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 amendment dated 1/20/2026 has been considered and entered into the record. Claims 2–7, 9–14, 36–44, 46, and 65–100 have been cancelled. Claim 4 has been cancelled obviating its previous rejection. Claim 8 has been amended to depend from claim 1, thereby overcoming its previous indefinite rejection. Claims 1, 8, 15–35, 45, and 47–64 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15–21, 23–25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 45, 47–52, and 57–60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2013/0274415 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 2016/0009895 A1).
Schmitz teaches the formation of biodegradable nonwoven structures comprising a plurality of fibers, wherein the plurality of fibers may comprise a first fiber, and the first fiber comprises a raw material blend of water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol and a polyvinyl alcohol copolymer. Schmitz abstract, claim 1. The water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol may a homopolymer. Id. ¶ 39. Each of the polyvinyl alcohols may have differing levels of hydrolysis, wherein the degree of hydrolysis is preferably above 80% and up to 100 %. Id. ¶¶ 41–42. The polyvinyl alcohol copolymer may be modified with other monomers, or may be functionalized at preferred levels of 5 to 15 mol %. Id. ¶¶ 34, 36. The nonwoven fibrous structures may further comprise additional non-gelling, water-soluble polyvinyl fibers, wherein the water-soluble fibers may make up the majority of the fibrous structure. Id. ¶¶ 51, 57.
The instant claims have been amended to now require that the nonwoven web of fibers be water-dispersible. As set forth above, a majority of the fibers of the nonwoven may be water soluble. Accordingly, the web would necessarily be water dispersible as a majority of the web can dissolve in water. See id. ¶ 51.
Schmitz fails to teach the first polyvinyl alcohol fiber forming material having a degree of hydrolysis in the range of about 88% to about 92% and the second polyvinyl alcohol fiber and a second polyvinyl alcohol fiber forming material having a degree of hydrolysis in the range of about 88% to about 99.9%.
Yamamoto teaches the creation of polyvinyl alcohol fibers, wherein the polyvinyl alcohol may be subjected to saponification (i.e., hydrolysis) to 88 mole percent or more, preferably 90 mole % or more, more preferably 95 mole % or more based on the desired mechanical properties of the fibers. Yamamoto abstract, ¶ 58.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious made the made hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol fibers of Schmitz to comprise a first plurality of fibers with 88 mole percent hydrolysis and an additional (i.e., second) plurality of fibers with 90 mole percent hydrolysis based upon their preferred levels of hydrolysis and desired properties of the finally formed nonwoven structure.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). As such, the claimed invention is obvious as the artisan is merely selecting from a finite list of number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected as the water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol, which may be homopolymer, may constitute 70 weight percent or more of the first fiber. Schmitz ¶ 37. Claim 15 is rejected as additional fibers having a different fiber chemistry may be included in the nonwoven structure, including those that are water-insoluble. See id. ¶¶ 48–50. Claim 17 is rejected as the additional fibers may constitute up to 70 weight percent of the nonwoven structure. Id. ¶ 57.
Although Schmitz and Yamamoto do not explicitly teach the claimed feature of having a fiber tenacity in a range of either of about 3 cN/dtex to about 10 cN/dtex or of about 4 cN/dtex to about 8 cN/dtex, it is reasonable to presume that said properties are inherent to the combined prior art. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. polyvinyl alcohol fibers with the claimed level of hydrolysis). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed tenacities would obviously have been present one the prior art product is provided. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947 (CCPA 1975). Claim 35 is rejected similarly.
Claims 23–25 are rejected as the fibers of the nonwoven structure may comprise an active agent such as an odor absorber. See Schmitz ¶ 61. Claims 28 and 29 are rejected as the fibers of the nonwoven structure has lengths as short as 30 mm. Id. ¶¶ 46, 59. Claim 31 is rejected as spunbond fabrics are porous. Id. ¶ 24. Claim 32 is rejected as it would have been obvious to have made the Schmitz structure nonporous as articles such as diapers and adult incontinence items require liquid impermeability. See id. ¶ 89.
Claims 45, 59 and 60 are rejected as the nonwoven structure may disperse in aqueous environments. See Schmitz ¶¶ 33, 51; Spec. ¶ 31. Claim 47 is rejected as multiple layers of the fibrous structure may be combined to form a multilayer nonwoven web. See Schmitz abstract, ¶¶ 15, 23, 75. Claims 48 and 49 are rejected as the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Claims 50 and 51 are rejected as it would have been obvious to modify a second nonwoven web in Schmitz to contain different fibers and/or have a different basis weight based upon the desired final properties of the three-dimensional fibrous structure. See Schmitz abstract, ¶¶ 38, 62, 74. Claim 52 is rejected as the layers of the three-dimensional fibrous structure may be laminated to each other. See id. ¶ 25.
Claim(s) 22, 26, 27, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz and Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mao (US 2015/0297494 A1).
Schmitz and Yamamoto fail to teach modifying the polyvinyl alcohol copolymer anionically, but Schmitz teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol fibers may be made from a copolymer and modified by functional groups. Schmitz abstract, ¶ 34.
Mao discloses the formation of a filament (i.e., fiber) and fibrous structures such as nonwoven fabrics formed from the filament, wherein the filaments comprise a blend of polyvinyl acetate-polyvinyl alcohol copolymers. Mao abstract, ¶¶ 101–102, 195. The fiber and its structures may be water soluble. Id. ¶¶ 127–129. The polyvinyl alcohol copolymer may be anionically modified. Id. ¶¶ 45, 131. The filaments of the Mao structure may further comprise plasticizers and active agents, wherein the active agent may be a colorant such as a pigment. Id. ¶¶ 41–45, 55–56, 63, 135. The filaments of Mao have a diameter ranging of from greater than three microns to less than 100 microns. Id. ¶ 96. The filaments have a length of greater than or equal to ~50 mm with an aspect ratio of at least about 10, but may be shortened to form fibers. Id. ¶¶ 36–45.
It would have been obvious to have modified the polyvinyl alcohol copolymer of Schmitz anionically as Mao teaches the usefulness of such a modification of the polyvinyl alcohol copolymer in making fibers because the artisan is merely selecting from a finite list of number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, (2007).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to have added plasticizer and colorant to the fibers of Schmitz to make them more flexible and aesthetically desirable.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have also been motivated to look to Mao for suitable fiber diameters in order to successfully practice the invention of Schmitz. Mao fails to teach that the plurality of filaments have diameters that are substantially uniform. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the filaments with a substantially uniform diameter so that the properties of the filaments would be consistent within the formed structure.
Claim(s) 34 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz and Yamamoto as applied to claims 1 and 47 above, and further in view of Nandgaonkar (US 2018/0223461 A1). Schmitz and Yamamoto fail to teach basis weights for their water-soluble and dispersible materials.
Nandgaonkar teaches a nonwoven material having sufficient strength to be used in a pre-moistened state, but also having dispersibility properties, wherein the nonwoven materials have a basis weight in the range of 20–100 grams per square meter and may comprise polyvinyl alcohol fibers. Nandgaonkar abstract, ¶ 18.
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have looked to Nandgaonkar for guidance as to suitable basis weights in making dispersible materials.
Claim(s) 53–55 and 61–64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz and Yamamoto as applied to claims 1 and 47 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2017/0259976 A1).
Lee teaches the formation of a degradable and at least partially water-soluble film comprising a polyvinyl alcohol composition, wherein the polyvinyl alcohols within the composition may be partially hydrolyzed allowing for dissolution in cold water or more hydrolyzed (94–98%) to allow for dissolution in warm water. Abstract, ¶¶ 77–79. The polyvinyl alcohols available to form the water-soluble film may include polyvinyl alcohol homopolymers, copolymers, and blends thereof, wherein the copolymer may comprise 30–90 weight percent of the polyvinyl alcohol composition. Id. ¶¶ 79–80. The polyvinyl alcohol polymer may further comprise an anionic modifier at levels in the range of 1 to 10 mole percent. Id. ¶ 79. The film may further comprise degradable polypropylene Id. ¶ 100. Lee teaches the use of a water-insoluble material along with water-soluble material and also the use of a water-insoluble film layer to form articles such as pouches, wherein the water-insoluble material or layer degrades, but protects the water-soluble material from premature dissolution. Lee ¶¶ 1, 4, 64–66.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have laminated a water-insoluble film of Lee to the Schmitz structure to prevent its untimely degradation or to form a pouch. See Lee ¶¶ 1–4, 13, 52.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Schmitz and Yamamoto, as well as the other cited references, fail to teach a water-dispersible nonwoven web, because Schmitz is instead directed to a fiber that forms a non-dispersible hydrogel upon exposure to an aqueous solution. This argument is unpersuasive as the nonwoven web of Schmitz may further comprise water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol fibers, wherein the majority of weight of the web is made up fibers that are dissolve in water, which leads to the web being dispersed in water. As such, the nonwoven web of Schmitz is water-dispersible even though it may comprise hydrogelling fibers.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786