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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 12/3/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 10,15 and 21 have been amended as requested. Applicant’s amendment to claim 21 is found sufficient to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejection set forth in the Non-Final Action dated 9/5/25. Specifically, Applicant’s deleted the relative term “substantially”. Applicant’s amendments are also found sufficient to overcome the cited prior art of record. Specifically, the cited combination of prior art does not teach the newly claimed non-woven layer limitations. However, upon further consideration, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, 10, 15 and 21 raise 112 2nd paragraph issues and a new ground of prior art rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 10, 15 and 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.
4. With regard to claims 1, 10, 15 and 21 it is not clear if Applicant’s are claiming a single non-woven having strata or layers within the single layer non-woven that comprises binder fibers and natural fibers or if Applicants are claiming a multi-layer non-woven comprising at least 2 distinct layers wherein one layer comprises binder fibers and the other layer comprises natural fibers. For purposes of Examination the Examiner will construe claims 1, 10, 15 and 21 to mean either single comprising strata or layers or a multi-layer non-woven comprising at least two distinct layers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1,2,4,5,7, 8, 10, 15,21,24,26,27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennen et al., WO 01/66345 in view of Konishi et al., US 7,943,538 and further in view of Moses et al., 7,632,797.
The published WO document issued to Brennen et al., teach a multi-layer cleaning article that can be used as a wet wipe – pre-moistened wet wipe (title, abstract). Said multi-layer cleaning wipe comprises a first outer layer comprising from 50-100 wt. % conjugate binder fibers and from 0-60 wt. % cellulose fiber and a second inner layer is thermally bonded to the first layer wherein said second layer comprises 15-40 wt. % conjugate fibers and 50-90 wt. % pulp fibers. In a preferred embodiment the layers are held together to form a unitary web only by fiber-to-fiber thermal bonds (page 11, teaches binder fiber are softened). The Examiner is of the position that thermal bonding would inherently melt/soften the thermoplastic conjugate binder fibers present in each layer as set forth in claim 10. Brennen et al., further search a second outer layer having the same composition of as the first outer layer (title and abstract). For each of the layers the conjugate fibers can be of a core/sheath design, and are preferably comprised of polypropylene (as the core) and polyethylene (as the sheath) (page 8). Brennen et al., teach forming the non-woven layers via carding and/or air-laid methods (pages 4 and 5).
Brennen et al., does not teach the claimed biodegradable/compostable fibers or that that wet wipe is pre-loaded with a cleaning solution.
The patent issued to Konishi et al., teach forming a water decomposable/biodegradable non-woven cleaning article comprising a non-woven fabric made from a blend of natural fibers such as cotton, pulp or cellulose (e.g., naturally biodegradable) and biodegradable binder fibers such poly vinyl alcohol (PVOH/PVA) (title, abstract, column 4, 30-65, column 5, 1-25). Said non-woven sheets can be made by a hydroentanglement (water jet) or an air-laid method (column 5, 15-25 and column 6, 50-65). Konishi et al., further teach that the non-woven fabric can be loaded with a cleaning agent, perfume and anti-microbial (column 12, 60-63). Konishi et al., also teach using multiple layers of non-woven fabric to form the article of figures 8a-8c (column 5, 55-67). Since each of the non-woven layers are made from a blend of naturally biodegradable fibers such as pulp or cotton and PVOH/PVA fibers, the claimed biodegradable limitations are considered met. The Examiner is of the position that the non-woven sheets used in the cleaning article of Konishi et al., is both water decomposing and at least partially biodegradable.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was made to form the wet wipe of Brennen with the biodegradable binder fibers such poly vinyl alcohol (PVOH/PVA) as taught by Konishi et al. Motivation to employ specifically employ biodegradable binder fibers is found in the desire to produce a wet wipe that is more environmentally friendly. The Examiner is of the position that the combination of prior art is analogous and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of substituting the polyolefin comprising binder fibers of Brennen et al., with the biodegradable binder fibers of Konishi et al. The modification involves the mere substitution of one material with another material known for its suitability as binder fiber that is biodegradable and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art.
Brennen et al., and Konishi et al., do not teach the claimed cross-direction extensibility. The Examiner is of the position that since Brennen et al., and/or Konishi et al., teach the claimed non-wovens it reasonable to expect that the claimed cross-direction extensibility would be exhibited once the non-woven articles are provided. Applicants have not limited the non-woven of claim 1 to having a specific type of structure. As such, the Examiner is of the position that the non-wovens of Brennen et al., and/or Konishi et al., is just as cross-directionally extensible as the claimed non-woven based on similar non-woven structures (e.g., carded, entangled, thermally bonded etc). Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
Konishi et al., does not teach the claimed cleaning composition.
The patent issued to Moses et al., teach a water stabilized cleaning composition comprising the claimed antimicrobial organosilane in amount ranging from .1-50 wt. % (claim 13), ammonium quaternary compounds in amount ranging from .1-5 wt % (claim 14) organic acids such as citric and lactic acids with the balance comprising water (title, abstract, column 11, 15-30, column 15, 1-20 and column 3, 15-35, column). With regard to the claimed amount of water, Moses et al., does teach that the composition comprises the above aforementioned constituents with the balance as water. Given the percent ranges of each constituent taught by Moses et al., it appears that the limitation of a cleaning composition comprising at least 70% water or 90% water could be met (column 15, 1-32). With regard to the claimed amount of citric acid, Moses et al., does not teach the specific amount of organic acid used, but does teach using a sufficient amount to adjust the pH to a range of 2-3 (column 11, 10-30).
The Examiner is of the position that a person of skilled in the art would recognize how much organic acid would be suitable for use in the antimicrobial composition of Moses et al. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA). Moses et al., teach using the composition on fibrous substrates (column 24, 5-10).
It would be obvious to form the wet wipe of modified Brennen et al., with the antimicrobial of Moses et al. The Examiner considers the references analogous; it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to select a none anti-microbial solution for the purpose of providing a wet wipe/cleaning article with anti-microbial properties.
7. Claim(s) 6,11-14, 23, 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennen et al., WO 01/66345 in view of Konishi et al., US 7,943,538 and further in view of Moses et al., 7,632,797 as applied to claims 1 and 15 and further in view of WO 01/49912.
The combination of Brennen et al.., Konishi et al., and Moses et al., do not teach the use of the claimed PLA binder fibers and/or blends of PLA and PVA. Konishi et al., does teach the claimed PVOH/PVA fibers as set forth above.
The published WO document teach biodegradable non-woven fiber articles using a mixture of PLA and PVA fibers (title, abstract and page 4, 25, page 5, 30 and page 12, 25-page 13, 15). The Examiner is of the position that since both the primary reference of Konishi et al., and the published WO document are concerned with forming water decomposing articles using biodegradable constituents that further comprise thermoplastic binder fibers, the Examiner considers the cited prior art references analogous of the art of water decomposing/biodegradable textiles. As such, the Examiner is of the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such water decomposing /biodegradable textiles can be made with a blend of PVA and PLA binder fibers. The motivation to use one biodegradable type fiber over another can be found in availability, cost, binding properties, structural features and or biodegrading features. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
With regard to the claimed crystallinity set forth in claim 12, the Examiner maintains the arguments set forth above. Additionally, the combination of cited prior art does not teach the crystallinity of the non-woven. However, the Examiner is of the position that crystallinity is a function of the type of polymer, the amounts/ratios of polymers and the stereochemistry of the polymers used. The Examiner is of the position that depending on the desired end use and properties of the formed non-woven a person of ordinary skill would recognize that the non-woven fabrics can be made to have the claimed crystallinity value.
8. Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennen et al., WO 01/66345 in view of Konishi et al., US 7,943,538 and further in view of Moses et al., 7,632,797
as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sebastian et al., US 20160073689.
Brennen et al., and Konishi et al., in view of Moses et al., does not teach the claimed PHA binder fibers.
The published patent application issued to Sebastian et al., teach a water-soluble article comprising a non-woven made using PHA binder fibers (title, abstract, paragraphs 19, 45 and 49). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the non-woven of modified Brennen et al., with the PHA binder fibers of Sebastian et al. The Examiner is of the position that both references are analogous in the sense that both are concerned with forming water decomposing/biodegrading non-woven articles. The modification involves the mere substitution of one material with another material known for its suitability as biodegrading binder fiber and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
9. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-270-9672. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights