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
The response filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 9, 18, and 23 are canceled. Claims 10, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 22 are amended and no claims are added.
The amended to claims 14 – 17, 19, and 20 is modified below due to the amendment to include Putnam et al. and Lochner references since the claims have been amended to add features of canceled claim 18 into claim 14.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
The term “the printed asymmetrical-faced composite” in line one of claim 21 lacks antecedent basis. Claim 21 depends on claim 10 which does not recite that the printed composite is asymmetrical-faced. Instead, the preamble only recites “a printed composite nonwoven”. Therefore, the preamble on claim 21 lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 10 - 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (6,671,936) in view of Fleissner (6,487,762).
Carlson et al. discloses a patterned nonwoven fabric comprising a hydroentangled imaged nonwoven (abstract). Carlson et al. teaches that hydroentangled and patterned fibrous material is laminated to a colored backing material that is a different color than the patterned layer (column 2, lines 27 – 40). The patterned hydroentangled fabric is equivalent to the applicant’s first entangled web of fibers, and is a spunlace layer.
With regards to the limitation that the first layer is a pre-needled entangled web of fibers, it is noted that pre-needled is considered to be a method limitation that results in a web of fibers that is entangled to a certain degree. The level of entanglement in a pre-entangling step is usually a lighter degree to give the precursor web some structure so it can be maintain a web structure during processing, but it is light enough to allow the fibers to move and entangle with adjacent layers in future steps. 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 or an obvious variant 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). In the present case, needling is considered a mechanical process that creates some degree of entanglements or knots between adjacent fibers of a web. Further, pre-needling would create a lightly entangled web prior to additional entanglement steps. Hydroentanglement processes rely on water-jets to create knots or entanglements between adjacent fibers. Further, Carlson teaches a pre-entanglement step at entanglement manifold 14 (column 4, lines 23 – 26). This pre-entanglement step will create a lightly entangled web ready for additional processing. Specifically, Carlson teaches that the layer is entangled with an adjacent layer of fibers and the fibers on one surface are relocated to the opposite surface (column 4, lines 45 – 55), as required of the claimed first layer. Thus, the pre-entangled web is able to be entangled with other layers. Therefore, the entangled pre-cursor layer taught by Carlson et al. is considered to be structurally equivalent to the claimed pre-needled structure. The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The hydroentangled fabric and the colored backing layer are intermingled together by water jets which relocate fibers of the backing material into the facing layer (column 2, lines 45 – 55). The backing material is colored by various methods including screen printing or use of dyes or pigments, which would be types of colorants (column 3, lines 24 – 30). The backing material is equivalent to the interior layer of the claimed invention. The backing layer can be chosen from a fibrous nonwoven and is hydroentangled to the facing layer (column 2, lines 35 – 40). Nonwoven fabrics can include hydroentangled fabric which are known to be equivalent to spunlace fabrics. The backing material includes fibrous webs which are colored by known means such as pigments, dyed or screen printing. It is noted, that screen printing is known in the art as printing method that generally applies a pattern, which would be equivalent to applicant’s discrete shape. The hydroentanglement process includes the use of patterning drums or the like to impart a specific pattern onto the nonwoven fabric (column 4, lines 30 – 45). The second fibrous layer is added by an hydroentanglement station and some of the fibers of the backing layer are relocated into the facing layer to produce a pattern made from the color of the backing layer (column 4, lines 45 – 55). Thus, as shown in the figures various patterns can be made by having the color of the backing layer push through the facing layer in only set areas.
While Carlson et al. discloses that the backing material can include a color and can even be screen printed prior to hydroentangling the backing layer to the face layer, Carlson et al. does not specifically teach that the different colors are applied to the backing material prior to entanglement. Fleissner et al. is drawn to a hydroentangled colored composite (abstract). Fleissner teaches that the composite includes a nonwoven layer used as the upper layer is provided with one or more colors or is colored or printed itself (abstract). This upper layer is then placed on top of a second layer which has a different color and the fibers in the first layer are displaced into the fibers of the second layer (abstract). Thus, Fleissner teaches that the upper layer has one or more colors wherein the layer is colored, dyed, or printed as is chosen, prior to be joined to the second layer (column 1, lines 35 – 37). The colored layer can be produced from one of more different colors to produce various patterns because of the different color fibers (column 1, lines 43 – 45). Further, Fleissner discloses that the pattern in the final product will be influenced by the colors of the fibers in the first layer, the colors of the fibers in the second layer and degree and pattern of entanglement imparted by the water jets (column 1, lines 50 – 67). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the color applied to the backing layer of Carlson et al. can include two or more colors and be added by printing, dyeing, or coloring the fibers, as taught by Fleissner et al. to modify and influence the final pattern and have multiple colors in the finished product. Additionally, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from various know colors including white fibers to create various designs. The images of the final product in Figures 3a – 5b suggest that one of the colors in the image can be white. Further, Carlson et al. suggests that colors can be added by screen printing, which is known to apply printing ink in pattern to a surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the backing layer can include multiple colored fibers and printed patterns applied to discrete areas of the nonwoven prior to entanglement. Further, it would be obvious to add or modify the colors and the color patterns to change the design of the final product.
Additionally, Fleissner et al. discloses that the fibers in the hydroentangled web are 1 – 6 dtex, or 0.9 den – 5.4 den (column 1, lines 60 – 65). Flesinner et al. discloses that fibers of this size range are readily movable by water jets (column 1, lines 64 – 65). Thus, claims 10 – 12 are rejected.
With regards to claim 13, Carlson et al. discloses that screen printing can be used to apply the pigments to the backing materials. Carlson et al. discloses that screen printing is a method to apply colors and pattern of colors onto a fabric surface using rollers that apply difference pigment colors in different regions to produce a final pattern (column 1, lines 50 – 58). Detailed shading of colors with more than one hue of major colors can be achieved and different fibers can absorb the coloring differently (column 1, lines 59 – 64). Further, the goal of the invention is to create colored pattern and regions with varied within areas of the pattern (column 2, lines 19 – 24). Thus, it would be obvious to use colorants that are only on the surface or upper regions of the backing layer to produce a desired colored pattern. Therefore, claim 13 are rejected.
With regards to claims 21, the intended use of the fabric, i.e., a portion of an article and what surface the first entangled web of fibers comprises is considered to be limitations drawn to how the fabric can be used. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitation. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Thus, claims 21 is rejected with claim 10.
Claim(s) 14 – 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. and Fleissner as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Putnam et al. (2003/0211801) and Lochner (4,211,593).
The features of Carlson et al. and Fleissner have been set forth above. Carlson et al. fails to teach the fiber denier in the different layers. Fleissner et al. discloses that fibers between 0.9 den to 5.4 den are readily movable by water jets (column 1, lines 60 – 67). Putnam et al. is drawn to a hydroentangled imaged nonwoven fabric made from one or more layers (abstract and paragraph 9). Putnam et al. discloses that the denier range can cover a range of sizes, between 0.2 to 10 denier (paragraph 39). Additionally, Putnam et al. suggests that layers including nano-denier fibers can be used in the composite (paragraph 52). Finally, Putnam et al. discloses that using different fiber deniers in the precursor web allows for the creation of varying frictional properties so that the web can be used as wipes (paragraph 67). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art use different denier sized fibers, as taught by Putnam et al. in the different fabric layers of Carlson et al., to produce a hydroentangled product with varying frictional properties that can be used in cleaning products.
Carlson et al. fails to teach using more than two entangled web of fibers. Lochner is drawn to combining together different layers to create a colored final product (abstract). The needled fabric can include 3 layer webs wherein each layer has a different color or four layer webs with four different color layers (column 2, lines 25 – 65). Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that additional layers of entangled webs can be added to the product of Carlson et al. to create different properties within the composite. Further, Putnam et al. suggests that different deniers can be added to the composite to vary properties such as friction within the composite (paragraph 67). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that different layers having different properties can be joined together to vary the properties within the composite material. Therefore, claims 14 - 17 are rejected.
With regards to claims 22, the intended use of the fabric, i.e., a portion of an article and what surface the first entangled web of fibers comprises is considered to be limitations drawn to how the fabric can be used. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitation. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Thus, claims 22 is rejected with claim 14.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al., Fleissner, Putnam et al., and Lochner, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view in view of Austin et al. (5,413,849).
The features of Carlson et al., Fleissner, Putnam et al., and Lochner have been set forth above. While Carlson et al. discloses needling together multiple web layers, Carlson et al. fails to teach adding an elastomeric layer between the first and second entangled webs. Austin et al. is drawn to composite nonwovens comprising elastomeric filaments entangled with adjacent layers to form a coherent elastomeric structure (abstract). Separate nonwoven webs are disposed on opposite sides of an elastomeric web to ensure that the elastic fibers are in the interior of the composite fabric (column 3, lines 11 – 18). The composite nonwoven has desirable durability, conformability, stretch and recovery properties (column 1, lines 5 – 10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an elastomeric layer between the first and third web of fibers in the fabric of Carlson et al. prior to entanglement as taught by Austin et al. to give the composite fabric improve durability and conformability and also give the fabric stretch and recovery properties. Therefore, claims 19 is rejected.
With regards to claim 20, as set forth above, Lochner teaches using multiple fibrous webs to make the hydroentangled composite. Hence, it would have been obvious to include at multiple fibrous webs in the composite of Carlson et al. to form the product of Carlson et al. The fourth layer of the four layer laminate taught by Lochner would be equivalent to the claimed third entangled web of fibers. Thus, claims 20 is rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the limitation of pre-needled would distinguish over the precursor hydroentanglement process taught by Carlson et al. (response, page 1 – 2). However, as set forth above, the product claims are defined by the final structure. Both needling and hydroentanglement function to produce a web with knots or entanglements between fibers within the web structure. It has not been shown that the pre-needled structure would produce a patentably distinct final product as compared to the precusor web of Carlson that is hydroentangled. Further, the additional imaging step is not excluded by the pending claims. The imaging step can include various textured patterns that don’t include formation of highly detailed image but just a textured rib pattern depending on the imaging surface. Not only is a textured surface not excluded by the present claim, but it is not clear that the entangled fabric disclosed in the invention would not have at least a slightly textured surface post processing.
Additionally, it is noted that the prior art teaches using different colors to create a desirable patterns. And Figures 4a – 5b suggest having white regions within the pattern. Thus, it would be obvious to choose different color patterns that include white portions or uncolored fibers within the layers. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Finally, as set forth above, the prior art teaches using fibers between 0.9 denier to 5.4 denier. It would be within the level of skill of the art to use fibers within those ranges in the fabric od Carlson. Further, the prior art teaches combining together different denier sizes to control properties such as friction. It would have been obvious to choose different deniers from within the preferred range to create a fabric with controlled frictional or other properties. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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 Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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 at (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.
jlj
June 27, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights