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 .
Claim Note
The amended claimed set submitted August 27, 2024 is being used as the most recent. Claims were include as part of the prior document exchange filed March 25, 2025. This appears to be the original and contains multiple dependent claims, which are not included on the fee worksheet. Therefore, the most recent claim set and the used for examination is the amended claim set submitted August 27, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002-001855 to Sugimoto.
NOTE: The English translation filed by Applicant is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11, Sugimoto teaches a nonwoven fabric composite (fiber sheet) comprising a first layer of a staple fiber nonwoven web (claim 8) and a second layer of an entangled web (nonwoven, claim 8) of a fibrous thermoplastic elastomer (second fiber layer containing elastomer fibers) (Sugimoto, Overview, claim 1). Sugimoto teaches the staple fiber being spirally crimp fibers in a content of at least 60 wt% (Id., claim 5), reading on a first layer containing crimped fibers each having a coil shape. Sugimoto teaches the nonwoven being a highly stretchable nonwoven having an elongation recovery after 100% elongation of 85% or more (Id., para 0012-0013), reading on . Sugimoto teaches the short fiber nonwoven web being entangled by water flow entangling method (Id., para 0014, 0029). Sugimoto teaches the staple fiber nonwoven web being used in the first layer and the third layer with an elongation at break of 70% or more both in the longitudinal and transverse direction and an elongation recovery of 50% or more (Id., para 0027), reading on the first fiber layer having repetitive elasticity in a longitudinal direction of the fiber sheet. Sugimoto teaches the short fiber being latently crimpable fiber having as a base polymer polyester, including polyethylene terephthalate (claim 3) (Id., para 0027-0028). Sugimoto teaches the first layer and second layer being laminated and contact-bonded by heating (Id., p. 2, claim 1 and 4, para 0009, 0012, 0037), reading on the second fiber layer being integrated with the first fiber layer by fusion or adhesion. Sugimoto teaches the nonwoven being used as a patch base cloth (Id., para 0050), reading on a bandage (claim 11). Sugimoto teaches a specific embodiment wherein the short fiber being spiral crimp fiber formed using polyethylene terephthalate (claim 3) and thermoplastic elastomer is styrene-butadiene-styrene block polymer (Id., 0040-0047). Sugimoto teaches the specific embodiment having a sprayed fabric (second fiber layer) thickness of about 60 microns with basis weights of 15, 25, and 35 g/m2 (claim 2) and a short fiber layer (first fiber layer) basis weight of 64 g/m2 (Id., para 0040-0047). While Sugimoto does not teach the thickness of the short fiber layer (first fiber layer), the density of the short fiber layer at 64 g/m2 would need to be between 0.032 and 1.07 g/cm3 to fall within the claimed thickness ratio of from 3/97 to 50/50. Absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have expected the thickness ratio to fall within the claimed range based on the disclosed spray fabric thickness of 60 microns and basis weight of the short fiber layer of 64 g/m2. Additionally, Sugimoto teaches the thickness and specific gravity being selected to the purpose and application (Id., para 0029). As Sugimoto teaches a similar application, absent evidence of unexpected results, the thickness would have been selected such as to result in the claimed thickness ratio as being directed towards a substantially similar product and containing the claimed component.
Regarding claim 4, Sugimoto teaches the sprayed elastomer fiber having strong adhesion at the overlapped portion and a hard texture (Sugimoto, para 0017-0018), reading on the second fiber layer having a fused intersection between the elastomer fibers.
Regarding claim 5, Sugimoto teaches the thermoplastic elastomer being polystyrene (Sugimoto, para 0019).
Regarding claim 7, Sugimoto teaches there being no peeling between the layers of the structure and the structure being flexible and highly stretchable (Sugimoto, para 0047). Sugimoto also teaches the adhesion between fibers being adjusted at any time by the lamination conditions (Id., para 0038). Regarding the claimed interlayer peeling strength between the second fiber layer and the first fiber layer being 0.1 g/cm or higher, although the prior art does not disclose interlayer peeling strength, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of Sugimoto since Sugimoto teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Sugimoto teaches a nonwoven fabric composite comprising a fiber layer of coiled crimped fibers based on polyester and a layer of fibrous thermoplastic elastomer that is laminated together that exhibit no peeling. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite of Sugimoto, wherein the lamination conditions are optimized to maximize adhesion of the layer, such as to result in the claimed interlayer peeling strength, motivated by the desire to avoid peeling of the layers disclosed as desirable by optimizing lamination condition which is taught as influencing the adhesion.
Regarding claim 11, Sugimoto teaches the nonwoven being used as a patch base cloth (Sugimoto, para 0050), reading on a bandage. Additionally, the limitation “the fiber sheet is a bandage” is interpreted as a limitation with regards to the intended use of the fiber sheet. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The nonwoven of Sugimoto is capable of being used as bandage to wrap a wound or portion of a body.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002-001855 to Sugimoto, as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11, in view of USPN 5,540,976 to Shawver.
Regarding claim 6, Sugimoto teaches the first layer and second layer being laminated and contact-bonded by heating (Sugimoto, para 0009, 0012, 0037). Sugimoto teaches the nonwoven being used in disposable field such as diaper and patch base cloth (Id., para 0050).
Sugimoto does not explicitly teach a portion of a bonding area between the second fiber layer and the first fiber layer being from 5 to 25% with respect to an area of an entire surface of the second fiber layer.
However, Shawver teaches a nonwoven fabric laminate having cross-directional stretch properties comprising outer layers of spunbond nonwoven fiber webs of crimped or crimpable fiber and an inner layer of an elastomeric polymer layer, such as styrenic block copolymers, that is bonded together to form the laminate, such as by point bonding using patterned calender rolls with about a 15% bond area (Shawver, abstract, col. 5 lines 4-49, col. 7 line 37- col. 8 line 67, col. 1 lines 15-35), reading on a proportion of a bonding area between the second fiber layer and the first fiber layer being 15% with respect to an area of an entire surface of the second fiber layer. Shawver teaches the laminate suitable for use in many products such as personal care products and medical products (Id., col. 9 lines 15-18, col. 11 lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven fabric composite of Sugimoto, wherein the point bonding has a 15% bond area as taught by Shawver, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known contact point bond area percentages predictably suitable for use in laminates having stretch formed of crimped fiber and elastomeric polymer layer used for personal care products such as diapers and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Sugimoto.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2006/0148358 to Hall.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, and 7-11, Hall teaches an elastic laminate material (fiber sheet) comprising an elastic member, such as an elastic meltblown web of elastic block copolymer (second fiber layer containing elastomer fibers) containing styrenic moiety (claim 5, styrene-based elastomer fibers), and a fibrous nonwoven web (first fiber layer), including multicomponent fiber where a heat treatment is used to activate latent helical crimp (crimped fibers each having a coil shape) before being formed into a nonwoven web (Hall, abstract, para 0029, 0034, 0037, 0041). Hall teaches the elastic member and the fibrous nonwoven being bonded together using heated patterned point-bonding (fusion) or applied adhesive (Id., para 0045), reading on the second fiber layer being integrated with the first fiber layer by fusion or adhesion. Hall teaches the fibrous nonwoven being from about 7 gsm to up to 100 gsm, particularly about 14 gsm, to about 34 gsm (Id., para 0029). Hall teaches the elastic member being from about 5 gsm to less than 100 gsm, particularly from about 5 gsm to about 34 gsm (Id., para 0036).
While Hall does not explicitly teach the fibrous nonwoven web (first fiber layer) having repetitive elasticity in a longitudinal direction of the sheet, this feature appears to be inherent to the crimped fibers having a coil shape (see para 0052 of the published application). As Hall teaches the crimped fibers being helical, and therefore coil, the fibrous nonwoven web would have repetitive elasticity in a longitudinal direction of the sheet, absence evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the claimed thickness ratio of the second fiber layer to the first fiber layer, expressed as (second fiber layer) / (first fiber layer), being from 3/97 to 50/50, Hall does not explicitly teach the thickness ratio. However, Hall does teach a basis weight ratio of about 5 to 34 gsm to 14 to 34 gsm. At the upper limit and the lower limit, the basis weight ratio is about 36/64 to 50/50, respectively. The overall ratio range is 15/85 to 59/41. The basis weight would be related to thickness based upon the density of the layer. While the density of the layers are not specified, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have expected the thickness ratio to at least overlap with claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 2, Hall teaches the elastic member (second fiber layer) being from about 5 gsm to less than 100 gsm, particularly from about 5 gsm to about 34 gsm (Hall, para 0036). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 10 g/m2 or higher, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the basis weight, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Hall teaches the fibrous nonwoven web being made using polyesters (Hall, para 0030-0031), reading the crimped fiber being derived from ester-based composite fibers.
Regarding claim 7 and the claimed interlayer peeling strength between the second fiber layer and the first fiber layer being 0.1 g/cm or higher, although the prior art does not disclose interlayer peeling strength, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of Sugimoto since Sugimoto teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Hall teaches an elastic laminate material an elastic member, including an elastic meltblown web of elastic block copolymer of styrenic moiety, and a fibrous nonwoven web (first fiber layer), including multicomponent fiber having helical crimp, including polyester, that are point bonded together. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 8-9, Hall teaches the elastic member being an elastic meltblown web of elastic block copolymer (Hall, abstract, para 0034, 0037), reading on the second fiber layer being a melt-blown nonwoven fabric. Hall teaches the fibrous nonwoven being produced as disclosed in US Pat. No. 5,382,400, which is incorporated herein by referenced in its entirety (Id., para 0029). USPN 5,382,400 to Pike teaches nonwoven being hydroentangled (Pike, col. 10 lines 7-14, claim 8), reading on the first fiber layer being a hydroentangled nonwoven fabric.
Regarding claim 10, Hall teaches winding the elastic material comprising an elastic member and at least one fibrous nonwoven web (Hall, abstract), reading on the laminate consisting of one elastic member and one fibrous nonwoven web and would necessarily have the elastic member (second fiber layer) exposed on at least a part of at least one outermost surface of the laminate (fiber sheet).
Regarding claim 11, Hall teaches the elastic laminate being used in bandages (Hall, abstract). Additionally, the limitation “the fiber sheet is a bandage” is interpreted as a limitation with regards to the intended use of the fiber sheet. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The laminate of Hall is capable of being used as bandage to wrap a wound or portion of a body.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2006/0148358 to Hall, as applied to claims 1-3, 5, and 7-11, in view of USPN 5,540,976 to Shawver.
Regarding claim 6, Hall teaches he elastic laminate material being used in personal care products, medical care products, and bandages (Hall, abstract). Hall teaches the elastic member and the fibrous nonwoven being bonded together using heated patterned point-bonding (Id., para 0045).
Hall is silent with regards to a proportion of a bonding area between the second fiber layer and the first fiber layer being from 5 to 25% with respect to an area of an entire surface of the second fiber layer.
However, Shawver teaches a nonwoven fabric laminate having cross-directional stretch properties comprising outer layers of spunbond nonwoven fiber webs of crimped or crimpable fiber and an inner layer of an elastomeric polymer layer, such as styrenic block copolymers, that is bonded together to form the laminate, such as by point bonding using patterned calender rolls with about a 15% bond area (Shawver, abstract, col. 5 lines 4-49, col. 7 line 37- col. 8 line 67, col. 1 lines 15-35), reading on a proportion of a bonding area between the second fiber layer and the first fiber layer being 15% with respect to an area of an entire surface of the second fiber layer. Shawver teaches the laminate suitable for use in many products such as personal care products and medical products (Id., col. 9 lines 15-18, col. 11 lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the elastic material of Hall, wherein the point bonding has a 15% bond area as taught by Shawver, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known point bond area percentages predictably suitable for use in laminates having stretch formed of crimped fiber and elastomeric polymer layer used for personal care products or medical products and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Hall.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2013/0095288 to Terada teaches a stretchable bulky nonwoven comprising a first fibrous layer of crimped fibers and a second fibrous layer, such as of thermoplastic elastomer that include styrene-based elastomer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:00 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights