DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 and 12-21 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 10/01/2025.
Applicant filed a request for continued examination and amended claim 1 on 01/06/2026.
Claims 1-9 and 12-21 are pending.
Claims 1-9 and 12-21 are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US 2018/0303294) (Baker) in view of Baker et al. (WO 2018118683) (Baker II) and Wright et al. (US 2017/0233909) (Wright).
It is noted that when utilizing Baker II, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2019/0161915 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Baker II are found in US 2019/0161915. It is noted US 2019/016915 is cited in the IDS filed 10/05/2023.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-15, and 17-18
Baker teaches a wiper product comprising a single ply wet laid and hydraulically entangled nonwoven web made from cellulosic fibers and synthetic staple fibers, each side of the nonwoven material is subjected to at least one hydroentangling process. The nonwoven web comprises 60 to 80% by weight of cellulosic fibers and about 20 to about 40% by weight of synthetic stable fibers. The cellulosic fibers include pulp fibers possessing an average fiber length of about 1.5 mm to about 6.0 mm. The synthetic staple fibers include polyester fibers and polyolefin fibers. The synthetic staple fibers possess a length in the range of from about 4 mm to about 15 mm. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0011-0014], [0025-0029], [0032-0033], [0058], and [0063]. Given any type of fiber would provide some degree of strength to the fiber web, it follows the synthetic staple fibers corresponds to strength building fibers. Given Baker does not require additional layers in addition to the nonwoven web, it follows the nonwoven web is non-layered.
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).
Baker does not explicitly teach the nonwoven is a foam formed web (A) or the hydroentangling forms a pattern (B).
With respect to the difference, Baker II (A) teaches a process for foam forming a paper web in the form of a single homogeneous layer of fibers for forming wiper products. The foam forming process paper webs having better stretch properties, improved absorbency characteristics, increased caliper, and/or increased basis weight. The foam forming process is also advantageous as less energy is required in order to dry the web since less water is used to form the web. The process reduces energy requirements by greater than about 20% in relation to conventional wet processing procedures. Suitable foaming agent used in the foam forming process include sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, or ammonium lauryl sulfate. Suitable fibers for the paper web include a mixture of cellulosic and synthetic fibers. The paper web can further undergo hydroentangling. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0021-0022], [0024-0030], [0038-0059].
Baker II and Baker are analogous art as they are both drawn to wiper products.
In light of the motivation as provided by Baker II, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a foam forming process, including using sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, or ammonium lauryl sulfate as the foaming agent, to produce the non-layered nonwoven web of Baker in place of the wetlaid process, in order to reduce the energy requirement necessary to dry the web since less water is used and improve stretch and absorbency properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Given any type of fiber would provide some degree of strength to the fiber web, it follows the regenerated cellulose fibers corresponds to strength building fibers.
Given the nonwoven web is a foam formed nonwoven web, and given each side of the nonwoven material is subject to hydroentangling, it follows the foam formed web has a first surface and a second and opposite surface and wherein the first surface has been subjected to hydroentangling and the second surface has been subjected to hydroentangling.
With respect to the difference, Wright (B) teaches a foam-formed nonwoven web further undergoes hydroentangling on both sides to provide unique properties to the web and distinct hydroemboss patterns, which can create low fiber count zones and provide a three dimensional structure. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0097] and [0100].
Wright and Baker in view of Baker II are analogous art as they are both drawn to wetlaid nonwoven used for wiping applications.
In light of the motivation as provided by Wright, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form distinct hydroemboss patterns on both surfaces of the nonwoven web of Baker in view of Baker II, in order to provide unique properties, low fiber count zones, and provide a three-dimensional structure, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Baker in view of Baker II and Wright teaches a wiping product having substantially identical material, including cellulosic fibers and strength building fibers having an overlapping length, in substantially identical amounts as discussed above. Baker in view of Baker II and Wright further teaches a substantially identical method of producing the foam formed web that further undergoes hydroentangling as discussed above. For these reasons, it is clear that the wiper product of Baker in view of Baker II and Wright would intrinsically have a wet strength and a dry strength, wherein the wet strength is within 20% of the dry strength, including within about 10% and within about 5% of the dry strength, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 4
Baker in view of Baker II and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Baker further teaches the cellulosic fibers of the wiper product includes pulp fibers and regenerated cellulose fibers. The cellulosic fibers are present in an amount from 60 to 80% by weight. Paragraph [0012]. When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Therefore, the regenerated cellulose fibers are present in the wiper product in an amount from 30 to 40% by weight.
Regarding claim 5
Baker in view of Baker II and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Baker does not explicitly teach the presence of bicomponent fibers.
With respect to the difference, Baker II further teaches synthetic fibers such as bicomponent fibers are suitable for use in a hydroentangled wiper product. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0030], and [0059].
Baker II and Baker in view of Baker II and Wright are analogous art as they are both drawn to wiper products.
In light of the motivation as provided by Baker II, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use bicomponent fibers as the synthetic staple fiber possessing a length of about 4 mm to about 15 mm of Baker in view of Baker II and Wright, in order to form a wiper product with predictable success, as Baker II teaches biocomponent are suitable for use in wiper products, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 198 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 12
Baker in view of Baker II and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Baker further teaches the basis weight of the hydroentangled nonwoven web is from about 20 gsm to about 200 gsm. Paragraphs [0058] and [0062] and claim 20.
Regarding claim 16
Baker in view of Baker II and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Baker further teaches the hydroentangled nonwoven web can be through-air dried so as to have a bulk that is greater than 3 cc/g. Paragraphs [0017] and [0064]. 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).
Regarding claim 19
Baker in view of Baker II and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Baker further teaches the wiper product is an industrial wiper. Paragraph [0062].
Regarding claim 20
Baker in view of Baker II and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Baker further teaches the wiper product includes a plurality of individual wipers that are arranged in a stack. Paragraph [0065].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US 2018/0303294) (Baker) in view of Baker et al. (WO 2018118683) (Baker II) and Wright et al. (US 2017/0233909) (Wright), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Baker et al. (WO 2017176238) (Baker III)
It is noted that when utilizing Baker III, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2019/0008354 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Baker III are found in US 2019/0008354. It is noted WO 2017176238 is cited in the IDS filed 10/05/2023.
Regarding claim 21
Baker in view of Baker II and Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, Baker does not explicitly teach the wiping product is presaturated with a cleaning solvent.
With respect to the difference, Baker III teaches a wiping product is made from a hydroentangled web. Baker III teaches it is known to pre-moisten or pre-impregnate a nonwoven web with a cleaning solvent prior to being packaged as a wiper product. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002-0004], [0023-0025], and [0056-0057].
Baker III and Baker in view of Baker II and Wright are analogous art as they are both drawn to hydroentangled nonwoven webs for wiping products.
In light of the disclosure of Baker III, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to pre-impregnate the hydroentangled nonwoven web of Baker in view of Baker II and Wright, in order to provide a wiping product pre-impregnated with cleaning solvent with enhanced cleaning capability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 12-13, 17-18, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahoniemi et al. (US 2017/0022667) (Ahoniemi) in view of Wright et al. (US 2017/0233909) (Wright).
Regarding claims 1, 6-9, and 17-18
Ahoniemi teaches a wiping product comprising a hydroentangled foam formed web comprising a fiber mixture, wherein the fiber mixture includes cellulosic pulp fibers and manmade fibers. The manmade fibers possess a length of 4 to 20 mm. The cellulose fibers possess a length up to 6 mm. The web comprises 70% to 95% by weight cellulose fibers and 5% to 30% by weight manmade fibers. e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0029-0036].
Given any type of fiber would provide some degree of strength to the fiber web, it follows the manmade corresponds to strength building fibers. Given Ahoniemi does not require additional layers in addition to the nonwoven web, it follows the nonwoven web is a single ply web and is non-layered.
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).
Ahoniemi does not explicitly teach both a first and second surface of the web is hydroentangled, wherein a pattern is formed on the surfaces.
With respect to the difference, Wright teaches a foam-formed nonwoven web further undergoes hydroentangling on both sides to provide unique properties to the web and distinct hydroemboss patterns, which can create low fiber count zones, facilitate water dispersion, and provide a three dimensional structure. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0046-0047], [0097], and [0100].
Wright and Ahoniemi are analogous art as they are both drawn to nonwovens used for wiping applications.
In light of the motivation as provided by Wright, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form distinct hydroemboss patterns on both surfaces of the nonwoven web of Ahoniemi, in order to provide unique properties, low fiber count zones, facilitate water dispersion, and provide a three-dimensional structure, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Ahoniemi in view of Wright teaches a wiping product having substantially identical material, including cellulosic fibers and strength building fibers having an overlapping length, in substantially identical amounts as discussed above. Ahoniemi in view of Wright further teaches a substantially identical method of producing the foam formed web that further undergoes hydroentangling as discussed above. For these reasons, it is clear that the wiper product of Ahoniemi in view of Wright would intrinsically have a wet strength and a dry strength, wherein the wet strength is within 20% of the dry strength, including within about 10% and within about 5% of the dry strength, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5
Ahoniemi in view of Wright teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 above. Ahoniemi does not explicitly teach the presence of polyester fibers.
With respect to the difference, Wright further teaches the hydroentangled foam-formed nonwoven web comprises polyester, polyolefin, or biocomponent fibers. The type of fibers used in the nonwoven substrate determines if the nonwoven is water-dispersible. Paragraphs [0046] and [0065].
Wright in view of Ahoniemi are analogous art as they are both drawn to nonwovens used for wiping applications.
In light of the motivation as provided by Wright, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use polyester, polyolefin, or bicomponent fibers in the wiping product of Ahoniemi, in order to form a flushable wipe with predictable success, as Wright teaches polyester, polyolefin, and bicomponent fibers are suitable for use in a hydroentangled foam formed nonwoven web for a flushable wipe, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 198 (CCPA 1960).
Given any type of fiber would provide some degree of strength to the fiber web, it follows the polyester, polyolefin, and bi-component fibers corresponds to strength building fibers.
Regarding claim 4
Ahoniemi view of Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ahoniemi further teaches the manmade fibers include regenerated cellulose fibers. Paragraph [0034].
Regarding claim 12
Ahoniemi view of Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ahoniemi further teaches the web has a basis weight in the range of 30 to 100 gsm. Paragraph [0036].
Regarding claim 13
Ahoniemi in view of Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ahoniemi further teaches the foam formed web comprises a surfactant. Given the web is formed using a foam-forming process, it follows the surfactant is necessarily a foaming surfactant.
Regarding claim 21
Ahoniemi view of Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ahoniemi further teaches the wipe is impregnated with a wetting composition Paragraphs [0002-0003], [0029], and [0032]. Given the wipe is used to cleanse and clean, it follows the wetting composition corresponds to a cleaning solvent.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahoniemi et al. (US 2017/0022667) (Ahoniemi) in view of Wright et al. (US 2017/0233909) (Wright), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Baker et al. (WO 2018118683) (Baker).
It is noted that when utilizing Baker II, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2019/0161915 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Baker II are found in US 2019/0161915. It is noted US 2019/016915 is cited in the IDS filed 10/05/2023.
Regarding claims 14-15
Ahoniemi in view of Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Ahoniemi does not explicitly teach the presence the specific foaming agent.
With respect to the difference, Baker teaches a process for foam forming a paper web in the form of a single homogeneous layer of fibers for forming wiper products. The foam forming process paper webs having better stretch properties, improved absorbency characteristics, increased caliper, and/or increased basis weight. The foam forming process is also advantageous as less energy is required in order to dry the web since less water is used to form the web. The process reduces energy requirements by greater than about 20% in relation to conventional wet processing procedures. Suitable foaming agent used in the foam forming process include sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, or ammonium lauryl sulfate. Suitable fibers for the paper web include a mixture of cellulosic and synthetic fibers. The paper web can further undergo hydroentangling. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0021-0022], [0024-0030], and [0038-0059].
Baker and Ahoniemi in view of Wright are analogous art as they are both drawn to foam formed webs for wiping products.
In light of the disclosure of Baker, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, or ammonium lauryl sulfate as the foaming surfactant in Ahoniemi in view of Wright, in order to form a foam formed web for a wiping product with predictable success, as Baker teaches it is a suitable foaming surfactant for forming a foam formed web for a wiping product, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16
Ahoniemi in view of Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. Ahoniemi does not explicitly teach the presence the bulk of the foam formed web.
With respect to the difference, Baker a wiping product comprising a foam formed tissue web in the form of a single homogeneous layer of fibers. It is desirable to provide the final wiping product as much as bulk as possible. Baker teaches desired bulk is achieved through a throughdrying process. The tissue web possesses a bulk of greater than 5 cc/g and less than 15 cc/g. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002-0008], [0014], [0021-0022], [0051-0053], [0059], and [0061].
