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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the grammar and readability of “the TPU adhesive resin in an extruder in a range of”, “spinning nozzle in a range of”, “the EVA resin in a range of” and “spinning nozzle in a range of” should be corrected. There are additional issues of clarity in claim 1 detailed below in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. The following is suggested to correct this objection and the issue of clarity detailed below:
--wherein, for the TPU adhesive resin, the is at a temperature in a range of 130-200°C and the spinning nozzle is at a temperature in a range of 170-220°C to form [[a]] the melt-blown nonwoven web or, for the EVA resin, the extruder is at a temperature in a range of 80-170°C and the spinning nozzle is at a temperature in a range of 130-200°C to form [[a]] the melt-blown nonwoven web.--.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, as noted above in the claim objection, the grammar and readability of the lines 11-15 should be corrected, for example as suggested by the examiner. There are also issues of clarity in this new language. It is unclear if instances of “an extruder”, “melt-spun fibers”, “a spinning nozzle” and “a melt-blow nonwoven web” are referencing the corresponding terms already recited earlier in the claim. It is also unclear if the range of 80-170°C is referring to an extruder temperature like the range of 130-200°C refers to an extruder temperature. It is believed this was the intended scope, which is consistent with paragraph 51 of Applicant’s specification. The corrections suggested above in the claim objection section also correct the above noted issues of clarity.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2023/0167253 A1) in view of Hilbert (US 4554206 A), Ashraf (US 2015/0123304 A1) and Hazelton (US 4804577).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a hot melt film containing hydrophobic nanosilica, the hot melt film comprising an adhesive resin comprising a resin selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) and ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), the adhesive resin further comprising hydrophobic nanosilica with a particle size of 1 to 100 nm in a range of 0.1 to 5 parts per hundred resin (phr). See Park (paragraphs 29, 37, 40, 49, 54, 59, 64 and 76). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Park differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Park provides the hot melt in the form of a film rather than in the form of a meltblown nonwoven fabric.
ii. Park does not teach the recited method steps of extruding the adhesive resin in an extruder and then melt-spinning melt-spun fibers through a spinning nozzle to form a meltblown nonwoven web; and trimming and winding the meltblown nonwoven web.
iii. Park does not teach that for the TPU adhesive resin alternative, the extruder is at a temperature in a range of 130-200°C and the spinning nozzle is at a temperature in a range of 170-220°C to form the melt-blown nonwoven web or, for the EVA resin alternative, the extruder is at a temperature in a range of 80-170°C and the spinning nozzle is at a temperature in a range of 130-200°C to form the melt-blown nonwoven web. The examiner acknowledges this is not the exact language used in claim 1, lines 11-15. However, this is how the examiner is interpreting the language of lines 11-15. The examiner believes this is the most reasonable interpretation in view of Applicant’s disclosure. See Applicant’s specification (paragraph 51).
(i) Hilbert teaches that hot melt adhesives may be provided in different forms, including powders, films and meltblown webs (column 2, lines 19-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the hotmelt of Park in the form of a meltblown nonwoven fabric because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the hotmelt in a known suitable form, as suggested by Hilbert.
(ii) Hilbert does not recite details of forming a meltblown nonwoven fabric. However, it is known to form such a fabric by extruding the resin in an extruder and then melt-spinning melt-spun fibers through a spinning nozzle to form a meltblown nonwoven fabric, and trimming and winding the meltblown nonwoven fabric. See Ashraf (Abstract; Figure 1; paragraphs 35, 37, 42, 45-48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form the meltblown hot melt nonwoven fabric of Park as modified by Hilbert using these steps because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the meltblown hot melt nonwoven fabric using known suitable meltblowing manufacturing steps, as evidenced by Ashraf.
(iii) Hilbert was applied above to suggest providing the hotmelt of Park in the form of a meltblown nonwoven fabric. As noted above, Hilbert does not recite details of forming a meltblown nonwoven fabric. In the art of forming meltblown nonwoven fabrics from a wide variety of polymer materials including elastomeric materials and EVA (column 2, line 45 to column 3, line 26; column 9, lines 4-7), Hazelton explains that both the extruder and the nozzle (die) are generally at a temperature of 149 to 288°C, which overlaps with each of the recited ranges (300 to 550°F; column 6, lines 3-9). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Hazelton explains that fiber diameter depends on flow rate of the polymer and viscosity at the die (nozzle). Hazelton further explains that the actual temperatures used will of course vary. If the temperature is too low, the nonwoven will have globs of polymer and course ropy material. If the temperature is too high, the nonwoven will be extremely soft and fluffy with extreme fiber breakage and short fibers that are blown away. Accordingly, the melt blowing operation is generally watched continuously and the temperature adjusted as required. Further, an optimal temperature for any particular material will permit maximum polymer flow rate at a minimum die pressure. Hazelton also explains the die (nozzle) temperature will also affect the flow rate. Optionally, Hazelton suggests that the produced meltblown webs may be adhesive. See Hazelton (column 6, lines 3-20 and 48-52; column 8, lines 5-27 and 38-46; column 9, lines 4-7). It is clear from the above noted teachings of Hazelton, that selecting temperatures for the extruder and nozzle within the corresponding claimed ranges is generally known, and that selecting specific temperatures is a matter of routine experimentation to avoid the above noted problems with temperatures which are too low or too high, to optimize the process for polymer flow rate and maximum die pressure, and/or to achieve desired fiber diameter. Applicant has not provided any objective evidence of unexpected results for the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitation in the modified method of Park because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide suitable and/or optimal extruder and nozzle temperatures as a matter of routine experimentation in view of the teachings of Hazelton, for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 2, Ashraf was relied upon for suggesting suitable meltblowing manufacturing steps. Ashraf further teaches that meltblown webs typically have an average fiber diameter of about 0.1 to 10 µm. Accordingly, fiber diameters in the claimed range are suggested by Ashraf. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide an average fiber diameter in the claimed range because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide fiber diameters which are typical of the meltblowing process, as suggested by Ashraf.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches a hot melt film thickness of 0.02 to 0.3 mm (paragraph 76). Park teaches TPU and EVA resins for the hotmelt film (paragraphs 59 and 79). TPU has a density of about 1.2 g/cm3, which corresponds to a basis weight of about 24 to 360 g/m2 for a thickness of 0.02 to 0.3 mm. EVA has a density of about 0.95 g/cm3, which corresponds to a basis weight of about 19 to 285 g/m2 for a thickness of 0.02 to 0.3 mm. Providing the same amount of adhesive in the meltblown hot melt nonwoven fabric would naturally require providing the same basis weight. Thus values within the claimed range are reasonably suggested by Park. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4-6, these additional limitations are clearly taught by Park.
Claims 7-12 are satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the new language added to claim 1. These new limitations have been addressed above in the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights