reprocessed short fiber materials (title, abstract, column 1, 40-55 and column 2, 20-30). Suitable short fibers derived from waste include synthetic and natural fibers (column 5, 15-65). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the acoustic non-woven of modified Weik et al., with recycled or reprocessed fiber material as taught by Coates et al., for the purpose of reducing or eliminating the amount of waste disposed in landfills and/or to cut down on manufacturing costs (column 12, 5-10).
For these reasons, the Examiner is of the position that the combination of cited prior art renders claim 1 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 3, 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 Coates et al., teach using recycled/repurposed fibers to form the non-woven in amount from 5-100 wt. % (Coates et al., column 8, 25-30).
With regard to claim 6, in view of the 112 2nd paragraph rejection above and 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. %. With regard to the amount of recycled/repurposed core spun 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 Coates et al., teach using recycled/repurposed fibers to form the non-woven in amount from 5-100 wt. % (Coates et al., column 8, 25-30). As such, the Examiner is of the position that the combination of cited prior art renders claim 6 obvious.
With regard to claim 7, Coates et al., teach that the waste material shredded and can be using in amounts ranging from 5-100 wt. % (Coates et al., column 8, 25-30 and column 13, 40).
Conclusion
9. 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
Prosecution Insights