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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/17/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1–15 and 18–20 in the reply filed on 6/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “from about” is repeated twice in a row in describing element (iii). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning or lacks a definition, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “LSTST-basis weight ratio” in claim 12 is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5–9, 13–15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novarino (US 2016/0333509 A1).
Novarino teaches the formation of a meltblown nonwoven fabric comprising a plurality of fine fibers (diameter of less than 10 microns), wherein the fibers are formed from recycled polypropylene (rPP) comprising a visbroken spunbond grade polypropylene. Novarino abstract, ¶¶ 15, 36, 54. The rPP has a first melt flow rate (MFR) of 35 prior to visbreaking and a second MFR in the range of about 400 to 2,500 after visbreaking. Id. ¶¶ 44, 54. The meltblown fibers may comprise 50 percent rPP and 50 percent polylactic acid. Id. ¶¶ 3, 54. The meltblown web may be used to make diapers. Id. ¶ 50.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected as the visbreaking agent used to break the rPP may be a peroxide. See id. ¶¶ 9, 38–39, 43. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected as the meltblown nonwoven fabric may be part of a spunbond/meltblown/spunbond laminate. Id. ¶ 10.
Although Novarino does not explicitly teach the claimed machine direction tensile strength at break from about 1.5:1 to about 3:1, a machine direction elongation at break from 20 to 60%, a cross-direction tensile strength at break to basis weight ratio from about 0.75 to about 1.5:1, and/or a cross-direction elongation at break from 20 to 60%, it is reasonable to presume that said properties are inherent to Novarino. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. visbroken rPP meltblown fiber nonwoven fabric with claimed MFRs). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present one the Novarino product is provided.
Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novarino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2023/0025875 A1).
Novarino fails to teach a molecular weight distribution that is not greater than 3.5 for the rPP after visbreaking.
Wang teaches the formation of meltblown webs comprising visbroken polypropylene polymer having improved barrier properties, wherein the polymer has a specified molecular weight distribution (MWD). Wang abstract, ¶ 1. The polypropylene composition after visbreaking has a most preferred MWD in range of 2.0 to 3.2. Id. ¶ 39. The basis weight of the meltblown web of Wang may be as high as 15.0 gsm. Id. ¶ 221. The meltblown web may have a hydrohead of at least 80 mbar and an air permeability in range of 350–994 mm/s. Id. ¶ 225, Table 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the recycled polypropylene of Novarino after visbreaking with a MWD in the range of 2.0 to 3.2 motivated by the desire to determine the properties and performance in processing the rPP. See Wang ¶ 5.
Regarding the claimed hydrohead and air permeability to basis weight ratios, the relative ratios and their respective component values are result-effective variables affecting the breathability of water vapor retention of finally formed products such as diapers, as well as the intended end use of the product. See Wang ¶¶ 3, 221. Consequently, absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed ratios, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize these result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novarino as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Dwiggins (US 2013/0041335 A1).
Novarino fails to teach that the meltblown fabric may be used as a barrier leg cuff in a diaper.
Dwiggins teaches the formation of a meltblown nonwoven polypropylene fabric for use as a liquid barrier component in diapers including to make breathable leg cuffs. Dwiggins abstract, ¶¶ 12, 70, 76.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Dwiggins for guidance as to specific uses of the Novarino meltblown fabric when using the fabric to make diapers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights