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, 13-15 and 20-27 (as renumbered below) are pending in the application. Claims 2, 7, 11-12 and 16-19 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, 10 and 20-21, and new claims 23-27 (as renumbered below), filed on 2/5/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
There are two new claims both numbered “23.” Misnumbered claim 23 (the second instance of claim 23) has been renumbered claim 24. Misnumbered claims 24, 25 and 26 have been renumbered claims 25, 26 and 27, respectively. Claims 20 and 21, which depend on misnumbered claim 26, are considered to depend on renumbered claim 27.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation “prepared by a method according to claim 11,” although claim 11 is now cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, 13-15 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamada (US 2017/0332873 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 13 and 24-26, 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]). 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]).
The examiner notes that the materials taught by Yamada are the same as those claimed and disclosed by applicant. Therefore, the non-woven fabric of Yamada 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 reference teaches 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 remains as applied above.
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]). More preferably the softness imparting layer 6 is formed from the crushed pulp 11 or a material including the crushed pulp 11 ([0034]). Raw material pulp constituted from the softwood bleached kraft pulp is preferably used ([0034]). Yamada also teaches that the 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]). It is more preferable that the softness imparting layer 6 is formed from the crushed pulp by 100% ([0035]). As the crushed pulp is formed to be cotton-like with the pulp material crushed, a larger number of spaces are formed between fibers than paper that is made through paper-making in which fibers are in a compressed state ([0035]). 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]). Therefore, when the crushed pulp 11 is blended at the above-mentioned proportion, a bulk forming function in the softness imparting layer 6 can be enhanced even at a lower basis weight, and the higher proportion of the crushed pulp 11 can enhance the bulk forming function even if the basis weight of the softness imparting layer 6 is reduced ([0035]).
Therefore, Yamada teaches the claimed limitations.
However, in the event that Yamada does not explicitly disclose a plurality of entangling points in the embodiments comprising regenerated fiber such as rayon (viscose), 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 a degree of entangling between the fibers in such embodiments in order to enhance the strength of the softness imparting layer as desired by Yamada ([0034]).
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]). It is more preferable that the softness imparting layer 6 is formed from the crushed pulp by 100% ([0035]; also [0034]).
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) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2017/0332873 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nunn (US 2011/0057346 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada remains as applied above.
Yamada does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of biodegradable fibers have an average fiber length ranging from 15 to 60 mm.
However, 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 ([0018] and [0068]). An example of lengths of fibers necessary to a wet laid application would be 250 microns to 13 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, as calculated by the examiner) ([0071]). In one embodiment, the fibers are regenerated cotton fibers, with a size range between about 250 microns to about 8 mm for wet laid applications, and between about half inch and about 1.30 inches (about 12.7 mm to 33 mm, as calculated by the examiner) for dry direct lay or a combination of direct lay and air carding application ([0070]).
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 fibers of Yamada with a length in the range of about 13 to 76 mm because Nunn teaches that such fiber lengths are suitable for use in nonwoven products such as wipes, and/or because Nunn teaches that such lengths are suitable for obtaining nonwoven webs using dry direct lay and air carding application type processes ([0018], [0020], [0067]-[0070], [0119]-[0120]).
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]).
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, 13-15, 20-23 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seger et al. (US 2015/0368864 A1) in view of West et al. (US Patent No. 5,840,787).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 13, 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]). 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 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, 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 provided the nonwoven web of Seger with crosslinked fiber-fiber crossover points and with the majority of the binding agent being located at said points because West teaches that doing so much more effectively contributes strength and integrity to cellulosic products (col. 2, lines 61-67, and the sections cited above). In doing so, 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 the nonwoven web with pores formed between the crosslinked fiber crossover points as a means of imparting porosity to the nonwoven fabric, and/or as a means of adjusting said porosity, as suggested by Seger ([0081]).
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).
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.
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 natural or cellulosic fibers as the only fibers in the nonwoven as an alternative to mixtures of fibers, as implied by Seger ([0048]-[0050]).
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 20-21 and 27, West teaches, in an embodiment (Example 3), 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).
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-10, 13-15 and 20-27 (as renumbered above) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2011/0277261 A1 (Hasket) teaches an open, lofty nonwoven scouring material comprising natural fibers, wherein the scouring material comprises a three dimensional nonwoven web of entangled fibers comprising natural vegetable fibers and synthetic fibers (Abstract). First synthetic fibers entirely melt and coalesce at mutual contact point of the natural fibers and second synthetic fibers to bond the fibers together and to create voids (Abstract). Examples of synthetic fibers include cellulose acetate, polycaprolactum, PLA and others ([0027] and [0030]). Examples of water soluble binders include PLA, polyvinyl alcohols, carboxymethyl celluloses, hydroxypropyl cellulose starches, cellulose ether polymers, and others ([0033] and [0032]).
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