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 .
Detailed Action
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 01/29/26, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 17-21, 23-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeters et al. (WO 2013/171343A1) in view of Branham et al. (WO 02077048 A), Berland et al. (GB 2492171, presented in IDS) and further in view of (JP H6-181874A, presented in IDS), (JP 2004-532910A, presented in IDS).
Schoeters disclose a disposable wipe product for cleaning surfaces, see title. Schoeters teaches that the wipe product is made of at least one layer of dispersible paper and at least one layer of a non-woven fabric, preferably dispersible non-woven fabric, which is provided with microcapsules containing a cleansing agent. The non-woven fabric can for instance be impregnated with microcapsules or the microcapsules can be sprayed onto the non-woven fabric, see page 2, lines 26-31. The reference teaches that in other embodiments, the disposable paper comprises a coating which is adapted for allowing heat sealing of the disposable paper and the non-woven fabric. The heat sealing process whereby at least part of the non-woven fabric and the disposable paper comprising the coating are pressed against each other and locally heated, can result in the disposable paper and the non-woven fabric being at least partially attached to each other by means of a seal embodied by the coating, see 3-4, lines 28-31 and 1-2 respectively. The non-woven is a dispersible, see page 4, lines 4-8. The disinfectant taught in antibacterial, see page 6, lines 8-9. And lines 20-30. The reference teaches that the microcapsules have a load of active substance of from about 80% to about 90% by weight with respect to the total weight, wherein the microcapsules are present in form of a dry powder. The dry powder can be used to impregnate or to be sprayed onto the non-woven fabric, see page 7, lines 16-20.
The reference does not teach spreading of unprotected and dry bacterial spores.
Branham et al. describes that as a dry antibacterial article ("dew condensation prevention material 10”), spores of Bacillus bacteria, which are dry bacterial spores, are dispersed on a nonwoven fabric layer and/or in a nonwoven fabric layer in an unprotected and non-microencapsulated state (see paragraphs [0006], [0010] - [0011], and [0019]).
Berland et al. teaches sanitary articles comprising a biodegradable plastic material that has bacillus spores incorporated therein, see abstract. The reference teaches that the biodegradable plastic material may be a breathable film containing a filler material; the filler may comprise the Bacillus spores. The filler material may be made by spraying calcium carbonate with a liquid containing Bacillus spores followed by a drying step. Such sanitary articles may prevent premature biodegradation since the embedded Bacillus spores are essentially kept inactive until after use. The sanitary article may be a wet wipe, dry wipe, panty liner, tampon, nappy, diaper or incontinence pad, see abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the bacterial spores taught by Branham and Berland et al. to spread onto the non-woven fabric of Schoeters et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Schoeters et al. teaches non-woven wipes fabric with bacterial spores for cleaning surfaces and Branham et al. and Berland et al. teach use of spraying bacterial/bacillus spores embedded in wipes as taught by Berland et al. and Branham et al. teaches dry bacterial spores, are dispersed on a nonwoven fabric layer and/or in a nonwoven fabric layer in an unprotected and non-microencapsulated state. Schoeters et al. and Branham et al. are both inventions of a product that activates Bacillus bacteria on the applied surface and disperses bacterial spores in the non-woven fabric layer, and a person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of applying the technical idea of the invention described in Branham et al. as the state of the bacterial spores of the invention described in Schoeters et al. to disperse the dried bacterial spores directly on the non-woven fabric layer and/or in the non-woven fabric layer without being encapsulated in microcapsules.
The refences do not teach carding and bonding process.
Regarding the method for producing a dispersible nonwoven fabric layer that can be used for wiping involving carding and bonding, it is a well-known technique to include a step of forming a web by carding and then bonding as taught by JP’874 which describes, as a method for producing a non-woven fabric layer used as a wipe, fibers containing polyolefin ("polypropylene fibers”) are carded and then melt-bonded (see paragraph [0018]), and JP’910 describes that as a method for producing a dispersible non-woven fabric layer used as a wiping material, carding and bonding are generally known, and viscose, cellulose, polyolefin, and polyester are used as the fibers (see paragraphs [0048] and [0053] - [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known technique of carding or bonding of fibers because a method for producing a non-woven fabric layer used as a wipe, fibers containing polyolefin ("polypropylene fibers”) are carded and then melt-bonded (see paragraph [0018]), and JP’910 describes a method for producing a dispersible non-woven fabric layer used as a wiping material, carding and bonding are generally known, and viscose, cellulose, polyolefin, and polyester are used as the fibers as discussed above. From the description in lines 1-18 on page 10 of Schoeters et al., it is recognized that the use mode is such that the user picks up the dry antibacterial article, the user wipes the hard surface with the dry antibacterial article to release spores on the hard surface, and the user disposes of the dry antibacterial article. In addition, when the technical idea of the invention described in Branham et al. is applied to the invention described in Schoeters et al., the dry bacterial spores are reactivated by moisture, and thus it can be said that the dry antibacterial article is humidified by some means to start the reactivation of the spores (see the description in lines 9-14 on page 2 and line 9 on page 3 to line 14 on page 4 of JP ’910 that the dry antibacterial article in which Bacillus bacteria are incorporated is reactivated by moisture, etc. from the object to be cleaned). Therefore, by undergoing the taught process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have obtained an antibacterial article comprising a dispersible nonwoven layer, wherein unprotected and dry bacterial spores are spread within the nonwoven layer to specifically inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria upon reactivation.
Applicant argues that Schoeters explicitly refers to the need for microencapsulation of the cleansing agent in order avoid evaporation of the cleansing agent or prevent the product from drying. This is presented as the advantage of the described technology, see page 5 lines 10-12: "The use of microcapsules provides numerous advantages. First, it is not necessary to provide a vapor-tight package to avoid evaporation of the cleansing agent or the solvent thereof, and to prevent the product from drying." Based on the information available in the document, it is suggested that the porous bacteria would be encapsulated in their active, thus not dried form, which then requires protection in the form of encapsulation to preserve the cleansing activity of the bacterial spores and to prevent the cleansing agent to leak from the product before use.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but is not persuasive. While Schoeters refers to the need for microencapsulation of the cleansing agent in order avoid evaporation of the cleansing agent or prevent the product from drying, Berland and Barnham have been relied upon for the teachings of using unprotected bacterial spores. As discussed in the rejections above, Schoeters et al. and Branham et al. are both inventions of a product that activates Bacillus bacteria on the applied surface and disperses bacterial spores in the non-woven fabric layer, and a person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of applying the technical idea of the invention described in Branham et al. as the state of the bacterial spores of the invention described in Schoeters et al. to disperse the dried bacterial spores directly on the non-woven fabric layer and/or in the non-woven fabric layer without being encapsulated in microcapsules. While Schoeters teaches microencapsulation of bacterial spores, the desired effect of Schoeters is to make the non-woven fabric layer antibacterial and Berland and Barnham, both the references teach use of bacterial spores that are unprotected onto the non-woven fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have obtained an antibacterial article comprising a dispersible nonwoven layer, wherein unprotected and dry bacterial spores are spread within the nonwoven layer to specifically inhibit the growth of pathogenic bacteria upon reactivation.
Applicant further argues that in addition to the distinguishing product features, Schoeters does not provide any teaching on the manufacture of a non-woven material wherein dry and unprotected bacterial spores are incorporated in the fabric, and more in particular, where the incorporation of the spores is part of the process for manufacturing the non-woven material. None of the documents in the combination of references referred to in the Office Action describes a process wherein the disinfectant is incorporated in the fabric during manufacture of the non-woven fabric itself. In addition to the distinguishing product features, Schoeters does not provide any teaching on the manufacture of a non-woven material wherein dry and unprotected bacterial spores are incorporated in the fabric, and more in particular, where the incorporation of the spores is part of the process for manufacturing the non-woven material. None of the documents in the combination of references referred to in the Office Action describes a process wherein the disinfectant is incorporated in the fabric during manufacture of the non-woven fabric itself.
These arguments are not persuasive. Since Schoeters et al. teaches non-woven wipes fabric with bacterial spores for cleaning surfaces and Branham et al. and Berland et al. teach use of spraying bacterial/bacillus spores embedded in wipes as taught by Berland et al. and Branham et al. teaches dry bacterial spores, are dispersed on a nonwoven fabric layer and/or in a nonwoven fabric layer in an unprotected and non-microencapsulated state. Schoeters et al. and Branham et al. are both inventions of a product that activates Bacillus bacteria on the applied surface and disperses bacterial spores in the non-woven fabric layer, and a person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of applying the technical idea of the invention described in Branham et al. as the state of the bacterial spores of the invention described in Schoeters et al. to disperse the dried bacterial spores directly on the non-woven fabric layer and/or in the non-woven fabric layer without being encapsulated in microcapsules.
Applicant further argues that the Office Action refers to features in prior art documents taken out of their context. For example, the Office Action refers to Berland for the teaching of spreading bacillus spores on non-woven fabric of Schoeters. However, Berland relates to bacillus spores incorporated in biodegradable plastics, and it provides no disclosure at all with respect to applying bacterial spores on a non-woven fabric. The spores of Berland also serve an entirely different purpose, such as to facilitate biodegradability of the plastic material when the material is being disposed of, such as after it has served its purpose. Therefore, the bacterial sports of Berland are used for a purpose that is contrary to the bacillus spores in the claims of the invention that are to be activatable on the (intact) non-woven fabric. In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that Berland is therefore irrelevant to the current claims. That is, Berland is non-analogous art. Berland is not in Applicant's field of endeavor, and Berland would not have availed itself to the inventors at the time of invention as it has nothing to do with the presently claimed invention.
These arguments are not persuasive. Schoeters was cited for the teachings of using bacterial spores sprayed onto the non-woven fabric for antimicrobial purposes and Berland and Branham were cited for the use of bacterial spores that can be unprotected and still be used in a plastic or fabric as the reference teaches that the filler material may be made by spraying calcium carbonate with a liquid containing Bacillus spores followed by a drying step. Such sanitary articles may prevent premature biodegradation since the embedded Bacillus spores are essentially kept inactive until after use. The sanitary article may be a wet wipe, dry wipe, panty liner, tampon, nappy, diaper or incontinence pad, see abstract.
Action is final
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights