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
Applicant’s election of Species 4 from Species Group 1, Species 5 from Species Group 2, and Species 2 from Species Group 3, in the reply filed on 3/18/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 3,654,019 to Cusick in view of USPN 5,576,090 to Suzuki, USPAP 2015/0133014 to Traser, and/or USPAP 2016/0176155 to Wittig.
Claim 1-4, 15 and 16, Cusick discloses a reinforcement material for textiles, wherein the reinforcing material consists of a non-woven support (backing fabric) made of polymer fibers and a hot-melt adhesive composition applied to said non-woven support (see entire document including column 1, lines 3-38 and column 3, line 40 through column 4, line 75).
Cusick does not appear to specifically mention the polymer fibers being made by melt spinning but it is the examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Plus, Traser and Wittig each disclose that it is known in the art to use either continuous or discontinuous length spun polymeric fibers ([0055] or Traser and [0043] of Wittig). The examiner also takes official notice that forming fibers via melt-spinning is common in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fibers by any suitable method, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Cusick does not appear to specifically mention the reinforcing material elongation but Cusick does disclose that the fibers may be elastic (column 4, lines 1-11) and Suzuki discloses that it is known in the art to vary elongation from between 50% to over 500% (a common practical range is disclosed as 50% to 280%) based on the intended application (see entire document including column 7, lines 20-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the reinforcing material with the claimed elongation, based on the intended application and the desired/required product properties.
Claims 5 and 17, Cusick does not appear to specifically mention the reinforcement material maximum tensile force but Wittig discloses that it is known in the adhesive nonwoven art that the larger the fiber size the larger the tensile strength and that it is known in the art to construct an adhesive nonwoven with a tensile strength of 120 N (see entire document including [0002], [0011]-[0013] and [0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the reinforcing material with the claimed maximum tensile strength, based on the intended application and the desired/required product strength properties.
Claims 6 and 18, said non-woven support has a base weight within the claimed range (column 4, lines 12-17).
Claims 7 and 19, said hot-melt adhesive composition has a base weight within the claimed range (column 4, lines 58-65).
Claim 8, the polymer of the non-woven support is selected from the group of polyester-based polymers, polyamide-based polymers, polyolefin-based polymers, polyurethane-based polymers, ethylene/vinyl acetate-based polymers, polyether-based polymers, elastomer-based polymers, copolymers thereof, and blends thereof (column 4, lines 1-11).
Claim 9, said hot-melt adhesive composition is selected from the group consisting of linear polyesters, linear polyethers, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers, polyethylene, high density polyethylene (HDPE), thermoplastic polyurethanes, polypropylenes, polyamides, thermoplastic elastomers, polyolefins, and mixtures and blends thereof (column 4, lines 66-75).
Claim 11, the hot-melt adhesive composition has been applied discontinuously to the non-woven support (column 4, lines 20-41).
Claims 12, 13, 20 and 21, Cusick does not appear to specifically mention the reinforcement material air permeability but Traser discloses that it is known in the art to construct an interlining with an air permeability, such as claimed (see entire document including [0093]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the reinforcing material with the claimed maximum air permeability, based on the intended application and the desired/required product permeability properties.
Conclusion
The following patent is cited to further show the state of the art with respect to melt-spun polymer fibers: USPAP 2010/0035502 to Ruzek.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights