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
Due to the claim amendments filed 10 March 2026, the previous restriction requirement has been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
1103, 1104.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 7 and 8 are not included in the “Brief Description of the Drawings”.
The phrase “FIGS. XX and YY” is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deka et al (7425517) in view of Georger et al (5350624).
In regards to Claim 1, Deka teaches a method of forming a stratified nonwoven web material comprising:
providing one or more first streams of meltblown polymer fibers to form a first composite stream (Figure 3, Detail A), the one or more first streams of meltblown polymer fibers comprising bicomponent fibers formed of a first polymer component (15a) and a second polymer component (14a);
collecting the first composite stream onto a forming surface (at Detail 30a on Detail 26);
providing one or more second streams of meltblown polymer fibers to form a second composite stream (Figure 3, Detail B), the one or more second streams of meltblown polymer fibers comprising monocomponent fibers (Column 9, lines 25-27) formed of the first polymer component or a third polymer component different than either of the first polymer component and the second polymer component (15b);
collecting the second composite stream onto the collected first composite stream disposed on the forming surface (at Detail 30b);
providing one or more third streams of meltblown polymer fibers to form a third composite stream (Column 16, lines 31-36; additional fiber forming process added), the one or more third streams of meltblown polymer fibers comprising bicomponent fibers formed of the first polymer component and the second polymer component (following Figure 3, these would be 15c and 14c); and
collecting the third composite stream onto the collected second composite stream disposed on the forming surface to form the stratified nonwoven web material (following Figure 3, this would be at Detail 30c).
While Deka essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach merging a stream of an absorbent material with each of the one or more streams of meltblown polymer fibers, which Georger teaches (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the absorbent material as taught, so as to make the stratified nonwoven web more absorbent. It should be noted, Deka teaches an understanding of including such absorbent material for this purpose and cites Georger as teaching a method by which to include the absorbent material (Column 3, lines 25-47).
In regards to Claim 2, Deka teaches the bicomponent fibers of the one or more first streams of meltblown polymer fibers are formed such that an amount of the second polymer component within said bicomponent fibers is greater than 0% and less than or equal to 20% by weight of a total polymeric content of said bicomponent fibers (Column 13, lines 4-8).
In regards to Claim 5, Deka teaches a basis weight of the collected first composite stream is greater than or equal to 25% and less than or equal to 45% of an overall basis weight of the stratified nonwoven web material insomuch as each accounts for a third of the fibers being provided, and one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously try using a third of each material, or about 33%.
In regards to Claim 6, Deka teaches a basis weight of the collected second composite stream is greater than or equal to 30% and less than or equal to 60% of an overall basis weight of the stratified nonwoven web material insomuch as each accounts for a third of the fibers being provided, and one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously try using a third of each material, or about 33%.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
Claims 3, 4, and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 8 and its dependent claims are found to be allowable because the prior art of record neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the recitations found therein, including the specific formation of streams. The prior art does not teach first stream upstream, absorbent material, second stream downstream, form a composite stream. That composite stream being combined with the second composite stream as claimed.
Claim 16 and its dependent claims are found to be allowable because the prior art of record neither teaches nor reasonably suggests the recitations found therein, including the test method results as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least Burt et al (20170022643) Figures 5, 6A, 7B, and Keck et al (20030200991) Figures 1 and 2, teach element similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights