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, 3-6, 8-10, 14-15 and 20-28 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 7, 11-13 and 16-19 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1, 4, 20-21 and 24-27, and new claim 28, filed on 9/1/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 14-15, 24-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2017/0332873 A1) in view of Nunn (US 2011/0057346 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 24-26 and 28, Yamada teaches, with reference to FIG. 3, a water absorbent article 1 that is formed from a surface sheet layer 5 having liquid permeability and a softness imparting layer 6 (a biodegradable non-woven fabric) having absorbency ([0029]-[0030], [0034]-[0035] and [0051]). The softness imparting layer 6 is constituted by an aggregate of a plurality of fibers and has absorbency ([0033]). The softness imparting layer 6 is formed from natural fiber such as pulp, regenerated fiber such as rayon, or a blend of natural fiber and regenerated fiber (biodegradable fibers) ([0033]). More preferably the softness imparting layer 6 is formed from the crushed pulp 11 or a material including the crushed pulp 11 ([0034] and FIG. 3). From the perspective of manufacturing, a raw material pulp constituted from the softwood bleached kraft pulp is preferably used ([0034]). Because the softwood bleached kraft pulp has longer fiber length than hardwood bleached kraft pulp, when the softness imparting layer 6 is constituted using the crushed pulp 11 obtained from the softwood bleached kraft pulp, the degree of entangling of the fibers is increased (a plurality of entangling points characterized by two or more of the plurality of biodegradable fibers being in contact with each other), as a result, the strength is enhanced ([0034]). Moreover, the volume of space between the fibers due to entanglement of the fibers (a plurality of interstitial portions located between the plurality of entangling points) is greater than that in the case where the hardwood bleached kraft pulp having shorter fiber length is used, and a degree of freedom for each of the fiber to move is increased, and thus the softness is improved ([0034]). When a large number of spaces are formed between fibers, a degree of freedom for each of the fibers constituting the softness imparting layer 6 to move can be increased ([0035]). Also see [0051].
Yamada further teaches that the surface sheet layer 5 and the softness imparting layer 6 are bonded through a binder that is impregnated into at least one layer of the surface sheet layer 5 and the softness imparting layer 6 ([0030] and [0074]). Examples of the binder that can be used include polysaccharide derivatives, natural polysaccharides, and synthetic polymers ([0037]). Examples of the polysaccharide derivatives include carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethy starch or a salt thereof, starch, methyl cellulose, and ethyl cellulose ([0037]). Examples of the natural polysaccharides include guar gum tragacanth gum, xanthan gum, sodium alginate, carrageenan, gum arabic, gelatin, and casein ([0037]). Of the binders, carboxymethyl cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol are particularly preferable ([0037]).
Yamada does not explicitly disclose a spunlace material or a plurality of thermoplastic biodegradable fibers.
However, Nunn teaches producing non-woven materials from regenerated cotton and other fibers (Abstract). Examples of proteinaceous fibers derived from plants include peanut (PEA), corn (COR), soybean (SPF), alginate (ALG), milk (CS), and polylactic Acid (PLA) ([0064] and [0012]). Nunn also teaches that the spunlace process is a process for bonding a web by interlocking and entangling the fibers about each other with high velocity streams of water (synonymous with Hydroentangling) ([0147] and [0106]). The web or fabric may have other bonding methods in addition to spunlacing ([0147]). Nunn teaches that spunlaced fabrics show high drape, softness and comfortable handle because more fiber entanglement leads to increased strength without an increase in shear modulus ([0148]). There is typically a relationship between the absorbency capacity of the spunlaced product and the amount of hydroentangling energy used ([0148]).
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 PLA fibers in the non-woven web of Yamada and to have provided the web with a spunlaced structure in order to adjust the properties of the web for use in products such as wipes while transforming waste materials into value added products, and in order to obtain a non-woven web with increased strength while providing and/or maintaining other desirable properties of the non-woven web, such as drape, softness and comfortable handle, as suggested by Nunn ([0001], [0010], [0147]-[0148] and [0156]).
The examiner notes that the materials taught by Yamada in view of Nunn are the same as those claimed and disclosed by applicant. Therefore, the non-woven fabric of Yamada in view of Nunn would be biodegradable as claimed.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach the same materials and structure as that claimed and disclosed by applicant, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials.
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches that the softness imparting layer 6 is formed from natural fiber such as pulp, regenerated fiber such as rayon (viscose), or a blend of natural fiber and regenerated fiber ([0033]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Nunn teaches non-woven materials from regenerated cotton and other fibers (Abstract). When regenerated fibers are used in combination with other fibers, the regenerated fibers are preferably present in a concentration of between about 2 and about 98%, and the other fibers are preferably present in an a concentration of between about 1 and about 88%, based on the total weight of the fibers ([0072] and [0015]). Suitable fibers have lengths ranging from 250 microns to 6 inches (0.25 mm to 152 mm, as calculated by the examiner) ([0018] and [0068]). An example of lengths of fibers necessary to a wet laid application would be 250 microns to 13 mm (0.25 mm to 330 mm), where the fiber lengths in a dry direct lay application would vary from 0.50 median lengths up to 3 inches (12.7 mm to 76.2 mm) ([0071]). In one embodiment, the fibers are regenerated cotton fibers, with a size range between about 250 microns to about 8 mm (about 0.25 mm to 8 mm) for wet laid applications, and between about half inch and about 1.30 inches (about 12.7 mm to 33 mm) for dry direct lay or a combination of direct lay and air carding application ([0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada teaches that the basis weight of the softness imparting layer 6 is preferably 80 g/m2 or less, and more preferably 60 g/m2 or less ([0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches that when the material used for the softness imparting layer 6 is formed from the crushed pulp 11 or the material including the crushed pulp 11 as a principal raw material, a blending proportion of the crushed pulp 11 in the material is preferably 30% or more, and more preferably 50% or more ([0035]). Furthermore, even more preferably, the blending proportion of the crushed pulp 11 in the material is 80% or more ([0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Nunn teaches that the fibers can be humidified, for example, by exposing them to steam, contacting them with a hydrophilic compound such as glycerol/glycerine, a surfactant, water, and the like ([0015], [0020] and [0096]-[0098]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Yamada teaches that the water absorbent article has high water absorbency and high flexibility and, when used as a cleaning sheet, shows excellent ability to collect waste and dust even on a wet floor, etc. (Abstract). Also see [0084].
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 14-15, 22-23, 25-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seger et al. (US 2015/0368864 A1) in view of Nunn (US 2011/0057346 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 28, Seger teaches a paper or nonwoven web comprising fibers and a specific crosslinking or functionalization agent ([0001]). Suitable fibers are natural fibers or cellulosic fibers ([0048]). Preferred examples include fibers of cellulose, viscose, lyocell, cotton, hemp, manila, jute, sisal, rayon, abaca and others, and also include fibers of soft wood pulp and hard wood pulp ([0048]). Further suitable fibers are synthetic fibers or heat-sealable fibers ([0049]). Preferred examples include fibers of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyester, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and poly(lactic acid) (PLA) (thermoplastic biodegradable fibers) ([0049]). It is also possible to use mixtures of the above fibers, such as mixtures of two or more natural fibers, mixtures of two or more synthetic fibers or heat-sealable fibers, mixtures of natural fibers and synthetic fibers or heat-sealable fibers and any combinations thereof ([0050]). The term "crosslinking or functionalization agent" denotes a compound which is able to bind to fibers, preferably via covalent bonds, and is able to form crosslinkages or to functionalize fibers ([0023]). In a preferred embodiment, the paper or non-woven web further comprises at least one polysaccharide additive ([0042]). Preferred examples of the polysaccharide additive include carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), starch, alginic acid or alginates, pectin and mixtures thereof, in particular carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) ([0042]). The polysaccharide additive is preferably linked (bound, such as covalently bound) to the fibers of the paper or non-woven web by the crosslinking or functionalization agent ([0042]). FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of possibilities of using and/or combining the crosslinking or functionalization agent in a paper or non-woven web ([0053]). In Example E, two fibers are crosslinked via the crosslinking or functionalization agent and a polysaccharide additive, thereby further improving characteristic properties, such as the tensile strength, of the paper or non-woven web ([0058]). In particular, the crosslinking or functionalization agent as described can be used for imparting tensile strength (in a dry state and/or in a wet state), porosity, wettability, hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity and/or adherence to a paper or non-woven web ([0081]). In addition, the crosslinking or functionalization agent as described can be used for imparting biodegradability to a paper or non-woven web ([0081]).
Seger does not explicitly disclose that the non-woven web comprises a spunlace material defining a plurality of entangling points characterized by two or more of the plurality of biodegradable fibers being in contact with each other, or a plurality of interstitial portions located between the plurality of entangling points.
However, Nunn teaches that the spunlace process is a process for bonding a web by interlocking and entangling the fibers about each other with high velocity streams of water (synonymous with Hydroentangling) ([0147]). The web or fabric may have other bonding methods in addition to spunlacing ([0147]). Nunn teaches that spunlaced fabrics show high drape, softness and comfortable handle because more fiber entanglement leads to increased strength without an increase in shear modulus ([0148]). There is typically a relationship between the absorbency capacity of the spunlaced product and the amount of hydroentangling energy used ([0148]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the non-woven web of Seger with a spunlaced structure in order to obtain a non-woven web with increased strength while providing and/or maintaining other desirable properties of the non-woven web, such as drape, softness and comfortable handle, for use in a variety of applications (Nunn: [0147]-[0148] and [0156]). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided porous regions between the entangled fibers of the spunlace structure in order to maintain the porosity and/or wettability properties desired by Seger and the absorbency capacity properties taught by Nunn, particularly for use in applications such as wipes (Seger: [0010] and [0020]; Nunn: ([0148] and [0156]).
Regarding claim 6, Seger teaches that, typically, the natural fibers or cellulosic fibers have a length of 1 to 15 mm, preferably from 3 to 10 mm ([0052]). The examiner notes that 1 to 15 mm would overlap with the claimed range of 15 to 60 mm. In addition, the dimensions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In addition, Nunn teaches that suitable fibers have lengths ranging from 250 microns to 6 inches (0.25 mm to 152 mm, as calculated by the examiner) ([0018] and [0068]). An example of lengths of fibers necessary to a wet laid application would be 250 microns to 13 mm (0.25 mm to 330 mm), where the fiber lengths in a dry direct lay application would vary from 0.50 median lengths up to 3 inches (12.7 mm to 76.2 mm) ([0071]). In one embodiment, the fibers are regenerated cotton fibers, with a size range between about 250 microns to about 8 mm (about 0.25 mm to 8 mm) for wet laid applications, and between about half inch and about 1.30 inches (about 12.7 mm to 33 mm) for dry direct lay or a combination of direct lay and air carding application ([0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Seger teaches that, typically, the paper or non-woven web has a grammage of from 5 to 2000 g/m2, preferably from 50 to 600 g/m2 or from 8.5 to 120 g/m2 ([0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Seger does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-woven fabric is substantially free of thermoplastic non-biodegradable fibers. In addition, in the event that Seger does not meet claim 28 as applied above, Seger is alternatively applied to claim 28 as follows:
However, Seger teaches that suitable fibers are natural fibers or cellulosic fibers ([0048]). Further suitable fibers are synthetic fibers or heat-sealable fibers ([0049]). It is also possible to use mixtures of the above fibers, such as mixtures of two or more natural fibers, mixtures of two or more synthetic fibers or heat-sealable fibers, mixtures of natural fibers and synthetic fibers or heat-sealable fibers and any combinations thereof ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the natural/cellulosic fiber or the synthetic/heat-sealable fibers disclosed by Seger (e.g., PLA fibers) as the only fibers in the nonwoven as an alternative to providing mixtures of fibers, as implied by Seger ([0048]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Nunn teaches that the fibers can be humidified, for example, by exposing them to steam, contacting them with a hydrophilic compound such as glycerol/glycerine, a surfactant, water, and the like ([0015], [0020] and [0096]-[0098]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Seger teaches that the paper or non-woven web can be for instance (among other disclosed products) a home care product, e.g. wipes, towels, napkins and tablecloths, a speciality paper, e.g. wallcoverings (wall paper), mattress and upholstery padding ([0020]).
Regarding claims 22-23 and 25-26, Seger teaches that the term "crosslinking or functionalization agent" denotes a compound which is able to bind to fibers, preferably via covalent bonds, and is able to form crosslinkages or to functionalize fibers ([0023]). The most preferred crosslinking or functionalization agents are citric acid and 4,6-dichloro-1,3,5-triazin-2-ol and its sodium salt (NHDT) ([0037]). The content of the crosslinking or functionalization agent in the paper or non-woven web is preferably up to 50 wt.-% based on the total weight of the paper or non-woven web, more preferably 0.01 to 40 wt.-%, still more preferably 0.02 to 30 wt.-%, still more preferably 0.03 to 25 wt.-%, still more preferably 0.04 to 20 wt.-%, still more preferably 0.05 to 15 wt.-% and most preferably 0.1 to 10 wt.-%, in particular 0.5 to 10 wt.-%, in particular 1.0 to 10 wt.-%, such as 1.0 to 5.0 wt.-% or 2.0 to 10 wt.-% ([0040]). In a preferred embodiment, the paper or non-woven web further comprises at least one polysaccharide additive ([0042]). Preferred examples of the polysaccharide additive include carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), starch, alginic acid or alginates, pectin and mixtures thereof, in particular carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) ([0042]). The polysaccharide additive is preferably linked (bound, such as covalently bound) to the fibers of the paper or non-woven web by the crosslinking or functionalization agent ([0042]). The content of the at least one polysaccharide additive in the paper or non-woven web is preferably up to 30 wt.-% based on the total weight of the paper or non-woven web, in particular from 0.1 to 20 wt.-%, in particular from 0.25 to 15 wt.-%, in particular from 0.5 to 10wt.-%, in particular from 0.75 to 5.0 wt.-%, in particular from 1.0 to 3.0 wt.-% ([0044]). The examiner notes that Seger further teaches mixtures (see [0067] and [0073]-[0074]). The combination of the crosslinking or functionalization agent and the polysaccharide additive disclosed by Seger would meet the claimed “biodegradable binder” limitation, and the combination would be present in the biodegradable non-woven fabric in a total amount overlapping with the claimed range of about 0.2 to about 10 wt% ([0037]).
Claim(s) 20-21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seger et al. (US 2015/0368864 A1) in view of Nunn (US 2011/0057346 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of West et al. (US Patent No. 5,840,787).
Regarding claims 20-21 and 27,Seger in view of Nunn remains as applied above.
Seger in view of Nunn does not explicitly disclose wherein an amount of the hydrophilic biodegradable binder present at the plurality of interstitial portions is less than an amount of the hydrophilic biodegradable binder at the plurality of entangling points.
However, West teaches cellulosic products (col. 1, lines 8-11). West teaches that, quite unexpectedly, a binding agent has been found to be significantly more heavily concentrated at the fiber-fiber crossover points of individual crosslinked fibers with each other and with other fibers rather than being uniformly distributed over the fiber surfaces (col. 2, lines 61-65). By having a binder so localized it much more effectively contributes strength and integrity to the mat or pad-like structure (col. 2, lines 65-67). In an embodiment (Example 3), West teaches that FIG. 2 shows that the water-borne binding agent substantially completely collects at the crossover or contact points between fibers where it is seen as a bridge between them (col. 8, lines 3-6). West also teaches that the majority of the binding agent is located where it is needed (col. 8, lines 9-10). (Also see Example 9 at col. 10, lines 44-47, and FIGS. 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have concentrated the majority of the binding agent in the nonwoven fabric at the fiber-fiber crossover points rather than uniformly distributing it over the fiber surfaces in order to more effectively contribute strength and integrity to cellulosic products formed from the nonwoven fabric, as suggested by West (col. 2, lines 61-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Yamada, however, fails to disclose a plurality of biodegradable fibers comprising a plurality of thermoplastic biodegradable fibers.
Regarding this contention, as applied above, Nunn teaches PLA fibers ([0064]), which meet the claimed thermoplastic biodegradable fiber limitation.
Applicant contends that Yamada fails to teach or suggest that the plurality of biodegradable fibers comprise a plurality of thermoplastic biodegradable fibers entangled with each other as recited in claim 1, and that Nunn does not cure the deficiencies of Yamada. Applicant further contends that Yamada does not teach or suggest a spunlace material let alone a spunlace material defining opposing outer surfaces.
Regarding these contentions, as applied above, Nunn teaches PLA fibers and further teaches that the spunlace process is a process for bonding a web by interlocking and entangling the fibers about each other with high velocity streams of water (synonymous with Hydroentangling) ([0064], [0106] and [0147]). In addition, although Yamada teaches that there are layers adjacent to the softness imparting layer 6, the examiner notes that the softness imparting layer 6 itself, which is bonded through a binder that is impregnated into the softness imparting layer 6, meets the claimed biodegradable non-woven fabric limitation. The spunlace material of the softness imparting layer 6 would define opposing outer surfaces of the fabric (e.g., see [0030] and Fig. 3 of Yamada). Therefore, Yamada in view of Nunn meets the claimed limitations.
Applicant contends that Seger and West, whether considered individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest (1) that the plurality of biodegradable fibers comprise a plurality of thermoplastic biodegradable fibers entangled with each other as recited in claim 1; and (2) that the plurality of biodegradable fibers consist of the plurality of thermoplastic biodegradable fibers as recited in claim 28. Applicant also contends that Seger never discloses or suggests a spunlace material at all, and that West fails to cure this deficiency.
Regarding these contentions, Seger in view of Nunn is applied above to claims 1 and 28. Nunn teaches PLA fibers and further teaches that the spunlace process is a process for bonding a web by interlocking and entangling the fibers about each other with high velocity streams of water (synonymous with Hydroentangling) ([0064], [0106] and [0147]). With respect to claim 28, Seger teaches that suitable fibers are, among others, poly(lactic acid) (PLA), which meets the claimed limitations, as the spunlace material in claim 1 is not limited to consisting of the claimed biodegradable fibers ([0049]). In addition, Seger teaches that it is “also possible” to use mixtures of the disclosed fibers, which, as applied alternatively to claim 28 above, implies that the PLA fibers may be used alone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kitamura (JPH07133569A, see attachment) teaches a biodegradable nonwoven fabric that is made of biodegradable short fibers composed of cellulose fibers and thermoplastic fibers comprising a polylactic acid (Abstract). A method of partially joining and integrating the fabric includes entangling by a high-speed jet ([0017]). The fibers may be mixed with one or more of starch, protein or other substances ([0018]).
Ikegami (JP2006063473A, see attachment) teaches a biodegradable nonwoven fabric that uses at least one fiber selected from the group consisting of rayon, cotton, wool, polylactic acid, and water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol ([0018]). Ikegami teaches a method of entangling fibers, such as spunlace ([0046]). A flame retardant emulsion may include a PLA binder and additives such as CMC-based thickeners ([0056]; also see end of [0048] and [0055]).
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