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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024, 02/07/2025, 04/24/2025 and 10/28/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 04/28/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP23 170 730.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 requires “wherein the nonwoven laminate does not contain polyolefin” and should read “wherein the nonwoven laminate does not contain a polyolefin”
Claim 11 requires “wherein the nonwoven laminate is cold moulded or how moulded” and should read “wherein the nonwoven laminate is cold moulded or hot moulded”
Claim 13 requires “The vehicle comprising” and should read “A vehicle comprising”
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.
Claims 6-7, 9 and 16 are 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. Claim 6 requires “10% to 70% copolyester.” Claim 7 requires “10 to 90% monocomponent staple fibers and 10 to 90% multicomponent staple fibers.” Claim 9 requires “40 to 60% of monocomponent staple fibers and 40 to 60% of multicomponent staple fibers.” Claim 16 requires “at least 30% copolyester.” Each of the claims above require a percentage without a corresponding unit identifying the percentage (i.e. weight, volume). As such, each of claims 6-7, 9 and 16 are rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the percentages are determined to be weight percentages (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0053]).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 depends from claim 4 which requires the limitation “wherein the nonwoven laminate does not contain a polyolefin.” Claim 15 requires the limitation of “wherein the nonwoven laminate does not contain polypropylene.” This limitation presented in claim 15 does not further limit claim 4 such that claim 4 already requires that the nonwoven laminate not contain a polyolefin which includes polypropylene. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to further limit a claim from which it depends from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 depends from claim 6 which requires “wherein the layer (A) comprises 10% to 70% copolyester.” Claim 16 further requires “wherein the layer (A) comprises at least 30% copolyester.” The range presented in claim 16 broadens the range requires by claim 6 such that at least 30% includes values above 70%, such as 71%, 75% and 80%, etc. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to further limit a claim from which it depends from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 15-16 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).
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).”
Conclusion
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