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
Claims 1-5 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 3, 2026.
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.
Claim 10 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 10 recites, “The method of claim 6 wherein said mold applies a press force to said nonwoven in the range of 3.75 tons to 100 tons.” Applicant’s specification does not specify if these are short tons, long tons, or metric tons. The claim is accordingly indefinite. For the purpose of examination, any of these three types of tons can be used for the scope of claim 10.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolai (US 2026/0065887) in view of Boyles (US 6,534,145).
Regarding claim 6, Nicolai teaches a method for forming a three-dimensional nonwoven structure ([0038-55], Fig. 6) comprising: a. supplying a steam heating chamber configured to heat a nonwoven substrate with saturated steam and/or superheated steam wherein said nonwoven substrate comprises one or a plurality of layers ([0052-54]); b. providing a mold configured to form said heated nonwoven substrate into a three- dimensional shape (punch, [0055], Fig. 6); c. heating said nonwoven substrate with steam and/or superheated steam for a period of time ([0054]); d. placing said heated nonwoven substrate from step (c) into said mold and forming said three-dimensional nonwoven structure (punch, [0055], Fig. 6).
Nicolai teaches a method substantially as claimed, Nicolai is silent on the heating time
of 1 second to 60 seconds.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heating and shaping to form nonwoven automotive products ([0002] of Nicolai, abstract of Boyles), Boyles teaches the time period for heating said nonwoven substrate with steam and/or superheated steam is a result-effective variable (“The required compression time, pressure and heat will vary depending primarily on material type and weight as will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art.” col. 5 ll. 24-26, see MPEP 2144.05(II), it is well established that the optimization of a result-effective variable only requires ordinary skill in the art).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nicolai to heat with steam within the recited time frame because col. 5 ll. 24-26 of Boyles teaches that such a determination of heating with steam within the recited time frame to optimize the heating time period for a desired material type and weight is appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, Nicolai in view of Boyles teaches wherein said steam comprises superheated steam at a pressure of greater than 1 bar to 15 bar and at a temperature of greater than 100 °C to 220 °C (Nicolai is silent as to pressure and temperature, but col. 5 ll. 24-26 of Boyles teaches that such optimization of a result-effective variable is well within scope of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 8, Nicolai in view of Boyles teaches wherein said nonwoven substrate is selected from the group consisting of polyesters, polyester copolymers, acrylic, polyamide, aramid, wool, polyolefins, polyacrylonitrile, rayon, or shoddy fibers (Nicolai [0005] [0009]).
Regarding claim 9, Nicolai in view of Boyles teaches wherein said nonwoven substrate has a thickness in the range of 3.0 mm to 110.0 mm (Nicolai [0083], claims 11 and 14).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolai (US 2026/0065887) in view of Boyles (US 6,534,145) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Craigie (US 2022/0361623).
Nicolai as modified teaches a method substantially as claimed. Nicolai does not disclose a particular press force for the punch in [0055] and Fig. 6.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pressing a stack of nonwoven materials to produce an object ([0110]), Craigie teaches wherein said mold applies a press force to said nonwoven in the range of 3.75 tons to 100 tons (overlapping range 8.9-890 kN, 1-600 US short tons, [0162], see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nicolai to punch with a press force in the range of 3.75 tons to 100 tons because Nicolai is silent as to the force, and [0162] of Craigie teaches an overlapping range of force for pressing a plurality of nonwoven layers into shape, thus in the same technical context to achieve the same end. Separately, col. 5 ll. 24-26 of Boyles teaches that determining a proper pressure for the given materials is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Craigie (US 11,832,677) teaches subject matter similar to Craigie (US 2022/0361623), cited above. [0041] of Scheuer (US 2024/0342966) teaches heating with steam at a temperature and pressure within the scope of claim 7. Similarly, [0544-45] of Frazier (US 20241/0030117) teaches relevant heating times, temperatures, and pressures. Claim 9 of Vogt (US 2017/0341271) teaches a process similar to that of present claim claim 6, of steam heating (partially drying) a nonwoven, then subsequently pressing it into shape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights