Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 17/801,607

COMPOSITE NONWOVEN AND PROCESS FOR PRODUCING A COMPOSITE NONWOVEN

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 23, 2022
Examiner
THOMPSON, CAMIE S
Art Unit
1786
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lenzing Aktiengesellschaft
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
958 granted / 1310 resolved
+8.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
1367
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1310 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 29, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed September 29, 2025 are acknowledged. Examiner acknowledges amended claims 1-6, 8, 10 and 18-22. Examiner acknowledges cancelled claim 7. Examiner acknowledges withdrawn claims 8-17. Examiner acknowledges claims 1-6 and 19-22 as pending for examination at this time. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-6 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has amended claims 1-6 and 18-22 to recite “a never-dried composite nonwoven fabric”. Applicant’s specification does not provide support for a “a never-dried composite nonwoven fabric”. Applicant discloses in the present published specification in paragraph 0102 that the final composite nonwoven fabric is dried. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-6 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jackson et al., WO2012/090130. Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses a nonwoven composite web prepared from a nonwoven web of continuous fibers containing regenerated cellulose and a layer of discontinuous [short] fibers which are hydroentangled with the nonwoven web of continuous fibers containing regenerated cellulose to form a nonwoven composite [see page 7, lines 10-19]. The reference claims disclose staple wood fibers. Staple fibers are defined as discontinuous fibers [short fibers] having a length ranging from 3 to 12 mm [page 4, lines 8-14]. Page 8, lines 16-19 discloses that the nonwoven web of continuous fibers containing regenerated cellulose can be spunbonded. Jackson discloses an integrated composite non-woven [page 2, lines 23-25]. Applicant claims “wherein, in the at least one mixing area, the at least one spunbonded nonwoven is charged with the biobased biodegradable short fibers such that filaments of each of the at least one spunbonded nonwoven and the biobased biodegradable short fibers mutually penetrate each other, and wherein the at least one spunbonded nonwoven is in a never-dried state”. Applicant’s new limitation recites a process limitation in a product claim. “Even though product-by-process claims are muted by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, The patentability of a product dees not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” & re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPO 964, 966 (Red. Cir. 1985). Applicant’s final product is in a dried state [0102 in Applicant’s specification]as is the final product of Jackson. Jackson discloses a composite non-woven has the same structural limitations as Applicant's composite non-woven. Additionally, Jackson discloses that the nonwoven composite web is prepared from nonwoven web of continuous fibers of containing regenerated cellulose and a layer of discontinuous fibers which are hydroentangled with the nonwoven web of continuous fibers containing regenerated cellulose to form a nonwoven composite [see page 7, lines 10-19]. In Jackson’s preparation the nonwoven web of continuous fibers containing regenerated cellulose that is spunbond is wet while mixing with the layer of discontinuous fibers via hydroentangling which causes friction through the high-speed water jets striking the fibers during the process which can lead to surface charging [Page 16, lines 6-14]. Applicant’s specification discloses a subsequent step of drying the composite nonwoven. Jackson discloses drying the composite non-woven. Applicant has not provided any evidence to the contrary that the composite non-woven of Jackson is different or novel over the composite non-woven of Jackson. Regarding claims 2-3, page 2, lines 23-26 discloses that the composite fabric includes 5 wt% to 30 wt% continuous regenerated cellulose filaments and 70 wt% to 95 wt% wood pulp [short fibers] fibers [cellulose content — wood pulp is cellulose containing]. Page 9, lines 16-31 discloses that the discontinuous fibers can include pulp fibers or lyocell staple fibers [biobased fibers]. Reference claim 15 discloses a dried composite nonwoven. Regarding claim 4, Jackson does not disclose any binder or binding agent naturally occurring from wood such as lignin and tannin. Regarding claim 5, page 9, lines 16-31 discloses that the discontinuous fibers [short fibers] can include pulp fibers or lyocell staple fibers [biobased fibers]. Regarding claim 6, page 9, lines 16-31 discloses that the discontinuous fibers are pulp fibers having a fiber length from 1 to about 150 mm, preferably from 5 to about 40 mm. Regarding claim 18, page 9, lines 16-31 discloses that the discontinuous [short fibers] fibers can include pulp fibers or lyocell staple fibers [biobased fibers]. Page 2, lines 23-26 discloses that the composite fabric includes 5 wt% to 30 wt% continuous regenerated cellulose filaments and 70 wt% to 95 wt% wood pulp fibers [cellulose content — wood pulp is cellulose containing]. Reference claim 15 discloses drying the composite non-woven. Regarding claim 19, page 9, lines 16-31 discloses that the discontinuous [short fibers] fibers can include pulp fibers or lyocell staple fibers [biobased fibers]. Page 2, lines 23-26 discloses that the composite fabric includes 5 wt% to 30 wt% continuous regenerated cellulose filaments and 70 wt% to 95 wt% wood pulp fibers [cellulose content — wood pulp is cellulose containing]. Reference claim 15 discloses drying the composite non-woven. The composite comprises at least 97 wt% of cellulose content with the mixture of 5 wt% to 30 wt% continuous regenerated cellulose filaments and 70 wt% to 95 wt% wood pulp fibers. Regarding claims 20-21, page 2, lines 23-26 discloses that the composite fabric includes 5 wt% to 30 wt% continuous regenerated cellulose filaments and 70 wt% to 95 wt% wood pulp fibers. Regarding claim 22, page 4, lines 8-14 discloses that the discontinuous fibers [short fibers] has a length ranging from 3 to 12 mm. Page 9, lines 16-31 discloses that the discontinuous fibers are pulp fibers having a fiber length from 1 to about 150 mm, preferably from 5 to about 40 mm. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed September 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1-6 and 18-22 to recite “a never-dried composite nonwoven fabric”. Applicant’s specification does not provide support for a “a never-dried composite nonwoven fabric”. Applicant discloses in the present published specification in paragraph 0102 that the final composite nonwoven fabric is dried. Applicant argues that Jackson fails to anticipate the never-dried composite nonwoven fabric as recited in claim 1. Applicant’s specification does not provide support for a “a never-dried composite nonwoven fabric”. Applicant discloses in the present published specification in paragraph 0102 that the final composite nonwoven fabric is dried. Applicant points to paragraph 0069 of the present specification for the amendment. Paragraph 0069 of the present specification merely discusses the never-dried spunbond nonwoven layer during manufacturing, not that the composite nonwoven fabric itself is never-dried. Paragraph 0102 of the present specification that the final composite nonwoven fabric is dried. Applicant argues that Jackson does not disclose at least one spunbonded nonwoven in a never-dried state. In Jackson’s preparation the nonwoven web of continuous fibers containing regenerated cellulose that is spunbond is wet while mixing with the layer of discontinuous fibers via hydroentangling which causes friction through the high-speed water jets striking the fibers during the process which can lead to surface charging [Page 16, lines 6-14]. Jackson discloses preparing the components to make the final composite nonwoven fabric wherein the spunbonded nonwoven is wt while hydroentangling with the short fibers. Jackson discloses that the final composite nonwoven is dried [0102]. Jackson discloses the same preparation method as Applicant. Applicant’s claims 1-6 and 18-22 are directed to the final product not the manufacturing method of the product. Applicant claims a final product [composite nonwoven fabric] that is dried. Jackson discloses a final product [composite nonwoven fabric] that is dried. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 pm. 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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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. /CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 23, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 23, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 28, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Jan 15, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 21, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 24, 2025
Response Filed
May 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Dec 31, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 12, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601090
CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600171
COMPOSITE COMPRISING A METAL REINFORCING ELEMENT AND AN ELASTOMER COMPOSITION CONTAINING AN ADHESION PROMOTING RESIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595655
INSULATION PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590388
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A MULTI-PLY SEPARABLE FILAMENT YARNS AND MULTI-PLY SEPARABLE TEXTURED YARN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590192
FIBRE-REINFORCED RESIN, POROUS STRUCTURE, AND MOLDED MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+0.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1310 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month