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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 29 July 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 23-45 are currently pending in the application. Claims 23-24 and 38-43 are withdrawn.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 25-30, 33, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (US 2016/0073689 A1) in view of Oku et al. (US 5,254,399).
Regarding claims 1, 25-30, 33, and 36-37, Sebastian discloses an oral pouch package that is water permeable and contains a filling material such as tobacco products and the package comprises a non-woven web comprising 20-80% cellulose-based staple fibers and 20-80% binder fibers enclosing a filling material (i.e. a packaging material for a pouched product comprising a saliva-permeable nonwoven material comprising fibers; overlapping 50-100%, 55%-99% of said fibers are cellulose based staple fibers; overlapping at least 10% of a binder; wherein said packaging material is configured to enclose a filling material and, wherein said packaging material is configured for oral use)(abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0009]-[0017]). It would not appear that the temperature of 21 °C and relative humidity of 50% would affect the weight percentages of these materials significantly. Further, these are standard room temperature/humidity and it would be expected that these amounts were measured at these levels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the materials disclosed in any amounts disclosed and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Sebastian does not disclose that the non-woven is wet-laid.
Oku discloses that wet-laid non-woven fabrics provide the advantage good sheet formation and uniformity (C3/L18-22).
Sebastian and Oku are analogous art because they both teach about non-woven materials. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use a wet-laid nonwoven as disclosed by Oku in the packaging material of Sebastian in order to provide the advantage of good sheet formation and uniformity.
Regarding claim 26, given that the binder fibers are thermoplastic fibers, it is the examiner’s position that a portion of the binder fibers, 20% of the 20-80% of fibers, could be considered the binder and the remaining 21-80% could be considered thermoplastic fibers (i.e. overlapping 1%-45% of said fibers are thermoplastic fibers).
Regarding claims 27-28, given that Sebastian does not require anything other than the cellulose fibers and binder fibers, it is the examiner’s position that the fibers consist of said cellulose based fibers and said thermoplastic fibers and the packaging material consists of said cellulose based fibers and said thermoplastic fibers and said binder.
Regarding claim 29, the basis weight of the fibrous web may be 20 to 35 gsm (i.e. overlapping ≥ 25 g/m2)([0059]).
Regarding claim 30, the cellulose fibers may be natural or man-made ([0043], [0047]).
Regarding claim 33, the thermoplastic binder fibers may comprise PLA ([0045]).
Regarding claim 36, the thermoplastic binder fibers may have a melting point of 230°C or less (i.e. overlapping a melting point within the range or 110-260°C)([0045]).
Regarding claim 37, given that nothing is required in the packaging material other than the fibrous web, which may be 20-80% thermoplastic binder fibers, it is the examiner’s position that the binder overlaps 20 to 60% of a total weight of the packaging material.
Claims 31-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (US 2016/0073689 A1) and of Oku et al. (US 5,254,399), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Soyama et al. (US 2015/0004865 A1).
Regarding claims 31-32 and 34-35, modified Sebastian discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sebastian does not disclose that the cellulose-based staple fibers have a linear density ≤ 3.3 decitex, or that the cellulose-based staple fibers have a length within the range of 2-15 mm or that the thermoplastic fibers have a length within the range of 2-15 mm or that the thermoplastic fibers have a linear density ≤ 4.4 decitex.
Soyama discloses a nonwoven fabric comprising fiber lengths from 1 mm to 8 mm and of 0.5 to 5.0 decitex, providing the advantage of good strength, pore diameter and processability (abstract, [0034]).
Sebastian and Soyama are analogous art because they both teach about nonwoven materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the cellulose-based fibers and thermoplastic binding fibers of Sebastian have a length of 1 mm to 8 mm (i.e. overlapping 2-15 mm) and a linear density of 0.5 to 5.0 decitex (i.e. overlapping ≤ 3.3 decitex, ≤ 4.4 decitex) in order to provide the advantage of good strength, pore diameter and processability.
Claims 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (US 2016/0073689 A1) and of Oku et al. (US 5,254,399), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mitchell et al. (US 2010/0272938 A1).
Regarding claims 44-45, modified Sebastian discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sebastian does not disclose that the binder is used for chemical bonding of said non-woven material or that the binder comprises an emulsion formed by polymerization of one or more of vinyl acetate, ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer, acrylic acid, methyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer or ethylacrylate.
Mitchell discloses a packaging comprising a nonwoven sheet that is hydraulically formed and comprises cellulosic fibers and a binder (abstract), in an amount of 0 to 40%, wherein the binder may comprise polyvinyl acetate (i.e. binder is used for chemical bonding of said nonwoven material; wherein the binder comprises an emulsion formed by polymerization of vinyl acetate)([0054]).
Sebastian and Mitchell are analogous art because they both teach about packaging comprising nonwovens comprising cellulosic fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the binder of Mitchell to the packaging material of Sebastian because it is well known in the art to do so and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that wet-laying is a completely different process from dry-laying and are not interchangeable.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive given that Examiner does not argue that wet-laying and dry-laying are the same. To the contrary, Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to use a wet-laid nonwoven as disclosed by Oku in order to provide the advantage of good sheet formation and uniformity. Nothing in Sebastian teaches against using a wet-laid process. Further applicant provides no evidence that one could not use the wet-laid process to make the non-woven of modified Sebastian.
Applicant argues that modified Sebastian does not disclose at least 10% of a binder.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive given that Sebastian discloses 20-80% binder fibers.
Applicant argues that the binder fibers could not be considered the binder.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because there is no recitation in claim 1 that the binder cannot be in fiber form.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the binder is not a fiber) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST M-F.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/JAMES C YAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782