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 .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 13, a polypropylene copolymer implicitly has a comonomer in addition to a propylene monomer. Accordingly, there is no issue of insufficient antecedent basis for “the co-monomer” in claim 13.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, “6 wt.%.” should be corrected to --6 wt%.--. The abbreviation for weight percent is --wt%--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, parent claim 1 requires at least one layer with crimped bicomponent filaments of core-sheath configuration. In claim 11 there is no teaching in the disclosure or original claims of providing at least one layer with crimped bicomponent filaments of core-sheath configuration and also at least one layer comprising crimped continuous filaments with side-by-side configuration. Accordingly, Applicant was not in possession of this combination of limitations at the time the application was filed.
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 14 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.
Regarding claim 14, while “the core component” and “the sheath component” might be interpreted to have implicit antecedent basis from the recitation of a core-sheath configuration, these components are not previously recited. The examiner suggests --a core component-- and --a sheath component-- to avoid any potential issue of insufficient antecedent basis for these terms. Regarding claim 14, the language “the first component forming the sheath component” appears to refer back to such a previously recited limitation. However, this language is not previously recited, raising the issue of insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The examiner suggests --than the first component, the first component forming a sheath component--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer (US 2019/0233994 A1) in view of Hansen’826 (US 2019/0194826 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sommer teaches a method of making a spunbonded nonwoven laminate, the method comprising the steps of sequentially making first and second spunbonded nonwoven layers of which at least one has crimped bicomponent filaments of core/sheath configuration and having a first component based on polypropylene and a second component based on polypropylene; preconsolidating at least one spunbonded nonwoven layer with at least one compaction roller; final consolidating the first and second spunbonded nonwoven layers into the spunbonded nonwoven laminate by at least one calender roller (Figures 1, 3B and 4A; paragraphs 25, 51, 72, 84, 90 and 92-93).
Sommer differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Sommer does not explicitly recite the compaction roller is a hot roller or calender roller.
ii Sommer does not recite that the laminate has a specific density dependent on its surface density and below a density limit ρG according to the claimed equation.
(i) In related art of producing bulky high loft spunbond nonwoven laminates, Hansen’826 suggests preconsolidating the spunbond layers with calender rollers or hot rollers (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide such preconsolidation in Sommer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known suitable preconsolidating, as suggested by the teachings of Hansen’826.
(ii) Sommer is directed to forming laminates of spunbond layers having crimped bicomponent fibers to provide desired high thickness at low basis weight, i.e. bulky nonwoven laminates (paragraphs 3, 5, 8, 25, 65). For the laminate, Sommer teaches a preferred basis weight of 10 to 40 g/m2, a preferred thickness of 0.2 to 0.8 mm and a preferred specific thickness of 1.0 to 2.8 mm/100 gsm (paragraphs 32-33, gsm = g/m2). Density and density limit ρG are readily calculated from these ranges. The examiner’s calculations are tabulated below. The table maintains basis weight values, thickness values and specific thickness values (mm/100gsm) within the preferred ranges of Sommer. The thickness is readily calculated from the basis weight and specific thickness (thickness = basis wt × specific thickness ÷ 100). The density is the basis weight divided by the thickness (unit conversions required). The density limit ρG is calculated using the equation in claim 1 (unit conversions required).
Basis Wt, gsm
10
10
10
25
25
25
40
40
40
mm/100gsm
2
2.4
2.8
1
2
2.8
1
1.5
2
Thickness, mm
0.2
0.24
0.28
0.25
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.8
Density, g/cm3
0.0500
0.0417
0.0357
0.1000
0.0500
0.0357
0.1000
0.0667
0.0500
ρG, g/cm3
0.0483
0.0483
0.0483
0.0618
0.0618
0.0618
0.0753
0.0753
0.0753
It can be seen that the ranges taught by Sommer clearly include values which provide a density less than the density limit ρG across the entire preferred basis weight range of Sommer. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Here, the table above demonstrates that the ranges taught by Sommer overlap with the values required to provide the claimed relationship of a specific density (density in g/cm3) below the density limit ρG as defined in the equation of claim 1. Accordingly, Sommer suggests a laminate having a specific density dependent on its surface density and below the density limit ρG according to the claimed equation for providing a desired laminate with desired bulk. It is noted that the density of any laminate is dependent on its surface density since density is equal to surface density divided by the thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Sommer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the laminate with a known suitable basis weight and density for providing the laminate with high bulk, as suggested by the teachings of Sommer.
Regarding claims 4-5, Sommer teaches these additional limitations (paragraphs 28, 66 and 72).
Regarding claim 6, Sommer teaches the layers may comprise crimped continuous filaments with a titer of 0.7 to 3.2 denier (paragraphs 11-13, 33 and 37). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 7-8, Sommer teaches these additional limitations (Figure 3B; paragraphs 25 and 92). It is noted that the labels of first and second components are merely semantic.
Regarding claim 10, Sommer teaches the claimed additional third spunbond nonwoven layer on an outer side of the laminate, at least one of the spunbond nonwoven layers comprising crimped continuous filaments with an eccentric core-sheath configuration and including continuous filaments with a titer of 0.7 to 3.2 denier (Figures 3B and 4A; paragraphs 11-13, 25, 33, 37 and 92). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Sommer teaches the use of side-by-side crimped continuous fibers and eccentric sheath/core crimped fibers and suggests both may be used (paragraphs 11 and 25). Such satisfies claim 11.
Claim 12 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 13, while not recited by Sommer, this limitation is taught by Hansen’626 for providing a suitable copolymer sheath of the core/sheath crimpable filaments (paragraph 39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Sommer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable copolymer sheath as suggested by Hansen’626.
Regarding claims 14, as noted above, Sommer suggests sheath/core fibers, but does not recite the core has a higher melt flow rate. In related art, Hansen’826 suggests a polypropylene homopolymer core with a melt flow index (MFI) of 17 to 37 g/10 min (paragraphs 31 and 42). The sheath may be a polypropylene copolymer with an MFI of 20 to 70 g/10 min (paragraphs 30 and 39). There is no indication that the core or the sheath should have a higher MFI, and thus for a sheath with an MFI at the lower end of the range of 20 to 70, the core MFI range includes values which are higher than the sheath MFI. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in Sommer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to known suitable melt flow rate components for the core and sheath having suitable ranges which include a core melt flow rate which is greater than the sheath melt flow rate, as suggested by Hansen’826.
Alternatively, Sommer indicates that the first component may have a melt flow rate which is 1.2 to 1.5 times greater than the second component and the components are selected to provide desired crimping properties in the filaments (paragraph 11-17, 25 and 30). Accordingly, selection of the melt flow rate of each component is a matter of routine experimentation to achieve the desired crimping properties. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Here, it is recognized that the relative melt flow rate between the components is an important aspect of making crimpable filaments. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Sommer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select suitable relative melt flow rates of the components as a matter of routine experimentation in view of the above noted teachings of Sommer.
Claim 15 is satisfied for the reasons provided above. Sommer clearly teaches the components have a melt flow rate ratio in the claimed range (paragraphs 25 and 30). As noted above, labeling of the first and second components is merely semantic. Claim 15 does not recite which component is in the core or sheath.
Regarding claim 16, Sommer teaches polydispersity ratios in the claimed range (paragraph 25). As noted above, labeling of the first and second components is merely semantic. Claim 16 does not recite which component is in the core or sheath.
Regarding claim 17, Sommer teaches the melting temperatures differ by at least 10°C (paragraph 17). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. As noted above, labeling of the first and second components is merely semantic. Claim 17 does not recite which component is in the core or sheath.
Regarding claim 18, while not recited by Sommer, this additional limitation is suggested by Hansen’826 to improve softness (paragraphs 7, 9 and 34). Hansen’826 teaches a range of lubricant amount which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraphs 9 and 12-13). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in Sommer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve softness in accordance with the teachings of Hansen’826.
