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
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 5/18/26 is acknowledged. Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-10 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.
4. With specific regard to claims 1-10, it is not clear what Applicants are attempting to claim by reciting “for joining a polyester textile which is attached to a frame”. The Examiner interprets the claimed “band” as comprising a polyester textile and a polyester film on at least one surface of the textile but it is not clear if said band is further attached/joined to another polyester textile (e.g., for joining a polyester textile). In addition, it is not clear if Applicants are claiming the band, another separate polyester textile and the frame. For purposes of examination the Examiner will interpret claim 1 to mean a band comprising the claimed polyester textile and polyester film layer on at least one surface of the textile.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al., US 20190143657 in view of Kaweit US 20210115605.
With regard to claims 1, 6 and 7, the published patent application issued to Miller et al., teach a composite comprising a polyester textile joined to a polyester film layer (title and abstract). Miller et al., teach that the laminate and composite material is suitable for use in any composite structures including truck and trailer liners, refrigerated shipping container liners, ladder rails, tool handles, window lineals, structural materials, wall panels for use in food preparation, health care or sanitary applications, wall panels for recreational vehicles, polls and cross arms, pilings or other infrastructure applications, and signage; or electronic materials such as substrates for electronic boards, laminates for solar panels, integrated circuits, industrial switching, capacitors, and electrical boards; and insulation such as foam facers, glass or mineral wool facers, and radiant heat barriers (paragraph 0054).
Miller et al., does not teach the claimed textile.
In the same field of endeavor, the published patent application issued to Kalweit teach providing at least one thermoformed nonwoven fabric formed from [0008] A) structure-providing polyethylene terephthalate fibers; [0009] B) matrix-forming polyethylene-terephthalate-containing bicomponent binder fibers which have a semicrystalline sheathing material with a melting range of 90 to 175° C.; [0010] C) optionally matrix-forming polyethylene-terephthalate-containing bicomponent binder fibers which have a semicrystalline sheathing material and differ from the bicomponent binder fibers B); and [0011] D) optionally additives. The Examiner is of the position that PET meets the limitation of polyester as PET is a type of polyester.
[0012] The object is also achieved via a process for the production of a nonwoven molded article, comprising the steps of: [0013] i) laying of at least one nonwoven fabric by means of a carding-cross lay process or of an aerodynamic nonwoven-formation process, [0014] ii) followed by needling of the nonwoven fabric(s) or of the nonwoven fabric(s) thus formed and [0015] iii) cutting to size, [0016] iv) heating and [0017] v) thermoforming of the nonwoven fabric(s) to give the desired nonwoven molded article. [0031] The weight per unit area of the nonwoven molded articles is greatly reduced by stretching at the deepest spatial point of the formation; by way of example mention may be made of 1310/530/1410 g/m.sup.2 variation in longitudinal direction and/or of 1440/480/1470 g/m.sup.2 variation of weight per unit area in transverse direction. In a non-limiting embodiment, they have 2.34/1.32/2.36 mm thickness variation in longitudinal direction and/or 2.36/1.33/2.35 mm thickness variation in transverse direction.
[0038] Composition of nonwoven molded article: [0039] 60% by weight of wellene PET PPS 0104079 from Wellman-Indorama, a PET fiber containing fluorocarbon compounds (fiber A). [0040] 20% by weight of wellbond PET Bico M 1439 from Wellman-Indorama, which has a melting peak at about 110.6° C., a melting peak at about 154° C. (both sheath) and another melting peak at about 251.1° C. (core) in the DSC, the core consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (fiber B). [0041] 20% by weight of PET Bico HT PPS 0069718 from HUVIS, which has a melting peak at about 182.3° C. (sheath) and another melting peak at about 252.1° C. (core) in the DSC (fiber C).
[0018] The object is also achieved via the use of the nonwoven molded article as wheel arch shell, underbody cladding, trunk side wall or parcel shelf.
With specific regard to the claimed fabric thickness, the Examiner is of the position that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium). The Examiner is of the position that a thickness of 2.35/2.36 mm is significantly close to the claimed range of 3-5 mm. Since no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, the Examiner is of the position that there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range. 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA).
The Examiner is of the position that Miller et al., and Kaweit are analogous since both references teach polyester textiles/composites (fabric/film) used for similar applications. The Examiner is of the position that depending on the desired end use it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art form the polyester textile/polyester film laminate of Miller et al., with the polyester (PET) fabric of Kaweit.
With regard to the claimed “band” limitation, the Examiner is of the position that absent any other further distinguishing limitations the composite of Miller et al., in view of Kaweit can be used as a “band”. With regard to the claimed “frame” limitation, since the composites (fabric/film)/fabric of Miller et al., and Kaweit can be used as liners in automobiles the Examiner is of the position whatever the liner is further attached to (e.g., interior metal of a vehicle) would meet the limitation of the claimed “frame”.
With regard to claim 2, Kaweit does not specifically teach the claimed melting point of the polyester fibers, but does teach [0040] 20% by weight of wellbond PET Bico M 1439 from Wellman-Indorama, which has a melting peak at about 110.6° C., a melting peak at about 154° C. (both sheath) and another melting peak at about 251.1° C. (core) in the DSC, the core consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (fiber B). The Examiner is of the position that a melting peak at about 251.1° C. is significantly close to the claimed 260° C. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25%). Since no specific examples using fibers having a melting point of 260° C. are disclosed, the Examiner is of the position that there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference between a melting peak of at about 251.1° C. and 260° C. The Examiner is of the position that depending on desired fabric/composite properties/end uses it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to use polyester (PET) bicomponent fibers having the claimed melting point of 260° C.
With regard to claim 3, [0040] 20% by weight of wellbond PET Bico M 1439 from Wellman-Indorama, which has a melting peak at about 110.6° C., a melting peak at about 154° C. (both sheath). Kaweut teach structural fibers comprising polyethylene terephthalate; first bicomponent binder fibers comprising a matrix-forming polyethylene-terephthalate having a semicrystalline sheathing material; wherein the semicrystalline sheathing material has a melting point ranging from 90 to 175° C.; optional second bicomponent binder fibers comprising a matrix-forming polyethylene-terephthalate having a semicrystalline sheathing material; wherein the second bicomponent binder fibers are different from the first bicomponent binder fibers (claim 1).
With regard to claims 4 and 5, polyethylene terephthalate fibers comprise one or more of the following: a linear density ranging from 5.0 to 9.50 dtex measured in accordance with DIN EN ISO 1973:1995-12; a fiber length ranging from 45 to 75 mm (claim 2).
With regard to claim 8, strips measuring 200 mm in length and 51 mm in width were cut with a cutter in longitudinal and transverse direction from the nonwoven molded article (paragraph 0053).
With regard to claim 9, Miller et al., teach a film/fiber laminate material wherein a polyester film having a thickness of 0.5-2 mil, a layer of polyester fibers having a density of 17-70 GSM bonded to the polyester film and a second polymer layer having a thickness of 0.5-5.5 mil is joined to the polyester fibers (paragraph 0009). Miller et al., does not teach the grammage of the polyester film. Since no specific examples of the claimed film are disclosed, the Examiner is of the position that there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference between film thickness of Miller et al., and the claimed film. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25%). The Examiner is of the position that depending on desired fabric/composite properties/end uses it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to vary the thickness and grammage of the polyester film. 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA).
With regard to claim 10, the cited references fail to teach the claimed “printed motif”; however, it the position of the Examiner that based on desired end use and placement of the final fabric/film laminate/composite it would within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to personalize the fabric/film laminate/composite with a printed motif such as a logo.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights