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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 38, 40, 44 and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN110106626) or in the alternative are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN110106626).
Regarding claims 38 and 44, Zhang et al. teaches a method of producing a body-fluid absorbent layer for use in a hygiene article (including diaper) [0015]. The method includes the steps of combining wool fiber and polymeric fibers together in a web formation wherein the combined fibers are in the claimed amounts [0030]. The polymeric fibers are viscose (taught as synthetic fibers or polyester fibers or combination of the both of polyester and viscose fibers) and wool fibers are taught as the natural fibers [0030]. Zhang et al. teaches bonding the wool fibers and polymeric fibers by methods including mechanical (hydroentanglement), thermal or chemical (binder) process thereby producing the body fluid absorbent layer for use in the hygiene article [0033-0034]. Zhang et al. teaches equal amounts of viscose/polyester also therefore Zhang et al. teaches the claimed amounts of fibers based upon a total weight based on the combination of wool and viscose fibers and therefore Zhang et al. teaches the claimed amounts of fibers and in the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive to arrive at the claimed amounts of fibers given Zhang et al. teaches varying the amounts of each fiber in order to affect properties. It is noted the claim does not specify what the percentage are based on …. i.e. total weight or combination of certain fibers. Zhang et al. is silent regarding the claimed body fluid absorbent layer property. However, given Zhang et al. teaches such a similar product made of such similar materials in such similar quantities, the claimed body fluid absorbent layer property is inherent to the body fluid absorbent layer of Zhang et al. The body fluid absorbent layer does not include materials that are derived from petrochemicals (polyester is optional and could be polylactic acid type of polyester).
Regarding claim 40, the web formation is produced by carding [0009].
Regarding claim 54, the wool fibers have a length in the claimed range [0009].
Regarding claim 55, the polymeric fibers have a length in the claimed range [0009].
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 39, 41-42, 53 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN110106626) as evidenced by Anderson (CN1238671).
Regarding claim 39, Zhang et al. teaches varying the amounts and weights of wool and viscose/polyester in order to vary the properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed amounts in order to tailor the properties of the web and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 41-42, Zhang et al. is silent regarding the claimed wetting agent. However, it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to include a wetting agent applied to the web formation either before or after the bonding step in order to improve the wicking properties of the web and wool fibers as is known in the art as is evidenced by Anderson et al. who teaches surfactant (wetting agent) in order to affect the level of desired hydrophilicity and wettability. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dry the web formation after the wetting agent is applied to make the diaper useful and moreover drying would naturally occur with time.
Regarding claims 53 and 57, Zhang et al. is silent regarding the claimed wool fibers being scoured. However, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scour the wool fibers in order to degrease and clean the wool fibers as is known in the art and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN110106626) in view of Anderson (CN 1238671).
Regarding claims 43 and 45, Zhang et al. is silent regarding the claimed chemical bonding step. However, Anderson et al. teach it is known in the art to use binder fiber and/or adhesive as an alternative to or in addition to needling nonwovens in order to tailor the properties of the web including the breathability and strength. Anderson teaches use of multiple bonding techniques to influence properties including strength so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to for example needle the web and then apply a binding agent such as a binder to enhance strength as taught by Anderson et al. and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to use the chemical bonding of Anderson in Zhang et al. in order to and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN110106626) in view of Huang (CN104480742).
Regarding claim 56, Zhang et al. teach polyester fiber, but silent regarding the specific type of polyester fibers. However, Huang teaches polylactic fibers used in blends in fabric for hygiene articles because they are biodegradable with excellent processability and provide high sanitary standards. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polylactic fibers of Huang in the absorbing layer of Zhang et al. because they are biodegradable with excellent processability and provide high sanitary standards and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
US Pat. 5,916,798 teaches a wool/rayon blend fabric.
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.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights