DETAILED ACTION
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8-26-26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,098,488B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are
●first layer feeder mechanism claims 1 and 4
●second layer feeder mechanism claims 1 and 5
●consolidation device claim 6
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darwin (US 12,098,488 B2) in view of Brown (US 2003/0104748 A1).
Claim 1, Darwin teaches an apparatus comprising:
●one or more laydown stations, two or more layer feeders, and a moving conveyor belt
●the one or more laydown stations, the two or more layer feeders having at least a
guide and/or roller, and the moving conveyor belt forming a multilayered nonwoven fabric having a base layer, at least one fiber layer where each fiber has a diameter, and an upper layer (Darwin’s claim 1)
●where a first layer feeder mechanism is positioned at an initial start position of the
moving conveyor belt and is located prior to a position of the one or more laydown stations and moves the multilayered nonwoven fabric physically past the one or more laydown stations (Darwin’s claim 1)
●where the one or more laydown stations further comprise one or more melt fibrillation
nozzles (Darwin’s claim 1)
●where any of the two or more layer feeders places the base layer of the
multilayered nonwoven fabric onto the conveyor belt (Darwin’s claim 1)
●where at least one of the one or more laydown stations creates a polymeric fiber web
layer of the multilayered nonwoven fabric by extruding a polymeric melt through at least one of the one or more melt fibrillation nozzles and an associated fluid stream emanating from an orifice of the at least one or more melt fibrillation nozzles (Darwin’s claim 1)
●where the extruded polymeric melt is then subjected to an entraining fluid to form the
at least one working fiber web layer comprising fibers with diameters of one to ten microns formed on an upper surface of the base layer by the at least one of the one or more melt fibrillation nozzles (Darwin’s claim 1)
●where a second layer feeder mechanism is positioned at an end position of the moving
conveyor belt and beyond a physical location of the one or more laydown stations (Darwin’s claim 1)
●where the conveyer belt then moves the multilayered nonwoven fabric physically out
of the laydown apparatus (Darwin’s claim 1)
●where the moving conveyor belt moves the multilayered nonwoven fabric through the
apparatus to create the multilayered nonwoven fabric containing the working fibers with diameters of one to ten microns (Darwin’s claim 1).
Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawings, abstract) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
With respect to the claimed first layer feeder mechanism and the second layer feeder mechanism (claim 1), because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches structures for the first layer feeder mechanism and the second layer feeder mechanism. Darwin teaches structures for the first layer feeder mechanism and the second layer feeder. Darwin is thus considered to meet these limitations of the claim.
Darwin indicates that the nonwoven fabric is used as a barrier, wipes, or sorbent material such as, for example, respiratory protective devices, surgical gowns, wound dressings, medical barriers, personal hygiene products, and cleansing articles (page 6, lines 23-28) wherein softness and loft are important features (page 7, lines 17-21).
Claim 1, Darwin does not teach that the diameter of each of the fibers is from about 0.1 to about 50 microns (claim 3 amended to read about 0.2 to about 10 microns).
However, it is conventional and well-known in the art of nonwoven fabrics that nonwoven fabrics have fibers with diameters of 1-10µ, as demonstrated by Brown. This diameter falls within the claimed range of about 0.1 to about 50 microns (and about 0.2 to about 10 microns). Brown teaches that nonwoven fabrics have uses as absorbent articles in personal care products such as sanitary napkins, diapers, training pants, incontinence garments, and wound care products -- wherein softness and loft are important features and are a function of the fiber features (paragraphs 1 and 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Darwin that the diameter of each of the fibers is 1-10µ in that such is conventional and well-known in the art of nonwoven fabrics, as demonstrated by Brown (in the same area of nonwoven fabrics as the area of nonwoven fabrics of Darwin) where Brown teaches that fiber features (such as fiber diameter) help to provide softness and loft to the nonwoven fabric – which are important features in Darwin.
Darwin modified teaches that the diameter of each of the fibers is 1-10µ such that the fiber layer of Darwin is considered to be a “working” fiber layer made by the same claimed method.
Claim 2, Darwin teaches that any of the one or more laydown stations comprises the one or more melt fibrillation nozzles and the one or more fluid streams to extrude an elongated hollow tube of the polymeric melt that is subject to the entraining fluid to create the working fiber web layer material comprised of fibers with diameters of one to ten microns as one layer of the multilayered nonwoven fabric (Darwin’s claim 2).
Claim 3, Darwin teaches that the one or more laydown stations further comprises utilizing the entraining fluid to create one or more layers of the multilayered nonwoven fabric (Darwin’s claim 3).
Claim 4, Darwin teaches that the first layer feeder mechanism introduces a pre-formed individual base layer such that the moving conveyor belt carries the individual base layer beneath the one or more laydown stations (Darwin’s claim 4).
With respect to the claimed first layer feeder mechanism, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches structures for the first layer feeder mechanism. Darwin teaches a structure for the first layer feeder mechanism. Darwin is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claim 5, Darwin teaches that the second layer feeder mechanism introduces an individual pre-formed top layer such that the individual top layer is positioned vertically above the working fiber web layer comprised of fibers with diameters of one to ten microns and previously created by the one or more laydown stations (Darwin’s claim 5).
With respect to the claimed second layer feeder mechanism, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches structures for the second layer feeder mechanism. Darwin teaches a structure for the second layer feeder mechanism. Darwin is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claim 6, Darwin teaches a consolidation device bonding the multilayered nonwoven fabric containing the working fiber web layer to the base layer after the working fiber web layer is formed (Darwin’s claim 6).
With respect to the claimed consolidation device, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches structures for the consolidation device. Darwin teaches a structure for the consolidation device. Darwin is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claim 7, Darwin teachers that the consolidation device is a calender (Darwin’s claim 7).
Claim 8, Darwin teaches that the consolidation device is an ultrasonic welder (Darwin’s claim 8).
Examiner’s Remarks
The amendments and comments filed 8-26-26 have been entered and fully considered. With respect to the claim rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 over Darwin in view of Brown, Darwin is available as a prior art reference due to the following: Darwin is a U.S. patent disclosed before the effective filing date of the instant application – and disclosed more than one year before the effective filing date of the instant application. An exception under 102(a)(1) does not apply to references published before the grace period of one year.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights