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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/12/2026 has been entered.
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 23 and 25 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.
Claims 23 and claim 25 are rejected for being a repetition of claim 21. It is believed Applicant intended for claim 23 to depend from claim 8 and claim 25 to depend from claim 14.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the fibrous article" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the process" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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 obtain/ed, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 14-16, 19 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dunlap et al. (CA 677852) in view of Schuette et al. (US Patent 5,912,078).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 14-16, 19 and 21-26, Dunlap et al. teach a nonwoven (or fibrous article) comprising cellulose acetate staple fibers and a process for producing cellulose acetate staple fibers comprising spinning a cellulose acetate dope to form a cellulose acetate filament yarn comprising plurality of individual cellulose acetate filaments wherein the individual cellulose acetate filaments have an average denier per filament in the claimed range (also teaches lower denier fibers provide more surface area for filtration) and applying at least one mineral oil based spinning finish to at least a portion of the filament yarn to form a coated cellulose acetate filament yarn, crimping at least a portion of the coated cellulose acetate filament yarn to form a crimped filament yarn and cutting the crimped filament yarn to thereby form the cellulose acetate staple fibers. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 process includes crimping at least a portion of the cellulose acetate filament yarn to provide a crimped filament yarn wherein the crimped filament yarn has an average crimping frequency of not more than 20 crimps per inch. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 process includes cutting the crimped filament yarn to form a plurality of crimped cellulose acetate staple fibers. The fibers have a length in the claimed range, including 3 inches or less (or about 76.2 mm or less). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Dunlap et al. teaches at least partially coating with a mineral oil based spinning finish and top coat finish is within the claimed range [Examples]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Dunlap et al. are silent regarding the claimed top finish and amounts. However, Schuette et al. teach top coat (that includes anti-static agents) in an amount of at least about 0.05% FOY (including at least 0.2% FOY) and the total amount of spin finish and top coat finish is in the claimed range including at least 0.7% FOY in order to lubricate and finish textile fibers [1:29-33 and Examples]. The spinning finish and the top coat finish is applied prior to cutting the filament yarn to form the fiber, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the ionic finish as taught by Schuette et al. in Dunlap et al. in order to lubricate and finish the textile fibers and arrive at the claimed invention.
Dunlap et al. is teach the fiber being biodegradable, but is silent regarding the claimed properties. However, Dunlap et al. teaches such a similar fiber made of such similar materials but such a similar process with such similar sizes and crimps per inch, the claimed biodegradability and properties are necessarily present to the fiber of Dunlap et al. However, given the previous combination teach such similar finer made of such similar materials with such similar properties and coatings in such similar amounts as presently claimed of such similar materials, the claimed properties would be inherent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 call Examiner at 571-272-6116.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights