www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/048,380
`
`10/16/2020
`
`Ignatius A. Kadoma
`
`80615US006
`
`9173
`
`3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
`PO BOX 33427
`ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
`
`ZHANG, MICHAEL N
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1781
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/06/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/048,380
`
`10/16/2020
`
`Ignatius A. Kadoma
`
`80615US006
`
`9173
`
`3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
`PO BOX 33427
`ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
`
`ZHANG, MICHAEL N
`
`ART UNIT
`
`1781
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/06/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte IGNATIUS A. KADOMA, JEFFREY A. CHAMBERS,
`MICHAEL D. ROMANO, and MARIE E. VANDERLAAN
`
`Appeal 2023-000855
`Application 17/048,380
`Technology Center 1700
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY,and
`MERRELL C. CASHION,JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KENNEDY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`The Appellant! appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s
`
`decision rejecting claims 1-15. We havejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6(b).
`
`WeAFFIRM.
`
`' “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
`Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as 3M Company and 3M
`Innovative Properties Company. Appeal Br. 2. The Assignment
`Recordation records reflect that 3M Innovative Properties Company has
`assigned the application to SOLVENTUM INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTIES COMPANY. Appellant is reminded ofits obligation to
`update its real party in interest information within 20 days of any change
`during the appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.8(a).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2023-000855
`Application 17/048,380
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The subject matter on appeal relates to biodegradable layered
`
`composites said to be useful, e.g., for controlling weed growth and moisture
`
`in agricultural applications. E.g., Spec. {{ 1, 2; Claim 1. Claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below from page 6 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief
`
`(emphasis addedto key disputed limitation) (formatting added):
`
`1. A biodegradable layered composite comprising:
`
`a first nonwoven biodegradable layer having a first and second
`major
`surface,
`the
`first nonwoven biodegradable
`layer
`comprising:
`
`biodegradable polymeric melt-blownfibers, and
`
`a plurality ofparticles enmeshedin the biodegradable polymeric
`melt-blown fibers; and
`
`a biodegradable polymer film on at least a portion of the first
`major surface of the first nonwoven biodegradable layer.
`
`REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
`
`Wong, Merrill?
`so
`Wong, Labbé*
`oo|03|Wong,
`
`Bret?
`
`* US 2015/0337094 A1, published Nov. 26, 2015.
`7 US 3,080,681, issued Mar. 12, 1963.
`* US 6,401,390 B1, issued June 11, 2002.
`> US 5,783,504,issued July 21, 1998.
`° US 6,360,478 B1, issued Mar. 26, 2002.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Appeal 2023-000855
`Application 17/048,380
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The Appellant argues the claims as a group. Weselect claim | as
`
`representative, and the remaining claimswill stand or fall with claim 1.
`
`After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
`
`opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
`
`Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections.
`
`Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasonsset forth below,in the
`
`Final Action dated April 1, 2022, and in the Examiner’s Answer dated
`
`August 19, 2022.
`
`There does not appear to be any dispute that, in Wong, filler particles
`
`such as calcium carbonate are integrated into polymeric melt-blownfibers;
`
`1.e., the particles are embedded in and onthe surfaces of the fibers, not
`
`merely surroundedby,held in place, and/or entangled by the fibers. See
`
`generally Final Act.; Appeal Br.; Ans. The sole issue on appeal is whether
`
`particles that are embedded in andon the surfaces of the fibers, and
`
`surroundedby the other fibers of the fabric, fall within the broadest
`
`reasonable construction, consistent with the Specification, of the claim |
`
`limitation, “particles enmeshed in the biodegradable polymeric melt-blown
`
`fibers.”
`
`Wedeterminethat they do, and therefore we affirm the Examiner’s
`
`rejection. As the Examiner explains, Ans. 3-4, the Specification defines the
`
`term “enmeshed” as encompassing “particles that are dispersed and
`
`physically held in the fibers of a nonwoven biodegradable layer.” Spec. | 6
`
`(emphasis added). The Specification states that “[t]he particles become
`
`enmeshed in a melt-blow fibrous matrix as the fibers contact the particles.”
`
`Spec. | 17. The definition in { 6 does not define “enmeshed”as requiring
`
`
`
`Appeal 2023-000855
`Application 17/048,380
`
`the particles to merely be surrounded by or entangled by the fibers but not
`
`embeddedin the fibers; on the contrary, it defines the term “enmeshed”as
`
`encompassingparticles that are “held in the fibers,” which is consistent with
`
`{| 17’s reference to the particles “contact[ing]” the melt-blown fibrous
`
`matrix. See id.
`
`There is no dispute that the particles in Wong are held in the fibers,
`
`and that those particles in turn are surrounded by and entangled with other
`
`fibers in the fabric. Given the disclosures in the Specification noted above,
`
`which the Appellant does not acknowledgeor address, the Appellant fails to
`
`identify reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Wong’s
`
`particles fall within the broadest reasonable construction, consistent with the
`
`Specification, of the disputed term. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`
`496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he PTO must give claimstheir
`
`broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.”); cf. In
`
`re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[D]uring patent prosecution
`
`when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and
`
`breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.”).
`
`Weaffirm the Examiner’s rejection.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2023-000855
`Application 17/048,380
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In summary:
`
`1-7, 15
`=
`2, 11-14
`
`g,
`Wong, Merrill
`
`1-715 |
`2, 11-14
`
`
`
`||9|1
`
`03|Wong, Ehret|9=|
`Wong, Spite|10|10
`Overall
`Outcome
`
`No time period for taking any subsequentaction in connection with
`
`this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.136(a)(1)Gv).
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
