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 .
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) 1-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curro et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0281976 in view of Curro et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0286343, hereinafter Curro2.
With regard to claims 1, 22, Curro discloses a nonwoven fabric comprising a plurality of loops. See abstract. The loops extend from the face plane of the nonwoven and include more than one fibers. See figure 6 which shows a plurality of fibers in each loop, which meets the limitation of at least three, and paragraph 0025. The loops only extend from the face of the fabric and do not extend into the fabric. See figure 6 and paragraphs 0025 and paragraph 0035. The fabric can be formed from fibers and can have a basis weight of 1-1000 gsm. See paragraph 0023. The nonwoven can have a density of 0.05 g/cc. See paragraph 0036. The nonwoven can be formed from continuous filaments. See paragraph 0046. The starting web can be thermally bonded or hydroentangled. See paragraph 0046. Thermal bonding would form the plurality of fused inter-filamentary conjunctions between at least some of the plurality of filaments as claimed. Hydroentangling would necessarily form bows as that term is defined in the instant specification, (arc structures), because it uses high powered jets of water to displace and entangle the filaments. The fibers can be polyolefin, polyesters, polyamides, polyvinyl acetates and blends thereof. See paragraph 0047. The loops can be formed by providing the nonwoven and hydroentangling to move the fibers into the shape of a loop. See paragraph 0053 and 0058.
Curro differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the endless or continuous filaments are crimpable.
However, Curro2 discloses a nonwoven fabric. The fabric can be thermally bonded which would form a plurality of fused inter-filamentary conjunctions between at least some of the plurality of filaments as claimed. See paragraph 0073. The fibers can be endless or continuous filaments and can be bicomponent fibers such as side by side or sheath/core fibers. See paragraphs 0040, 0028. The fibers can be crimped or crimpable. See paragraph 0028. Suitable polymers include polyolefins, PVA, PET polyesters. See paragraph 0038. The fabric can have a basis weight of 8-500 gsm. See paragraph 0035. Curro teaches that a plurality of loops which extend from the plane of the fabric. The loops include more than three fibers. The loops do not extend into the fabric but only extend from the plane of the fabric. See figures and paragraphs 0052-0053 and 0056-0058. Curro teaches varying the desired size, spacing and area of the tufts or loops. See paragraph 0067. The fabric can be hydroentangled which would necessarily form bows or deformed fibers within the internal portion of the fabric. See paragraph 0073.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have employed crimped or crimpable fibers as the continuous multicomponent filaments in Curro, in view of the teaching of Curro2 of their suitability for this intended purpose.
With regard to claims 2-3, since Curro and Curro2 teach thermally bonding the nonwoven, it would have been obvious to have selected known methods of thermal bonding including embossing or point bonding.
With regard to the bulkiness, (claims 4 and 21), since Curro teaches a density of 0.05 g/cc, which converts to 50 kg/cubic meter, Curro teaches the claimed bulkiness as set forth in claim 4.
With regard to the Handle o Meter, (claims 5 and 21), Curro does not teach the claimed value, however, since Curro teaches materials having the same structure and made by the same process, it is reasonable to expect that either the claimed Handle O Meter values are present or else it would have been obvious to have selected the degree of bonding and the loop structure which produced the desired softness and flexibility in the nonwoven.
Similarly, with regard to the resilience, machine direction elongation and tensile strength, (claims 6-13, 21), either the fabric would necessarily have the claimed properties in view of the fact that the same materials and processes are used, or else it would have been obvious to have selected the particular polymers, deniers, degree of bonding/entanglement and orientation of the filaments which produced fabrics having the desired properties of strength and elongation.
With regard to claims 14-19, and the melt temperature difference between the components of the filaments, since Curro2 teaches crimpable fibers which can have a side by side structure, it would have been obvious to have selected a suitable difference in melt temperature in order to induce the desired crimp into the filaments. With regard to the particular polymer pairs, since Curro and Curro2 teaches employing polyolefins such as polypropylene, polyethylene, as well as polyamides and polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate, it would have been obvious to have selected the first and second polymers of the crimpable filaments which produced the desired degree of crimp from those disclosed by Curro and Curro2. Further, Curro teaches a PP/PE bicomponent filament. See paragraph 0040.
With regard to claim 20, Both Curro and Curro2 teach that the nonwovens can comprise multiple layers, such as SMS laminates. See, for example, paragraphs 0022 and 0045 of Curro. With regard to claims 23-24, Curro further teaches that one or more bonding steps can be used to consolidate the precursor web, including thermal bonding, hydroentangling and chemical bonding. See paragraph 0045. It would have been obvious to have selected known means of performing thermal bonding/consolidation of nonwoven precursors such as through air bonding, compacting rollers, or calendar rolls to perform the bonding/consolidation of the nonwoven.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Curro only generally suggests hydroentanglement and does not teach it is a preferred method. However, it is not required that the reference teach that a particular method is preferred as long as it teaches the method. Additionally, Curro employs Hydroentangling to move the fibers into the shape of a loop and hydroentangling would necessarily form bows as that term is defined in the instant specification, (arc structures), because it uses high powered jets of water to displace and entangle the filaments. The fibers can be polyolefin, polyesters, polyamides, polyvinyl acetates and blends thereof. See paragraph 0047.
Further, Curro2 teaches employing side by side fibers and employing crimped and crimpable fibers. See paragraph 0028. It is noted that side by side fibers are generally used to form crimped fibers by selecting the two components to have different melt temperatures which induces the crimping. Further, Curro2 teaches thermally bonding the structure which fuse the structure of loops and bows.
Additionally, while Applicant argues that Curro2 implicitly teaches only short crimpable fibers and that side by side fibers should only be splittable and not crimpable, Curro2 clearly teaches both continuous and staple fibers as well as teaching side by side fibers and crimped or crimpable fibers and does not limit either side by side fibers to being only splittable or crimped fibers to being short fibers. Continuous crimped fibers are necessarily disclosed in Curro2 since Curro2 teaches that the fibers can be continuous or staple length and can be crimped, without further qualifying or limiting the crimped fibers.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Terakawa, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0182405 teaches continuous crimped fibers which are formed from eccentric core sheath fibers or side by side fibers, but does not teach the claimed loops and bows.
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