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 .
Amendments to claims 1 and 22-23 and the cancellation of claims 10 and 15, in the response filed November 28, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, and 22-23 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the limitation “wherein the fibrous substrate is not subjected to external heat.” Para 0028 of the published application states “such a process may be a non-thermal process (e.g., the fibrous substrate does not or is not subjected to external heat for curing and/or drying of the alcohol repellent composition deposited thereon), which mitigates or eliminates thermal degradation of the resulting alcohol repellent fabric, reduces energy consumption, and substantially (or completely) eliminates the creation of greenhouse gases associated with these processing activities (e.g., coating and curing of an alcohol repellent composition onto a fibrous substrate).” The subjection to external heat is specific to the curing and/or drying process. However, the claim excludes external heat at any point or process. The full scope of the claim amendment is not supported by the originally filed disclosure and therefore introduces new matter.
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, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14, and 22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the fibrous substrate is not subjected to external heat.” It is unclear by what is meant by external as only material at absolute zero would not be subjected to external heat. Claim 1 also recites the limitations “wherein the first outermost surface, the second outermost surface, or both comprise a blended coating in cured form including the alcohol repellent composition and the antistatic composition, in a single composition, wherein the alcohol repellent composition located on at least the first outermost surface, the second outermost surface is located in one or more discrete treated areas, and wherein the one or more discrete treated areas cover from about 1% to about 99% of the first outermost surface or the second surface area.” The claim initially appears to have a blended coating in cured form including the alcohol repellent composition and the antistatic composition on (A) the first outermost surface, (B) the second outermost surface or (C) the first outermost surface and the second outermost surface. However, the claim then recites the alcohol repellent composition located on at least the first outermost, the second outermost surface is located in one or more discrete treated areas. It is unclear what is intended by this portion. Does the claim intend the composition to be on at least the first outermost surface or the second outermost surface in one or more discrete treated areas? Intend the composition to be on at least the first outermost surface (in any form) and the second outermost surface in one or more discrete treated areas? Intend the composition to be on either the first outermost surface or the second outermost surface in discrete areas? It is also unclear if the second surface area intends to be the second outermost surface area.
The remaining claims are rejected based their dependency on rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2006/0105110 to Baldwin.
Regarding claim 23, Baldwin teaches a barrier fabric comprising a fibrous substrate, such as a nonwoven, necessarily including a first outermost surface and a second outermost surface, a printed or sprayed fluorochemical repellent (alcohol repellent composition) located on the entire fabric or oriented to one surface (at least a portion of the first outermost surface of the fabric, at least a portion of the second outermost surface of the fabric, or both) and an antistat (antistatic composition) applied to the barrier fabric (located on at least a portion of the first outermost surface of the fabric or at least a portion of the second outermost surface of the fabric) (Baldwin, abstract, para 0018-0020, 0043). Baldwin teaches a specific embodiments using a spunbond-meltblown-spunbond nonwoven as the fabric, wherein the fabric has an alcohol repellency rating of at least 7 and static decay at 50% RH of 0.01 second 0.02 second (Id., para 0044-0050). Baldwin teaches one of these embodiments using a fluorochemical Repearl Grade F-622 with a 2% solids content and 1% fluorine content and wet pick up of 35% that was air cured or cured on a production vertical pin tenter frame coated on one side and a second side treated with a quaternary ammonium nitrate antistat that is 0.15% of the aqueous/solvent based system with a wet pick up of 30% (Id., para 0044-0045). The fluorochemical being cured reads on a cured polymerized composition formed from a plurality of fluorochemical monomers. Baldwin teaches another embodiment having the same fluorochemical coating and weight that is dried or cured with a phosphate ester antistatic at 0.7% by weight with a wet pick up from 15 to 50% (Id., para 0046-0047). Baldwin teaches embodiments having 0.16% solids of the fluorochemical with 60 to 100% wet-pick up and 0.21% by weight of the antistatic with 15 to 50% wet pick (Id., para 0049).
The limitations “digitally printed” and “wherein the digitally printed alcohol repellent composition has been subjected to a plasma curing operation to provide a plasma polymerized composition” are interpreted as a product-by-process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. As the composition is cured, including after application to the textile, the necessarily present structure appears to be taught by the prior art. Baldwin teaches curing the fluorochemical being cured in a specific embodiment and therefore would be present in polymerized form. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11, 14, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0117795 to Murphy in view of US Pub. No. 2006/0110997 to Snowden.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11, 14, and 22-23, Murphy teaches a fibrous substrate, such as a nonwoven (fabric), necessarily including a first outermost surface and a second outermost surface treated with a copolymer containing a fluorinate acrylate or fluorinated methacrylate to provide alcohol repellency (alcohol repellent composition) (Murphy, abstract, para 0180). Murphy teaches the fluorinate copolymer being applied by spray to the substrate, being cured, and containing repeating unit of fluorinated (meth)acrylate (Id., abstract, para 0007-0055, 0179-0181), reading on the alcohol repellent composition located on at least a portion of the first outermost surface of the fibrous substrate and a plurality of individually curable fluorochemical monomers polymerized. Murphy teaches the substate having an anti-static applied before, after, or simultaneously with the copolymer (Id., para 0182), reading on an antistatic composition located on at least a portion of the first outermost surface of the fabric, at least a portion of the second most outermost surface of the fabric or both and the first outer most surface, the second outermost surface, or both comprising a blended coating in cured form including copolymer (sprayed alcohol repellent composition) and the antistatic composition and necessarily bonded and/or adhered onto the fibrous substrate. Murphy teaches the treated fibrous substrate (fabric) having a fluorine content of from about 100µg/g to about 10,000 µg/g (Id., para 0184), reading on about 0.01% to 1% by weight fluorine. Murphy teaches an embodiment having an alcohol repellency of 8 and 9 after curing at ambient temperature and 140°C (Id., Table 2, 4, and 5, para 0189-0190, 0193-0195). Murphy does not teach the composition requiring a binder (Id., all, claim 1).
Murphy is silent with regards to the static decay as claimed and does not teach surface treatment being in discrete treated areas so as to cover from about 1% to about 99% of a surface.
However, Snowden teaches a nonwoven fabric with repellency to fluid comprising an aqueous treatment solution that includes a fluoropolymer and a polymeric antistatic agent (Snowden abstract). Snowden teaches the aqueous treatment including from about 0.1 weight percent to about 5 weight percent of a fluoropolymer and from about 0.01 to about 5 weight percent of a polymeric antistatic agent (Id., para 0005). Snowden teaches the fluoropolymer being a fluoroalkyl acrylate copolymer (Id., para 0005, 0033). Snowden teaches curing of the treated fabric and teaches the antistatic agent being applied to both side of the fabric with fluoropolymer in a single treatment solution, such as by spraying or ink jet printing (Id., para 0033-0034, 0036). Snowden does not teach the fabric requiring a binder (Id., all, claim 1). Snowden teaches that the amount of non-ionic fluoropolymer emulsion needed in the treatment composition is dependent upon the level of alcohol repellency desired and generally believed to be dependent of the specific non-ionic fluoropolymer chosen and the exposure time of the substrate to the treatment composition (Id., para 0040). Snowden teaches the level of fluorine being linked to the desired level of repellency (Id.). Snowden teaches embodiment having 0.5 wt% the fluoropolymer and 0.20 wt% of the antistatic with a wet pick up rate of 100% resulting in alcohol repellency of 80% according to IST 80.9-74 and 50% static decay at 50% RH of 0.04 sec and hydrostatic head of 80.5 mBar (claim 14) (Id., para 0044, 0047-0048, Table 1), reading on the alcohol repellent composition comprising 0.5% by weight of the fabric (claim 5), the antistatic composition comprising 0.2% by weight of the fabric (claim 7), and a first ratio between the alcohol repellent composition to the antistatic composition by weight of the fabric on a dry basis of 2.5 (claim 8). Snowden teaches a repellency to fluid comprising an aqueous treatment solution that includes a fluoropolymer (alcohol repellent composition) and a polymeric antistatic agent applied to only a portion of a nonwoven fabric (Snowden, abstract, para 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective to form the nonwoven of Murphy, wherein the fabric has an antistat as taught by Snowden with static decay properties as taught by Snowden and the composition is applied to only a portion of the nonwoven as taught by Snowden, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known antistatic materials predictably suitable for use in combination with fluoropolymer repellency composition in predictably suitable amount and to ensure desirable antistatic properties and in predictably suitable patterns. While the prior art does not explicitly teach the discrete treated area covering from about 1% to about 99% of the first outermost surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to treat an area based on the desired surface to impart the alcohol repellent properties, such as an area within the claimed amount, motivated by the desire to treat at least a portion as taught by Snowden and by the desire to impart repellant properties to targeted areas of the fabric, which one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would appreciates cost less than treatment of the entire surface.
While the prior art combination does not explicitly teach the methodology of the alcohol repellency according to IST 80.8 being 7 or greater and a static decay of from about tested according to IST 40.2 performed at 50% RH and using 10% remaining charge as the cut-off. However, the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure as claimed, including the use of an alcohol and water repellent fluorochemical, including in cured form, and an antistatic agent added in amounts and ratios within the claimed ranges as well as having alcohol repellency of 80% according to IST 80.9-74. Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose specifically alcohol repellency and static decay according to the specifically claimed methodology, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the structure in the prior art since the prior art combination reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Additionally, the limitations “plasma cured composition” (claim 1), “the plasma cured composition comprises a polymerized composition formed from a radically-mediated reaction product of a plurality of individually free-radically curable fluorochemical monomers that were digitally printed or sprayed onto the fibrous substrate”(claim 1), “wherein the fibrous substrate is not subjected to external heat” (claim 1), “wherein the radically-mediated reaction product of the plurality of individual free-radically curable fluorochemical monomers is performed via an atmospheric-pressure plasma polymerization in absence of external heat” (claim 22), “digitally printed” (claim 23), and “wherein the digitally printed alcohol repellent composition has been subjected to a plasma curing operation to provide a plasma polymerized, digitally printed alcohol repellent composition” (claim 23) are interpreted as a product-by-process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. As the composition is cured and contains fluorochemical monomers, including after application to the textile, the necessarily present structure appears to be taught by the prior art. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches the fluorinate monomer including shorter fluoroalkyl groups, including 6 carbons (Murphy, para 0187), reading on the plurality of individual free-radically curable monomer comprising a C6 fluorochemical.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the copolymer being a fluorinated methacrylate copolymer comprising a perfluoroalkyl group having 6 carbon atoms encompassing a perfluoroethylmethacrylate containing at least one side chain including 6 fluorinated carbon atoms (Murphy, para 0055-0101, claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Murphy teaches an embodiment having a solids by weight of 13.2% and 3.2% fluorine by weight (Murphy, para 0193). To result in a fluorine content as disclosed (Id., para 0184), the copolymer composition would be about 0.04% by weight to about 4.1% by weight of the fabric.
Regarding claim 11, Murphy teaches the fibrous substrate comprising one or more spunbond layers and/or one or more meltblown layers (Murphy, para 0186).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to Baldwin for claim 23 and Murphy in view of Snowden.
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Baldwin, that the present invention is selectively applied to one or more areas of the fibrous substrate via stencil printing, screen printing, flexographic printing, laser printing, inkjet printing, extrusion 3D printing or any combination thereof. However, as discussed above, these are product-by-process limitations. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Applicant has not shown a distinction with regards to digitally printing. The discrete areas are not a claimed feature with regards to claim 23.
Applicant argues that the digitally printed or sprayed alcohol repellent composition comprises a plasma cured composition, in which the plasma cured composition comprises a polymerized composition including a perfluoroalkylethylmethacrylate containing at least one side chain from about 4 to about 10 fluorinated carbons. The one or more fluorochemical chains imparts the desired alcohol repellency in the cured composition while the one or more polymerizable functional groups enables a radically mediated curing of the pre-cured alcohol repellent composition and adhesion to the fibrous substrate. Application argues that the hydrocarbon portion of the polymerized 2-(Perfluorohexyl) ethyl acrylate (commonly referred to as C6) bond to each other and to the fibrous structure, while the fluorinated chains face away from the fibrous structure and repel alcohol, water, and/or oil. However, this argument is directed towards a narrower scope than that claimed in claim 23, which does not even define the alcohol repellent composition as containing a fluorochemical.
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Murphy and Snowden, that Murphy uses a solvent that is dried whereas the instant invention significantly reduces water usage and/or generation of wastewater and is process by a non-thermal process. However, this is not a claimed feature and Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed limitation. The claims does not limit or exclude water or solvent. Additionally, Application would need to show that the claimed process necessarily results in a structural distinction lacking from the prior art.
Applicant argues that the fibrous substrate not being subjected to external heat for curing and/or drying mitigates or eliminates thermal degradation of the resulting alcohol repellent fabric, reduces energy consumption, and substantially (or completely) eliminates the creation of greenhouse gases associated with these processing activities. However, these are benefits to the claimed process whereas the finally formed product is the claimed invention. While there may be process benefit, the finally formed product would need to be structurally distinction. There is no evidence that the curing process of Murphy would deteriorate the fibrous substrate. Murphy cures the treated substrate at ambient temperatures (Murphy, para 0053) and therefore would not be expected. The deterioration would be a function of the fabric composition and process conditions, including temperature and duration. The fabric has not been defined in the claims.
Application argues that plasma curing improves durability in alcohol repellent and static dissipation after standard EtO stabilization and aging cycles. However, these are not claimed feature and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current claim limitations. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejections detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 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 on 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