Claim 19 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer in view of Hansen’826 as applied to claims 1, 4-8 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Hansen’850 (US 2018/0002850 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sommer suggests calendering for the final consolidation (Figure 1; paragraphs 84 and 90), but does not recite the claimed calender roller having an open dot engraving. In related art, such is known for consolidating crimped spunbond layers. see Hansen’850 (paragraph 20 and 70; Figures 2-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in Sommer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known suitable calendering to bond nonwoven crimped spunbond layers, as suggested by Hansen’850.
Regarding claim 11, further motivation is provided here to meet this limitation. As noted above, Sommer teaches the use of side-by-side crimped continuous filaments and eccentric sheath/core crimped filaments and suggests both may be used (paragraph 25). Hansen’850 further teaches that a nonwoven laminate of crimped continuous fiber layers may comprise both a layer of crimped eccentric sheath/core filaments and crimped continuous side-by-side filaments (paragraphs 8 and 31). Hansen’850 teaches soft fabrics are produced (paragraphs 4 and 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in Sommer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known suitable layer configurations and/or to form soft nonwoven layers, as suggested by the teachings of Hansen’850.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer in view of Hansen’826 as applied to claims 1, 4-8 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Strack (US 5336552).
Regarding claim 3, Sommer does not recite a further step of compression. However, it is known in the art to roll up a spunbond nonwoven to provide a roll of the material. See Strack (Figure 1). Such rolling naturally provides a degree of compression due to the tension necessary for rolling and/or the weight of material on the roll. Since the modified process of Sommer is essentially the same as claimed and Sommer suggests a density below the corresponding density limit ρG, as noted above, it is reasonable to expect a product having the same properties naturally flows from the modified process of Sommer. Accordingly, the claimed residual compression set property naturally flows from the modified process of Sommer for the reasons provided above. Moreover, Sommer specifically seeks a bulky fabric. Accordingly, the person of ordinary skill would naturally wind the product laminate with sufficiently low compression such that the desired level of bulk is not destroyed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide sufficiently low compression during conventional rolling up suggested by Strack in the modified process of Sommer such that a residual compression set in the claimed range is achieved because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide sufficiently low compression as a matter of routine experimentation to maintain desired bulk. Only the expected result of avoiding the loss of bulk is achieved by avoiding excessive compression.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer in view of Hansen’826 as applied to claims 1, 4-8 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Fukuma (US 3760052).
Regarding claim 9, Sommer suggests the use of eccentric sheath/core bicomponent fibers, but does not teach the specific configuration of claim 9. As noted above, the fibers of Sommer are crimpable fibers for providing high bulk. Fukuma suggests a crimpable fiber with an eccentric sheath/core configuration, having the claimed substantially constant cross-sectional thickness over at least 20% of the circumference (Figure 12 (I); column 7, lines 13-28). These filaments are particularly configured to provide desired crimping performance (column 1, lines 12-64). As to the claimed thickness, Fukuma suggests the outer sheath portion occupies about 10 to 50 volume percent of the fiber (Examples). Sommer suggests 0.7 to 3.2 denier fibers (paragraph 33). Taking 2 denier fibers, for example, these have a diameter of about 18 µm, assuming a density of about 0.91 g/cm3 for polypropylene (calculation by the examiner). A sheath layer of about 10 to 50 vol% corresponds to a thickness of about 0.5 µm to about 2.7 µm for fibers with a diameter of about 18 µm. These numbers are readily calculated using the formula for the area of a circle (calculation by the examiner). This range falls well within the claimed range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in Sommer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable crimpable fiber eccentric sheath/core configuration with high crimping performance and suitable dimensions, as suggested by the teachings of Fukuma for the reasons provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments are drawn to the previous grounds of rejection applied in the office action mailed 15 September 2025.
New grounds of rejection have been applied in the current office action to provide stronger evidence to meet the limitation of a specific density below a density limit as calculated by the equation in claim 1. The prior grounds of rejection relied on one example in Hansen’498. While the arguments are largely mute in view of the new grounds of rejection, it is noted that claim 1 does not require calculating a density limit. Rather, claim 1 only uses the density limit to define a density range, i.e. the specific density is below the density limit. Thus a prior art range which is within, overlapping or near this range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for this limitation. See MPEP 2144.05.
In view of the new grounds of rejection, this action is non-final.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745