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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-14 and 18-20 are pending in the application. Claims 2-4, 8-10 and 15-17 have been cancelled. Claims 7 and 11-14 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claims 1 and 18, filed on 12/22/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 18-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “from 75% to 85% of wood fibers,” “from 15% to 20% of individualized bast fibers,” and “from 4% to 6% of additional fibers.” However, when the amount of wood fibers is as high as 85%, the claimed amounts would total to an amount greater than 100%, which renders the claim indefinite. Claims 5-6 and 18-20 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cellulose content of from 88% to 99%, a hemicellulose content of from 1% to 4%, and a lignin content of from 1.5% to 3%.” However, when the cellulose content is as high as 99%, the claimed contents would total to an amount greater than 100%, which renders the claim indefinite. Claims 5-6 and 18-20 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strandqvist (US 2012/0199301 A1) in view of Takai et al. (US 2003/0100240 A1), further in view of Alonso (US 2017/0166662 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Strandqvist teaches a flushable moist wipe or hygiene tissue including a hydraulically entangled nonwoven material impregnated with a wetting composition (Abstract). The nonwoven material contains at least 70%, by fiber weight, pulp fibers and the rest manmade fibers and/or natural fibers with a length of at least 6 mm (Abstract). In particular embodiments, the pulp is characterized by being entirely natural cellulosic fibers and can include wood fibers as well as cotton ([0023]). In particular embodiments, the moist wipe or hygiene tissue contains at least 5%, by fiber weight, manmade fibers and/or natural fibers having a length of at least 6 mm ([0022]). The manmade fibers may be synthetic, e g polyester, polyamide, polyethylene, polypropylene, polylactides and copolymers thereof or staple fibers of regenerated cellulose, such as viscose, rayon, lyocell or the like (additional fibers) ([0022]). The natural fibers with a fiber length of at least 6 mm may be cotton fibers, sisal, hemp, ramie, flax etc. (bast fibers) ([0022]).
Strandqvist does not explicitly disclose from 15% to 20% of individualized bast fibers and from 4% to 6% of the additional fibers by weight relative to the total weight of fibers of the substrate.
However, Takai teaches a water disintegratable sheet that contains 2 to 30% by weight of bast/leaf fibers based on a total fiber weight of the water disintegratable sheet ([0016], [0045] and [0055]). The water disintegratable sheet may be used as a cleaning article such as wet tissue paper or wet wiper, which is to be supplied to consumers while being impregnated with a liquid ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the flax bast fibers of Strandqvist in an amount of 2 to 30% by weight based on a total fiber weight of the nonwoven material in order to obtain a wet wipe in which the sheet strength and the water disintegratability of the sheet are not deteriorated (Takai: [0016], [0043] and [0075]). As calculated by the examiner, as Strandqvist further teaches a nonwoven material containing at least 70% pulp fibers and the rest manmade fibers (additional fibers) and/or natural fibers (bast fibers), the amount of the manmade fibers (additional fibers) in the nonwoven substrate would range from 0 to 28%, by fiber weight (see Abstract of Strandqvist).
Strandqvist does not explicitly disclose wherein the bast fibers are individualized and have, relative to the dry weight of the flax fibers, a cellulose content of from 88% to 99%, a hemicellulose content of from 1% to 4%, and a lignin content of from 1.5% to 3%.
However, Alonso teaches high purity cellulose production using a process that employs a water/organic co-solvent mixture with reduced use of chemicals (Abstract). The source of cellulose can be lignocellulosic biomass, such as corn stover, corn cobs, sugarcane bagasse, hardwood, softwood, palm oil empty fruit bunches, paper pulp, paper sludge, municipal solid waste residue ([0007]). The examiner notes that biomass includes plant or animal matter used for production of fibers ([0072]; also see [0061]). In an embodiment, there is provided a composition comprising high purity solid cellulose with low hemicellulose and low lignin content, and retaining native cellulose properties ([0016]). The native properties may comprise two or more of crystallinity, strength, fiber length, and viscosity ([0016]). The solid cellulose may have an alpha cellulose content of 60%, 90%, or 90-99%, or any range derivable therefrom ([0016]). The low hemicellulose content may be no more than about 3%, no more than about 2% hemicellulose, no more than about 1.5% hemicellulose, no more than about 1.0% hemicellulose, or no more than about 0.5% hemicellulose ([0016]). Low lignin content comprises less than about 2% lignin, no more than about 1.5% lignin, no more than about 1.0% lignin, or no more than about 0.5% lignin ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the flax bast fibers of Strandqvist as individualized fibers with an alpha cellulose content of 90-99%, a low hemicellulose content of no more than about 3%, and a low lignin content of less than about 2% lignin in order to enhance one or more of the properties of the fibers, including the available surface area, mechanical properties, viscosity, strength, chemical resistance, crystallinity, particle size and/or accessibility, for use in paper products, as suggested by Alonso ([0016], [0051]-[0052] and [0056]).
Regarding claims 18-19, these claims include product-by-process limitations. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. (Also see [0010], [0040]-[0041] of Alonso).
Regarding claim 20, Strandqvist teaches that the nonwoven material contains at least 70%, by fiber weight, pulp fibers and the rest manmade fibers and/or natural fibers with a length of at least 6 mm (Abstract). The manmade fibers may be synthetic, e.g. polyester, polyamide, polyethylene, polypropylene, polylactides and copolymers thereof or staple fibers of regenerated cellulose, such as viscose, rayon, lyocell or the like ([0022]). Thus, the examiner notes that, in embodiments, the nonwoven would not comprise any polylactides (polylactic acid fibers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “Applicant further submits that Fingal and Strandqvist merely disclose a nonwoven material containing at least 70%, by fiber weight, pulp fibers. In this respect, Fingal and Strandqvist are silent as to 75% to 85% wood fibers and 15% to 20% individualized bast flax fibers. Notably, the combined percentage of the lower values of the aforementioned components is 90%. The probability of arriving at 75% to 85% wood fibers out of a range of 90% is 11.1 %, and the probability of arriving at 15% to 20% individualized bast flax fibers is 5.56%, for a combined probability of 0.62%. Applicant respectfully submits that a probability of 0.62% cannot reasonably be characterized as routine or predictable for a person having ordinary skill in the art. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that applicant’s calculations do not take the ranges taught by Strandqvist into consideration. Strandqvist teaches a nonwoven material containing at least 70% pulp fibers, with the rest being manmade fibers (additional fibers as claimed) and/or natural fibers (bast fibers as claimed) ([0022]). In addition, as applied above, Takai teaches incorporating flax bast fibers in an amount of 2 to 30% by weight based on a total fiber weight of a nonwoven material ([0016], [0043] and [0075]). Therefore, it is unclear how applicant’s calculations show that the claimed ranges would not have been obvious when the ranges disclosed in the applied prior art are considered.
Applicant contends the following: “Applicant further notes that the above probability fails to take into consideration that paragraph [0030] of Fingal and paragraph [0023] of Strandqvist disclose at least four different types of cellulose fibers, yielding a 25% probability of selecting wood fibers. Likewise, paragraph [0029] of Fingal and paragraph [0022] of Strandqvist disclose at least five natural fibers, yielding only a 20% probability of selecting flax. When considered together, the combined probability of arriving at the aforementioned features of the pending claims is 0.031 % (0.062 * 0.25 * 0.20). Applicant respectfully submits that a probability of 0.031 %, or just over three one-hundredths of one percent, cannot reasonably be characterized as routine or predictable for a person having ordinary skill in the art. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”
Regarding these contentions, as discussed above, Strandqvist teaches a nonwoven material containing at least 70% pulp fibers, with the rest being manmade fibers (additional fibers as claimed) and/or natural fibers (bast fibers as claimed) ([0022]). Applicant’s calculation of a probability of 0.62% does not take the ranges taught by the applied prior art into account. The combined probability of 0.031% calculated by applicant is based on this 0.62% probability. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, it is unclear how applicant’s calculations show that the claimed ranges would not have been obvious when the ranges disclosed in the applied prior art are considered. In addition, Strandqvist teaches that, in advantageous embodiments, the pulp fibers are softwood paper-making pulp ([0023]).
Applicant contends the following: “Applicant additionally notes that the above probability fails to take into consideration that the bast fibers are individualized and the specific compositional profile of the individualized bast flax fibers presently claimed. Therefore, in Applicant's estimate, the probability of arriving at the features of pending claim 1 would be exceptionally small. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”
Regarding these contentions, as applied above, Alonso teaches cellulose that may have an alpha cellulose content of 60%, 90%, or 90-99%, or any range derivable therefrom ([0016]). The low hemicellulose content may be no more than about 3%, no more than about 2% hemicellulose, no more than about 1.5% hemicellulose, no more than about 1.0% hemicellulose, or no more than about 0.5% hemicellulose ([0016]). Low lignin content comprises less than about 2% lignin, no more than about 1.5% lignin, no more than about 1.0% lignin, or no more than about 0.5% lignin ([0016]). It is unclear how applicant’s calculations show that the claimed ranges would not have been obvious when the ranges disclosed in the applied prior art are considered.
Applicant contends the following: “Applicant submits that the cited references are silent as to bast flax fibers as defined in the present disclosure at paragraph [0029]. Namely, paragraph [0029] of the present disclosure states that the term "bast fiber" denotes a plant fiber contained in the secondary phloem of plants. As stated in MPEP § 2111.01 (V), "[i]f the specification provides a special definition for the claim term, the examiner should use the special definition." Applicant submits that the cited references use the term flax fibers, but this term is not synonymous with bast fibers unless expressly stated. Indeed, flax fibers may be derived from several plant tissues, and it cannot be assumed that the fibers of Fingal or Strandqvist originate from the secondary phloem portion of plants. Therefore, Applicant submits that the cited references are silent as to individualized bast flax fibers.”
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that applicant claims “individualized bast fibers.” Although applicant discloses in [0022] that the term “bast fiber” denotes a plant fiber contained in the secondary phloem of plants, the claimed limitation “individualized bast fibers” is not interpreted as being limited to this description. In this regard, Applicant further discloses that, typically, bast fibers are composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin and other compounds such as pectins, proteins, waxes and inorganic compounds ([0024]). Applicant also discloses that, by way of bast fiber, mention may be made of hemp fiber, Indian hemp fiber, jute fiber, kenaf fiber, kudzu fiber, coin vine fiber, flax fiber (and others) ([0023] and [0039]). The term "individualized bast fiber" denotes an elementary bast fiber of which the cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin content is greater than or equal to 98.5%, in particular 98.75%, most particularly 99% ([0024]). The individualized bast fibers are obtained during a simple step of treating the bast fibers under pressure in a solvent ([0024]). Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the flax fibers of Strandqvist in view of Takai and Alonso meet the claimed “individualized bast fibers” limitation. In addition, as evidenced by Goudenhooft (see the attached article entitled “Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) Fibers for Composite Reinforcement: Exploring the Link Between Plant Growth, Cell Walls Development, and Fiber Properties”), contrary to some other fiber plants, flax generates only primary fibers, i.e., fibers originate exclusively from primary growth (see bottom of page 4, right column). For this additional reason, the claimed limitation “individualized bast fibers” is not interpreted as being limited to plant fiber contained in the secondary phloem of plants.
Applicant contends that Alonso is a readily distinguishable field of endeavor from the present disclosure and that Alonso is not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the present disclosure.
Regarding this contention, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Alonso is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor because Alonso’s disclosure relates generally to the field of biomass refining and cellulose production, where biomass includes plant or animal matter used for production of fiber (Abstract and [0072]). Alonso further teaches obtaining high purity cellulose that makes an excellent feedstock to be used for pulp and paper applications, cellulose nanofibers (CNF), and in general any application that requires a high cellulose purity ([0051]). Alonso is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned because applicant is concerned with the mechanical properties of nonwoven substrates formed from individualized bast fibers, and Alonso teaches obtaining cellulose with one or more enhanced mechanical properties, including enhanced strength, wherein said cellulose includes plant or animal matter used for the production of fibers ([0056]).
Applicant contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art, addressing the need for formulating a nonwoven substrate containing a significant amount of flax fibers while still delivering softness and desirable tactile properties for consumer wipes, would not be motivated to "pluck" Alonso, which is directed to cellulose production in a process that employs a water/organic co-solvent mixture.
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that, as discussed above, Alonso is both within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have considered what Alonso teaches with respect to the advantageous properties of refined biomass, where biomass includes plant or animal matter used for the production of fibers (Abstract and [0072]). In addition, although claims 18-20 include product-by-process limitations, the examiner notes that the claimed solvent is not limited, and applicant has not shown that there are any differences in process that would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
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 Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights