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 7, cancellation of claim 3, and the addition of claims 21-22, in the response filed February 23, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-19, and 21-22 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claims 9-12 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Interpretation
The term “mainly”, as recited in claims 1 and 13, is interpreted as “more than anything else”, as defined in Oxford Languages dictionary, and cited by Applicant in remarks filed December 13, 2023.
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 1, 4-7, 13-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2010/0159775 to Chambers in view of KR 2016/0013773 to You and US Pub. No. 2010/0249741 to Fingal.
NOTE: The English Machine Translation of KR 2016/0013773 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1, 4-7, 13-16, 18-19, and 21-22, Chambers teaches a nonwoven composite (composite nonwoven sheet material) comprising a continuous filament nonwoven web (reinforcement layer comprising mainly reinforcement filaments) hydroentangled to a first layer of staple fibers that can comprise individual layers of pulp fibers (pulp layer) and staple fibers (surface layer) to improve its integrity (Chambers, abstract, para 0050-0052). Chamber teaches the continuous filament being formed by extruding molten thermoplastic material (claim 5) as separate fibers on a foraminous belt (forming fabric), such as polyolefins or polyesters (claim 18), that are subsequently integrated (bonded) (Id., para 0038-0040, 0046), reading on the reinforcement layer comprising mainly reinforcement filaments made from spunlaid filament which are made by a process that includes directly depositing the fiber in situ onto a forming fabric, to form a web that is subsequently bonded. Chambers teaches applying the discontinuous fiber layer to the continuous filament nonwoven web and hydroentangling the composite to form an integrates structure (Id., para 0038), reading on the pulp layer and the surface layer being deposited on the reinforcement layer and the three layers being hydroentangled together with water jets and the pulp fiber and the pulp fiber being entangled with the reinforcement filaments and the microfibers and the pulp fibers and the microfibers each penetrating the reinforcement layer. Chambers teaches typical staple fibers having a denier from 1 to 6 dpf (Id., para 0024, 0027), encompassing microfibers and therefore reading on a layer of microfibers.
Chambers does not explicitly teach the staple fiber layer being the surface layer formed from split fibers such that the pulp layer is interposed between the reinforcement layer and the surface layer and does not teach the staple fiber layer (surface layer) and the pulp layer being formed by depositing an aqueous foam as well as surface layer fiber being microfibers having a mass density of 1 dtex or less.
However, Fingal teaches a nonwoven material including at least two layers integrated into each other comprising a first layer that includes spunlaid filaments and a second layer that include staples fibers that are hydroentangled together (Fingal, abstract, para 0018). Fingal teaches it is known to wetlaid, foam-formed, or airlaid staple fibers onto a first layer comprising filaments (Id., para 0018, 0020, 0030). Fingal teaches a specific embodiment where spunlaid fibers are laid down directly on a forming wire to form a relatively loose, open web structure and an aqueous or a foamed fibrous dispersion is laid on top of the spunlaid filament than hydroentangled (Id., para 0041-0048), reading on an aqueous foam containing the fiber being depositing on the filaments or previous web layer. Fingal teaches foam-formed fibrous web being very uniform (Id., para 0042). Fingal teaches fiber of many different kinds can be used for making wetlaid or foam formed fibrous web (Id., para 0045-0046).
Additionally, You teaches it is known to form a three layer structure comprising an intermediate layer of cellulose-based fiber, such as pulp, rayon, lyocell, and cotton, with skin layers formed of thermoplastic materials, specifically polypropylene mesh-like layer formed by spun lace, and ultrafine microfiber skin layer (You, abstract, p. 3-4). You teaches a first skin layer comprising ultrafine fiber obtained by splitting by a water stream (Id., abstract, p.5). You teaches when the ultrafine fiber is obtained by dividing the cross section, such as to form pie shape, each individual cross-section shape is easy to wipe off dirt (Id., p. 5). You teaches it is desirable to form the fiber web laminate prior to splitting the fiber as uniformity can decrease (Id., p. 6), reading on a surface layer formed by depositing splitable microfibers onto a layer and at least some of the splittable microfibers being split during the formation of the sheet material. You teaches the split fiber being carded (Id., p. 5), reading on the fibers being staple fibers. You teaches the microfine fiber having a denier of 0.12 to 0.20 denier (Id., p. 4-5), reading on the fibers being microfibers having a mass density of 1 dtex or less, specifically .5 dtex or less (claim 21), more specifically .35 dtex or less (claim 22). You teaches a fineness less than 0.21 is difficult to manufacture and a fineness exceeding 0.2 reduces the fiber surface area of the absorbent down (Id., 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven composite of Chambers, wherein the pulp and staple fiber are foam formed on top of the continuous filaments as taught by Fingal with the pulp fibers are intermediate to the continuous filaments and the staple fibers with the staples fiber being split staple fiber to form ultrafine fiber upon split by water jet to have a denier of 0.12 to 0.20, as taught by You, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known nonwoven composite containing pulp fibers, staples fibers, and reinforcing fibers by conventionally known methods predictably suitable for use in cleaning applications and by the desire to form a surface having ultrafine fiber that allows easy removal of dirt and adequate fiber surface area as well as to provide uniform fiber webs. As the staple fibers are hydroentangled to cause splitting, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to hydroentangled together the layers with water jets being applied to the three layers of the nonwoven composite (sheet material) from the side of the staple fibers (surface layer) in order to split the fibers into the microfiber fibers for dirt removal as taught by You and would results in the pulp fibers being entangled with the reinforcement filaments and the microfibers and the pulp fibers and the microfibers each penetrating the reinforcement layer in order form an integrated composite as taught by the prior art.
Regarding the claimed surface layer (staple fiber) being softer and smoother than the reinforcement layer, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches the claimed three-layer structure with the microfine fibers exterior to the wipe and being subjected to hydroentangling to split the fibers. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Examiner would like to note that the limitations “a reinforcement layer…made up from spunlaid filaments which are made by a process that includes directly depositing the fibers in situ, onto a forming fabric, to form a web that is subsequently bonded, a pulp layer…formed by depositing an aqueous foam containing the pulp fibers on the reinforcement layer, and a surface layer formed by depositing an aqueous foam containing mainly splittable microfibers on the pulp layer” on a forming fabric; forming the pulp layer on the reinforcement layer by depositing an aqueous foam containing the pulp fiber on the reinforcement layer; forming the surface layer on the pulp layer by depositing an aqueous foam containing the microfibers on the pulp layer; and hydroentangling the three layers together” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. 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).
Regarding claims 4, the prior art combination teaches the staple fibers having a fiber length of 3 to 12 mm (Chambers, para 0024, 0027), reading on the microfibers having a length less than 18 mm.
Regarding claims 6-7, the prior art combination teaches the nonwoven composite comprising 15 to 30% by weight continuous filaments (reinforcement filaments), 20 to 35% by weight staple fibers (microfibers), and 45 to 65% by weight pulp (pulp fibers) (Chambers, para 0050). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 15-30% by weight microfibers, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the amount of the staple fibers (microfibers), such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 13-16, the prior art combination compare the nonwoven composite to commercial wipers (Chambers, para 0014-0019, 0056-0060), reading on the nonwoven composite being a wipe. Additionally, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claims 14-16 and the claimed properties, although the prior art does not disclose the liquid absorption capacity (claim 14), liquid release (claim 15), and cleaning efficiency of fingerprint (claim 16) properties according to claim and disclosed methodologies, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a nonwoven composite containing an outer microfiber layer formed by depositing aqueous foam and splitting the fibers by hydroenetangling, central layer of cellulose pulp fibers, and outer continuous filament layer wherein the fibers are entangled and contained in amounts within or substantially overlapping with the claimed range and formed of the same materials. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art combination the first layer comprising individual layers of pulp fibers (pulp layer) and staple fibers (surface layer) to improve its integrity (Chambers, para 0050-0052), reading on the pulp layer comprising at least 50% by weight pulp fibers and the surface layer comprising at least 50% by weight staple fibers (microfibers).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2010/0159775 to Chambers in view of KR 2016/0013773 to You and US Pub. No. 2010/0249741 to Fingal, as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 13-16, 18-19, and 21-22 above, further in view of 2008/0318487 to Pedoja.
NOTE: The English Machine Translation of KR 2016/0013773 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches the pulp fiber means fibers from natural sources such as woody, such as deciduous and coniferous trees, and non-woody plants, such as cotton, flax, esparto grass, milkweed, straw, jute hemp, and bagasse (Chambers, para 0025).
The prior art combination is silent with regards to the pulp fiber having fiber lengths between 1 and 6 mm.
However, Pedoja teaches a nonwoven composite comprising a ply T1 of spunbonded nonwoven, a layer of absorbent material fiber T3 of cellulose pulp (pulp layer comprising mainly pulp), and a second nonwoven layer T2 that can be non-continuous fibers (staple fibers) manufactured by carding of bicomponent synthetic polymer fibers that can be split into microfibers that are consolidated by hydroentanglement such that the microfibers are entangled with one another and with fibers of the absorbent material (Pedoja, abstract, para 0057-0082, 0139). Pedoja teaches the pulp having a length preferably from 1 to 2 mm (Pedoja, para 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven composite of the prior art combination, wherein the pulp has a length of 1 to 2 mm as taught by Pedoja, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known pulp predictably suitable for use in nonwoven composition comprising pulp with staple fiber and filaments.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2010/0159775 to Chambers in view of KR 2016/0013773 to You and US Pub. No. 2010/0249741 to Fingal, as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 13-16, 18-19, and 21-22 above, further in view of USPN 5,026,587 to Austin.
NOTE: The English Machine Translation of KR 2016/0013773 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches further layers being added hydroentangled with the first layer and web 30 (Chambers, para 0051), reading on the composite being open to addition layers.
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach an embodiment containing an additional pulp layer on the opposite side of the central pulp layer.
However, Austin teaches a nonwoven fabric containing a reinforcing web of continuous filament synthetic fiber with at least one surface containing short natural fibers, such as wood pulp, that is hydroentangled together and having high performance aqueous fluid retention and wiping characteristics (Austin, abstract, col. 1 lines 5-11, col. 2 lines 32-34). Austin teaches the natural fiber provide absorptive surface and the filament providing strength (Id., col. 6 lines 30-46). Austin teaches an embodiment having the short natural fibers on both sides of the continuous filament (Id., col. 8 lines 46-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the nonwoven composite of the prior art combination, wherein the cellulose pulp fibers are present on both side of the continuous spunbond filament layer as taught by Austin, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known structures containing pulp fibers and filaments predictably suitable for use in wipe having high strength provided to the absorptive pulp fiber containing layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chambers teaches deniers from 1 to 6 dpf, which is a heavier fiber than the now claimed 0.9 denier. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chambers merely teaches “[t]ypical staple fiber lengths utilized for this invention are 3 to 12 mm with deniers from 1 to 6 dpf” (Chambers, para 0024). Chambers does not limit fiber denier, merely provides a typical value. You teaches a similar three-layer structure having a first skin layer formed from composite fibers split to form ultra fine fibers with an intermediate cellulose-based fiber layer and a polypropylene layer. You teaches that ultrafine fiber formed by splitting all easy wipe off of dirt (Id., p. 3-4, 5). You teaches the fibers less than 0.12 is difficult to manufactured and when fineness exceed 0.2, there is a reduction in the fiber surface area of the absorbent down (Id., p. 4, 5). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven composite wherein the first layer of staple fibers is formed of the split fiber as taught by You and Fingal having a denier when split of 0.12 to 0.2, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known staple fiber predictably suitable for use in nonwoven composite in conjunction with absorbent fiber for cleaning and to use a fiber size that easily removes dirt and has an appropriate fiber surface area. Examiner would also like to note that the staple fiber used to form the layer prior to split would be larger and could also be within the conventionally cited range. Chambers does not limit the fiber size and You provides motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for using the split microfine fiber. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 6,110,588 to Perez teaches the small diameter of microfibers provides advantages in many applications where efficiency or performance is improved by small fiber diameter, such as the high surface area enhancing performance when used as adsorbent for cleanup.
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