Baker and Ahoniemi in view of Wright are analogous art as they are both drawn to foam formed webs for wiping products.
In light of the motivation as provided by Baker, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a bulk of 5 cc/g to 15 cc/g to the wiping product of Ahoniemi in view of Wright, such as by a throughdrying process, as it is desirable bulk for a wiping product as taught by Baker, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahoniemi et al. (US 2017/0022667) (Ahoniemi) in view of Wright et al. (US 2017/0233909) (Wright), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Dyer et al. (US 2008/0000602) (Dyer).
Regarding claims 19-20
Ahoniemi in view of Wright teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ahoniemi does not explicitly teach the wiping product comprises an industrial wiper.
With respect to the difference, Dyer teaches a nonwoven substrate is used to form wiping products such as wet wipes, hygiene tissue, and industrial wipers. The wiping product may be cut into individual sheets that are folded and stacked together and stored in a resealable container. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0005], [0022], [0080], [0081-0085], [0099], [0148], and [0192-0194].
Dyer in view of Ahoniemi in view of Wright are analogous art as they are drawn to wiping products comprising nonwovens.
In light of the disclosure of Dyer, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a reusable industrial wiper using the wiping product of Ahoniemi in view of Wright, including stacking a plurality of individual sheets together in a resealable container, as Dyer teaches wet wipes, hygiene tissues, and industrial wipers are known end uses for a nonwoven wiping product, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-21 are substantially maintained. Any modification to the rejection is in response to the amendment of claim 1.
Upon further search and consideration, a new reference has come to the attention of the Examiner. Therefore, a new set of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are set forth above.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as set forth below.
Applicant maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated based on the disclosure of Baker and Baker II to form the single-ply, non-layered, and foam formed web as required by amended independent claim 1. Remarks, page 5
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
For the reasons set forth on pages 9-14 in the response to arguments in the rejection mailed 10/01/2025 and for the reasons set forth in the rejection set forth above, the Examiner maintains one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated based on the disclosure of Baker, Baker II, and Wright to form the single-ply, non-layered, and foam formed web as required by claim 1.
Applicant argues Baker fails to teach the formation of a pattern on the first surface and/or the second and opposite surface during hydroentangling as required by the presently pending claims. Applicant further argues Baker teaches away from this limitation since Baker teaches that it may be desirable to use finishing steps and/or post treatment processes to impart selected properties to the nonwoven material and since Baker teaches the fabric may be lightly pressed by calender rolls, creped, embossed, or brushed to provide a uniform exterior appearance and/or certain tactile properties in paragraph [0060]. Remarks, pages 5-6.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that Baker does not expressly teach the claimed formation of a pattern on the first surface and/or the second surface and opposite surface during hydroentangling. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), which admits that Baker does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Wright is relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Baker. See the Office Action above.
Secondly, the fact remains Baker does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the formation of a pattern on the first surface and/or the second surface of the nonwoven during hydroentangling and the prior art references do not expressly exclude their combination. See MPEP 2123. Therefore, Baker does not teach away form the formation of a pattern during hydroentangling.
Applicant further argues Baker II does not cure the deficiencies of Baker regarding the formation of a pattern on the first surface and/or the second and opposite surface during hydroentangling as required by the presently pending claims. Remarks, page 6.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, Baker II is not relied upon to meet this limitation as discussed in the Office Action above. It is further noted Baker II is not relied upon to modify Baker to include a wave-like pattern formed by a pulsed gas flow.
Secondly, it is noted that while Baker II does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Baker II is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, i.e., foam forming process, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues the pattern formed on the surface of the nonwoven web during hydroentanglement of the foam formed web is a trivial feature since the use of a foam formed web has been found to create a unique and dramatic pattern due to the increased bulk of the foam formed web. The pattern formed into the web can be three dimensional. Remarks, pages 6-7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
As discussed in the rejection above, Wright teaches it is known in the art to hydroentangle a foam formed web to produce distinct hydroemboss patterns on the surface of the foam formed web. The hydroemboss patterns provide a three dimensional structure. Paragraphs [0097] and [0100]. It is the Examiner’s opinion the feature is taught by the prior art. The prior art does not necessarily need the same motivation, i.e., produce a unique and dramatic pattern, for arriving at the feature to be meet the claim limitation, however it appears Wright acknowledges the distinct hydroemboss patterns that produce a three dimensional structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789