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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 7,918,313) in view of Venugopal et al. (US 2021/0023815).
Regarding claim 1, Gross teaches nonwoven materials having superior acoustic and thermal insulation characteristics which are suitable for use in automobiles such as for flooring underlayment and engine firewall insulation (Col. 1, Lines 31-47). The materials include a core fibrous material (“layer (C)”), which contains 95 wt% to 40 wt% matrix fibers and from 60 wt% to 5 wt% core binder (Col. 4, Lines 20-27). The matrix fibers may be polyester synthetic fibers (“monocomponent fibers”) (Col. 7, Lines 52-55; Col. 9, Lines 4-44). The core binder may be in the form of synthetic polyester fibers, including bicomponent fibers (“multicomponent fibers”) (Col. 9, Lines 58-60). The materials may have optional other layers including an auxiliary layer, considered equivalent to layer (A), formed from synthetic fibers (Col. 12, Lines 29-43; Fig. 2). As illustrated in figure 2, the materials only include the core layer and the auxiliary layer and does not include a layer (B), which is considered optional and not required to be present by the instant claim.
Gross is silent with respect to the auxiliary layer being a spunbond nonwoven layer comprising PET and copolyester. Gross is further silent with respect to the core layer being a needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component. Gross is further silent with respect to the auxiliary layer and the core layer being melt-bonded to each other.
Venugopal teaches nonwoven laminates which have improved heat resistance and dimensional stability (Paragraphs [0008]-[0017]). The laminates include outer layers which comprise spunbond nonwoven layers which comprise fibers having PET and copolyester and a needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component (Paragraphs [0019]-[0024]). The use of the combination of staple fibers in the staple fiber layer provides strength, flexibility and moldability to the nonwoven laminates (Paragraphs [0084]-[0094]). The layers are further melt-bonded together providing high dimensional stability as well as improved aesthetics and higher bending strength (Paragraphs [0034]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the materials of Gross such that the auxiliary layer is formed identical to the outer spunbond layers of Venugopal which comprise fibers having PET and copolyester and the core layer is formed identical to the needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component such that this combination provides improved heat resistance and dimensional stability in addition to strength, flexibility and moldability. It additionally would have been obvious to melt bond the auxiliary layer and the core layer in order to provide high dimensional stability as well as improved aesthetics and higher bending strength. Lastly, it is noted that the materials only contain the auxiliary layer and the core layer, meeting the limitation of “consisting of, in order (A) to (C).”
Regarding claim 2, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the layers are melt-bonded together and not mechanically bonded.
Regarding claim 3, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Venugopal further teaches the needle staple fiber layer being heat shrunk in order to avoid further, undesired shrinkage (Paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, both the auxiliary layer and the core layer are formed from polyester-based fibers.
Regarding claim 5, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Venugopal further teaches the copolyesters in each of the layers having a melting point of less than 240°C in order to reduce the amount of energy necessary for melt-bonding the layers (Paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Venugopal further teaches the outer spunbond layers having 10% to 70% copolyester providing the improved heat resistance and dimensional stability (Claim 8).
Regarding claim 7, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Venugopal further teaches the needle staple layer comprising 10 to 90% monocomponent staple fibers and 10 to 90% multicomponent staple fibers providing an easily produced needle layer and improvements in high heat resistance as well as nonflammability characteristics (Paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 8, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Gross further teaches the core layer having a basis weight of 200 to 3000 gsm and the auxiliary layer having a basis weight of 50 to 400 gsm (Col. 4, Lines 28-29; Col. 4, Lines 40-41).
Regarding claim 9, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the materials only include the auxiliary layer and the core layer. Venugopal further teaches the copolyesters in each of the layers having a melting point of less than 240°C in order to reduce the amount of energy necessary for melt-bonding the layers (Paragraph [0068]). Venugopal further teaches the needle staple layer comprising 10 to 90% monocomponent staple fibers and 10 to 90% multicomponent staple fibers providing an easily produced needle layer and improvements in high heat resistance as well as nonflammability characteristics (Paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 15, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 4. As discussed above, both the auxiliary layer and the core layer are formed from polyester-based fibers.
Regarding claim 16, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 6. Venugopal further teaches the outer spunbond layers having 10% to 70% copolyester providing the improved heat resistance and dimensional stability (Claim 8).
Regarding claim 17, Gross teaches the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Venugopal further teaches adhesive layers between the outer layers and the needle stapled fiber layers (Paragraph [0120]; Fig. 1). The adhesive layers are formed from copolyester layers, such as CoPET (“PET and copolyester”), and further teaches when the adhesive layers are not present, the amount of copolyester in the outer layers is higher (Paragraphs [0130]; [0137]; [0139]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the CoPET of the adhesive layers has a higher content of polyester in order to act as the adhesive layers.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 7,918,313) in view of Venugopal et al. (US 2021/0023815).
Regarding claim 10, Gross teaches nonwoven materials having superior acoustic and thermal insulation characteristics which are suitable for use in automobiles such as for flooring underlayment and engine firewall insulation (Col. 1, Lines 31-47). Gross further teaches the materials being molded into panels under heat and pressure (Col. 4, Lines 48-51). The materials include a core fibrous material (“layer (C)”), which contains 95 wt% to 40 wt% matrix fibers and from 60 wt% to 5 wt% core binder (Col. 4, Lines 20-27). The matrix fibers may be polyester synthetic fibers (“monocomponent fibers”) (Col. 7, Lines 52-55; Col. 9, Lines 4-44). The core binder may be in the form of synthetic polyester fibers, including bicomponent fibers (“multicomponent fibers”) (Col. 9, Lines 58-60). The materials may have optional other layers including an auxiliary layer, considered equivalent to layer (A), formed from synthetic fibers (Col. 12, Lines 29-43; Fig. 2). As illustrated in figure 2, the materials only include the core layer and the auxiliary layer and does not include a layer (B), which is considered optional and not required to be present by the instant claim.
Gross is silent with respect to the auxiliary layer being a spunbond nonwoven layer comprising PET and copolyester. Gross is further silent with respect to the core layer being a needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component. Gross is further silent with respect to the auxiliary layer and the core layer being melt-bonded to each other.
Venugopal teaches nonwoven laminates which have improved heat resistance and dimensional stability (Paragraphs [0008]-[0017]). The laminates include outer layers which comprise spunbond nonwoven layers which comprise fibers having PET and copolyester and a needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component (Paragraphs [0019]-[0024]). The use of the combination of staple fibers in the staple fiber layer provides strength, flexibility and moldability to the nonwoven laminates (Paragraphs [0084]-[0094]). The layers are further melt-bonded together providing high dimensional stability as well as improved aesthetics and higher bending strength (Paragraphs [0034]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the materials of Gross such that the auxiliary layer is formed identical to the outer spunbond layers of Venugopal which comprise fibers having PET and copolyester and the core layer is formed identical to the needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component such that this combination provides improved heat resistance and dimensional stability in addition to strength, flexibility and moldability. It additionally would have been obvious to melt bond the auxiliary layer and the core layer in order to provide high dimensional stability as well as improved aesthetics and higher bending strength. Lastly, it is noted that the materials only contain the auxiliary layer and the core layer, meeting the limitation of “consisting of, in order (A) to (C).”
Regarding claim 11, Gross teaches the materials being molded into panels under heat and pressure as discussed above with respect to claim 10.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 7,918,313) in view of Venugopal et al. (US 2021/0023815).
Regarding claim 12, Gross teaches nonwoven materials having superior acoustic and thermal insulation characteristics which are suitable for use in automobiles such as for flooring underlayment and engine firewall insulation (Col. 1, Lines 31-47). Gross further teaches the materials being molded into panels under heat and pressure and the panels being a structural member of a vehicle (Col. 4, Lines 48-51; Col. 4, Lines 52-62; Fig. 8). The materials include a core fibrous material (“layer (C)”), which contains 95 wt% to 40 wt% matrix fibers and from 60 wt% to 5 wt% core binder (Col. 4, Lines 20-27). The matrix fibers may be polyester synthetic fibers (“monocomponent fibers”) (Col. 7, Lines 52-55; Col. 9, Lines 4-44). The core binder may be in the form of synthetic polyester fibers, including bicomponent fibers (“multicomponent fibers”) (Col. 9, Lines 58-60). The materials may have optional other layers including an auxiliary layer, considered equivalent to layer (A), formed from synthetic fibers (Col. 12, Lines 29-43; Fig. 2). As illustrated in figure 2, the materials only include the core layer and the auxiliary layer and does not include a layer (B), which is considered optional and not required to be present by the instant claim.
Gross is silent with respect to the auxiliary layer being a spunbond nonwoven layer comprising PET and copolyester. Gross is further silent with respect to the core layer being a needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component. Gross is further silent with respect to the auxiliary layer and the core layer being melt-bonded to each other.
Venugopal teaches nonwoven laminates which have improved heat resistance and dimensional stability (Paragraphs [0008]-[0017]). The laminates include outer layers which comprise spunbond nonwoven layers which comprise fibers having PET and copolyester and a needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component (Paragraphs [0019]-[0024]). The use of the combination of staple fibers in the staple fiber layer provides strength, flexibility and moldability to the nonwoven laminates (Paragraphs [0084]-[0094]). The layers are further melt-bonded together providing high dimensional stability as well as improved aesthetics and higher bending strength (Paragraphs [0034]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the materials of Gross such that the auxiliary layer is formed identical to the outer spunbond layers of Venugopal which comprise fibers having PET and copolyester and the core layer is formed identical to the needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component such that this combination provides improved heat resistance and dimensional stability in addition to strength, flexibility and moldability. It additionally would have been obvious to melt bond the auxiliary layer and the core layer in order to provide high dimensional stability as well as improved aesthetics and higher bending strength. Lastly, it is noted that the materials only contain the auxiliary layer and the core layer, meeting the limitation of “consisting of, in order (A) to (C).”
Regarding claim 14, Gross teaches the materials which are structural members as discussed above with respect to claim 12. As illustrated in figure 8, the materials may be exposed to an exterior of the vehicle.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 7,918,313) in view of Venugopal et al. (US 2021/0023815).
Regarding claim 13, Gross teaches nonwoven materials having superior acoustic and thermal insulation characteristics which are suitable for use in automobiles such as for flooring underlayment and engine firewall insulation (Col. 1, Lines 31-47). Gross further teaches the materials being molded into panels under heat and pressure and the panels being a structural member of a vehicle (Col. 4, Lines 48-51; Col. 4, Lines 52-62; Fig. 8). The materials include a core fibrous material (“layer (C)”), which contains 95 wt% to 40 wt% matrix fibers and from 60 wt% to 5 wt% core binder (Col. 4, Lines 20-27). The matrix fibers may be polyester synthetic fibers (“monocomponent fibers”) (Col. 7, Lines 52-55; Col. 9, Lines 4-44). The core binder may be in the form of synthetic polyester fibers, including bicomponent fibers (“multicomponent fibers”) (Col. 9, Lines 58-60). The materials may have optional other layers including an auxiliary layer, considered equivalent to layer (A), formed from synthetic fibers (Col. 12, Lines 29-43; Fig. 2). As illustrated in figure 2, the materials only include the core layer and the auxiliary layer and does not include a layer (B), which is considered optional and not required to be present by the instant claim.
Gross is silent with respect to the auxiliary layer being a spunbond nonwoven layer comprising PET and copolyester. Gross is further silent with respect to the core layer being a needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component. Gross is further silent with respect to the auxiliary layer and the core layer being melt-bonded to each other.
Venugopal teaches nonwoven laminates which have improved heat resistance and dimensional stability (Paragraphs [0008]-[0017]). The laminates include outer layers which comprise spunbond nonwoven layers which comprise fibers having PET and copolyester and a needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component (Paragraphs [0019]-[0024]). The use of the combination of staple fibers in the staple fiber layer provides strength, flexibility and moldability to the nonwoven laminates (Paragraphs [0084]-[0094]). The layers are further melt-bonded together providing high dimensional stability as well as improved aesthetics and higher bending strength (Paragraphs [0034]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the materials of Gross such that the auxiliary layer is formed identical to the outer spunbond layers of Venugopal which comprise fibers having PET and copolyester and the core layer is formed identical to the needle staple fiber layer comprising monocomponent PET staple fibers and multicomponent staple fibers, which comprise at least a PET component and a copolyester component such that this combination provides improved heat resistance and dimensional stability in addition to strength, flexibility and moldability. It additionally would have been obvious to melt bond the auxiliary layer and the core layer in order to provide high dimensional stability as well as improved aesthetics and higher bending strength. Lastly, it is noted that the materials only contain the auxiliary layer and the core layer, meeting the limitation of “consisting of, in order (A) to (C).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the objections of claims 4, 11 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 02/20/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claims 6, 7, 9 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 02/20/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 112(d) rejections of claims 15 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 02/20/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-12, applicant argues that the combination of Gross and Venugopal fails to teach each of the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the instant application provides advantages over the art of Venugopal. This is illustrated in Table 2 of the instant application wherein the bending strength of a two-layer configuration is only slightly less than that of a three-layer configuration. Additionally, the layers considered in the rejection relating to Gross are not equivalent to the layers (A) through (C) of the instant claims. The cores of Gross are not specific to any type of fiber and numerous selections must be made to meet the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Gross teaches the auxiliary layer being a binder layer and not a spunbond nonwoven layer.
Lastly, applicant argues that the combination of Gross and Venugopal is improper and fails to teach the limitations of claim 1. Firstly, applicant argues that Gross and Venugopal are directed towards different applications such that Gross is directed to acoustic and thermal insulation characteristics, however, Venugopal teaches exterior parts for automobiles. Secondly, the products of Gross are airlaid products and not spunbond materials. Thirdly, as noted above, the auxiliary layers of Gross are polymeric binder layers and not fibrous layers and it would not have been obvious to replace the polymeric layers with fibrous, spunbond layers. Fourth, it is not obvious to melt bond the layers of Gross such that the binder layer is simply added to the core layer. Lastly, the layer (E) of Venugopal must be considered and placed on the core layers of Gross in order to achieve the desired combination.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments.
Firstly, concerning the working examples in the instant specification regarding the bending strength of a two-layer configuration versus a three-layer configuration, the examiner notes that the two-layer configuration has a bending strength less than the three-layer configuration (2 layer-1072 g/m2; 3 layer-1155 g/m2). While this may be slightly less, it is still less than that of the three-layer configuration. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the three-layer configuration is more desirable from the standpoint of bending strength.
Continuing to the layers of Gross and their equivalents in the instant claims, the examiner believes that the layers are still proper in their equivalency. Specifically, Gross teaches the core layer as including synthetic fibers (Col. 7, Lines 52-55). While Gross is silent with respect to the specifics of these synthetic fibers, the core layer is still able to be considered equivalent to a layer (C). The same can be said for the auxiliary layers. The auxiliary layers may be formed from a binder of synthetic fibers (Col. 12, Lines 42-63). Therefore, the auxiliary layer may be considered equivalent to a layer (A) as well and each of the layers may be formed from fibrous materials.
Concerning applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Gross with Venugopal, the examiner notes that the combination is proper and further renders each of the limitations of claim 1 as obvious.
Both Gross and Venugopal teach insulation materials for automobiles wherein acoustic and thermal insulation materials are desired. Gross teaches nonwoven materials that have superior acoustic and thermal insulation characteristics (Col. 1, Lines 31-32). Venugopal teaches the same such that tear strength, wear resistance and acoustic absorption is increased (Paragraph [0062]-[0066]). As such, the combination is proper such that both intend to increase acoustic insulation.
Furthermore, as noted above, the materials of the auxiliary layer include synthetic fibers and any suitable synthetic fiber may be used including polyesters (Col. 9, Lines 4-44). Therefore, the fibers of the core layer and the auxiliary layer may be the polyester fibers of Venugopal and they may additionally be melt-bonded as indicated by Venugopal (Paragraph [0027]).
Lastly, the examiner notes that while Venugopal teaches the three-layer configuration indicated by the applicant, the combination is in view of Gross further in view of Venugopal. Gross teaches the configuration represented in figure 2 which only teaches a single auxiliary layer on a core layer. As noted above, the core layer and the auxiliary layer may be formed from synthetic fibers. Venugopal teaches the outer layers having the PET/copolyester configuration and the core layer having the needle-punched layers as noted in the rejection above. Therefore, the examiner contends that the combination ultimately teaches the single auxiliary layer on the core layer, shown in figure 2, with the specific fibers as taught by Venugopal and not the entirety of the structure of Venugopal.
The examiner ultimately contends that the combination of Gross and Venugopal is proper and teaches the limitations of claim 1. The current rejection is made FINAL.
Conclusion
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights