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 without traverse of Group I and Species 2 from each of Species Groups 1-3 in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3 and 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to because claim 15 includes a space before the period and claim 16 lacks a period.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-21 are 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.
The phrase “low-melting” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation requires a melting temperature lower (i.e. lower-melting) than the claimed “higher-melting” or if a specific melt temperature range is being referenced by “low-melting.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 2 and 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2020/0307146 to Wagner or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2020/0307146 to Wagner in view of USPAP 2019/0233994 to Sommer.
Claims 1 and 2, Wagner discloses a spunbonded nonwoven laminate having at least two spunbonded nonwoven layers made of continuous filaments including at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer that has crimped continuous filaments, the improvement wherein the crimped continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer are multicomponent filaments that comprise at least one first low-melting, plastic component and at least one second higher-melting, plastic component, at least one reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer is provided that consists of or substantially consists of noncrimped continuous filaments and/or of continuous filaments that are less crimped compared to the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer, the continuous filaments of the reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer comprising at least one binder component on their surface (see entire document including [0012]-[0025], [0030], [0035] and [0036]).
Wagner discloses that the melting temperature of the binder component of the continuous filaments of the reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer may (optionally) be less than the melting temperature of low-melting, plastic component of the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer [0036] teaching that the temperatures may be the same or less with no requirement that the difference be more than 15ºC. Therefore, either Wagner sufficiently teaches the claimed temperature difference of less than 15°C or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the melt temperature difference as claimed, based on the desired level of bonding between the filaments of the first and second spunbonded layers.
Wagner does not appear to mention the laminate maximum flexural stiffness, but considering that Wagner discloses a substantially identical spunbonded nonwoven laminate in terms of structure and materials, the claimed property appears to be inherent. Plus, Sommer discloses (see entire document including [0032]) that it is known in the art to construct a spunbonded nonwoven laminate with a thickness (0.1 to 0.9 mm) substantially identical to the thickness disclosed in the current specification (0.1 to 0.85 mm) [0047]. Therefore, the applied prior art further teaches a substantially identical spunbonded nonwoven laminate in terms of structure (including laminate thickness) and materials and therefore the claimed property appears to be inherent. Further, Wagner discloses that the stiffness may be varied as desired [0035]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the laminate with any suitable maximum flexural stiffness, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a stiffness on the basis the intended use and the desired final product characteristics.
Claim 4, the continuous filaments of the at least one reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer are multicomponent filaments with centric or symmetrical core-sheath configuration or with eccentric core-sheath configuration, and the at least one binder component of the continuous filaments of the reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer forms the sheath component of the continuous filaments with core-sheath configuration ([0017] and [0036]).
Claim 5, Wagner discloses that the core-to-sheath mass ratio of spunbonded nonwoven layers is conventionally in the range of 60:40 to 80:20 [0070]. 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 spunbonded nonwoven layer of Wagner with the claimed core-to-sheath mass ratio, because it conventional and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the core-to-sheath mass ratio on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 6, the melting temperature of the binder component of the continuous filaments of the reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer is lower than the melting temperature of the second higher-melting, plastic component of the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer [0036].
Claim 7, Wagner discloses that the laminate may be subjected to machine direction (MD) stretching [0037]. Upon said MD stretching, the continuous (noncrimped) filaments of the at least one reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer are inherently more strongly oriented in the machine direction than the continuous (crimped) filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer because the reinforcing filaments are not crimped and thus orient more strongly during the MD stretching operation compared to the crimped filaments that absorb more of the stretching due to their crimped configuration. When a nonwoven fabric is stretched, straight (non-crimped) fibers immediately undergo tension, transferring the load to the polymer chains which rapidly align (orient) with the direction of the stretch. Crimped filaments, by contrast, feature a wavy or zigzag shape. When pulled, the crimped filaments first undergo a "crimp zone" where they simply straighten out rather than orienting at the molecular level. Because the applied strain is absorbed by the unwinding or extension of the crimp itself, the filaments are not subjected to the same level of tensile drawing and rigid realignment as their straight counterparts.
Claim 8, the titre of the continuous filaments of the at least one reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer is less than 2.5 den or the titre of the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer is less than 3.0 den [0030].
Claim 9, the at least one binder component of the continuous filaments of the reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer comprises a first plastic that is a homo-polyolefin or a polyolefin copolymer ([0016] and [0036]).
Claim 10, the at least one binder component of the reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer consists of or substantially consists of a mixture or a blend of at least a first plastic and at least a second plastic ([0016] and [0036]). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the filaments from any suitable polypropylene material, 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.
Claim 11, the first or the second plastic component of the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer is at least one homo-polyolefin or at least one polyolefin copolymer ([0016] and [0036]).
Claim 12, the binder component of the continuous filaments of the reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer and/or the first low-melting, plastic component of the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer or the second higher-melting plastic component of the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer are each formed on the basis of a polyolefin from the same polyolefin material ([0016] and [0024]).
Claim 13, the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer are multicomponent filaments with side-by-side configuration and/or with core-sheath configuration, and the first preferably low-melting plastic component of the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer forms the sheath component ([0023] and [0036]).
Claim 14, a mass ratio of the first low-melting, plastic component of the continuous filaments of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer to the second higher-melting, plastic component of the at least one crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer is 10:90 to 60:40 [0070].
Claim 15, further comprising: at least one second crimped spunbonded nonwoven layer, the at least one reinforcing spunbonded nonwoven layer being between the first and second crimped spunbonded nonwoven layers [0018].
Claims 16 and 17, considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical laminate in terms of structure and materials, the claimed properties appears to be inherent. Plus, Wagner discloses that the laminate may be subjected to calendaring and/or machine direction and/or transverse direction stretching ([0035] and [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the laminate with any suitable tensile strength/force, such as claimed, based on the intended use and the desired/required end product tensile properties.
Claims 18-20, Wagner discloses that the laminate may be subjected to calendaring embossing wherein the total embossing area of the embossing pattern to the total surface area of the laminate is 2 to 12% with a varying number of figures/cm2 [0035]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the laminate with any desired embossed pattern, such as claimed, based on the desired stiffness and/or aesthetics and because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an embossed pattern on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 21, considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical laminate in terms of structure and materials, the claimed property appears to be inherent. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the laminate with any desired abrasion resistance, such as claimed, based on the intended use and the desired surface characteristics.
Conclusion
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