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 .
Amendments to claims 1 and 3 and the cancellation of claim 4, in the response filed August 11, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention.
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 1-3 and 5-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the composite nonwoven fabric has a peel strength between the silk region and the synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region of from 0.5N to 2.0 N.” However, at least one silk region and at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric regions are claimed. It is unclear if the referenced peel strength is required for the at least one silk region and the at least one nonwoven fabric region, encompasses multiple regions if present, or limits one of the at least one silk region and one of the at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region. Additionally, the claim recites the limitation “wherein: at least one silk region and at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region are arranged in a thickness direction of the composite nonwoven fabric.” At least one silk region comprising crimp silk fibers as a main component and at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region comprising polyolefin resin-containing synthetic fiber as a main component is previously recited. It is unclear if the latter recited at least one silk region and at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region arranged in a thickness direction is the same or different from the initially claimed at least one silk region comprising crimp silk fibers as a main component and at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region comprising polyolefin resin-containing synthetic fiber as a main component. If the same, the amendment “wherein: the at least one silk region and the at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region are arranged in a thickness direction of the composite nonwoven fabric” would capture this interpretation.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2010/0249741 to Fingal in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0057346 to Nunn and JP 2006-207069 to Nakagawa.
NOTE: The English machine translation of JP 2006-207069 is being used for prior art application..
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10, Fingal teaches a nonwoven material comprising at least two layers integrated into each other, including a second layer (silk region) comprising staple fibers, such as silk fibers (silk fibers as a main component), and a first layer including spunlaid filament (synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region), such as polyolefin including polypropylene (polyolefin resin-containing synthetic fibers as a main component, specifically polypropylene, claim 8) (Fingal, abstract, Fig. 1, para 0007-0017, 0023-0024). Fingal teaches the first layer of spunlaid being formed then the staple fiber air-laid, wet-laid or foam-formed on top of the first layer (Id., Fig. 1, para 0018), reading on at least one silk region and at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region are arranged in a thickness direction of the composite nonwoven fabric. Fingal teaches the use of crimped fibers (Id., para 0013-0015, 0004). Fingal teaches the filaments having a thickness greater than or equal to 2.5 dtex and a staple fiber having a thickness of less than or equal to 1.5 dtex for (Id., abstract, para 0007). Fingal teaches the layers being hydroentangled (Id., para 0018).
Fingal teaches the staple fibers constituting 10-40% by weight of the material (Fingal, para 0026), reading on a content ratio of the silk fiber with respect to a total mass of the composite nonwoven fabric being from 10% by mass to 40% by mass. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 40% to 70% by mass, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the weight percentage of the staple silk fibers, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
While Fingal does not explicitly teach the silk fiber being crimped silk fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven material, wherein the staple silk fibers are crimped, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known fiber subjected to disclosed treatment options. Additionally, Nunn teaches the use of crimped fibers can provide more strength than straight fibers (Nunn, para 0018). Additionally, Nakagawa teaches a silk nonwoven fabric comprising crimp silk fiber suitable for use in sanitary goods such as diapers, masks, surgical clothes and medical products (Nakagawa, abstract, p. 1-2). Nakagawa teaches the silk fibers having 8 to 22 crimps per 25 mm that ensure entanglement between the fiber is ensured even in high-speed processing with no fluffing and deterioration of the product quality can be suppressed (Id., p. 3). Nakagawa teaches a nonwoven fabric using silk fiber having the unique gloss and texture of silk is fully utilized (Id., p. 4-5). Nakagawa teaches the nonwoven fabric having a thickness of 0.15 mm to 1 mm and a basis weight of 15 to 100 g/m2, more preferably 20 to 40 g/m2 (Id., p. 5). Nakagawa teaches the tensile strength of the silk nonwoven fabric being 0.3 kgf/5 cm or more (2.94 N/ 50 mm) and 15 kgf/5 cm or less (147 N/50 mm) (claim 6-7) (Id., p. 5). Nakagawa teaches using hydroentanglement to provide a nonwoven fabric having sufficient strength and high flexibility (Id., p. 5). Nakagawa teaches a nonwoven laminate comprising the silk fibers that is hydroentangled together (spunlaced) (Id., p. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven material of Fingal, wherein the second layer comprises the crimped silk fiber of Nakagawa, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known silk fiber nonwoven material predictably suitable for use in sanitary products, to ensure entanglement even in high-speed processing with no fluffing and deterioration of the product quality, impart gloss and texture of silk, and to provide more strength than straight fiber by using crimped fiber as taught by Nunn.
Regarding the claimed peel strength being from 0.5 N to 2.0 N, although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a crimped silk fiber nonwoven layer hydroentangled to a spunlaid layer of polypropylene fibers having a basis weight within the claimed range, wherein the crimped silk fibers have 8 to 22 crimps per 25 mm to ensure entanglement between the fiber. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination the prior art combination teaches the nonwoven having a surface weight of 20-50 g/m2 (Fingal, para 0026). Nakagawa teaches the nonwoven fabric of crimped silk fibers having a thickness of 0.15 mm to 1 mm and a basis weight of 15 to 100 g/m2, more preferably 20 to 40 g/m2 (Nakagawa, p. 5). While the prior art combination does not explicitly teach the thickness of the nonwoven material comprising the second layer of silk fibers and first layer including spunlaid filament, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven wherein the material has a thickness between 0.15 mm to 1 mm as taught by Nakagawa, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known thickness for nonwoven fabric predictably suitable for use in sanitary application such as diaper and known for basis weight within the disclosed range of Fingal.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination teaches the nonwoven having a surface weight of 20-50 g/m2 (Fingal, para 0026).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the layers being hydroentangled and free of binders (Fingal, para 0018, 0043-0048), reading on a spunlace nonwoven fabric.
Regarding claims 6-7 and the claimed tensile strength in a machine direction and a direction perpendicular to the machine direction in plan view, although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a crimped silk fiber nonwoven layer hydroentangled to a spunlaid layer of polypropylene fibers having a basis weighr within the claimed range. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the strength of the nonwoven, such as within the claimed range, based on the desire properties needed based on the desired end use by adjust the fiber composition and bonding. Nakagawa establishes it is known to form a tensile strength within the claimed range for the silk fiber nonwoven, therefore there is a reasonable expectation of success, and desire to achieve a high strength in a similar application.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches the filaments being treated by crimping (Fingal, para 0013), reading on the synthetic fiber comprising crimped fibers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fingal in view of Nunn and Nakagawa, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 above, as evidenced by Materials, Design, and Manufacturing for Lightweight Vehicles to Mallick.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the filament having a thickness greater than or equal to 2.5 dtex (Fingal, para 0017). Polypropylene is known in the art to have a density of 0.9 g/cm3, as evidenced by Mallick (Mallick, Table 5.3), equating to an average fiber diameter of greater than or equal to 19.8 microns. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 10 micro to 30 micron, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the linear density, and therefore the fiber diameter, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fingal in view of Nunn and Nakagawa, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0319408 to Uchimoto.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches the nonwoven being attached to a bottom sheet that is a nonwoven laminate produced from spunbonded and meltblown layers (Fingal para 0030-0031), reading on a synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region derived from a SM nonwoven fabric and encompasses multiple spunbond and/or meltblown layers. Fingal teaches the nonwoven being a top sheet, such as used in a diaper, as well as sanitary napkins (Id., para 0027-0030).
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach two spunbond nonwoven fabric as outermost layers and at least one melt-blown nonwoven fabric arranged between the two spunbond nonwoven fabrics.
However, Uchimoto teaches an absorbent product, such as diaper, comprising a top sheet that can comprising silk fibers in conjunction with polypropylene fibers and a back sheet comprising a SMS nonwoven fabric of synthetic hydrophobic fibers, such as polypropylene (Uchimoto, abstract, para 0037-0041, 0024, 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven material of the prior art combination, wherein the attached nonwoven laminate is the SMS laminate of Uchimoto, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known nonwoven laminate containing meltblown and spunbond layers predictably suitable for use in sanitary products such as diapers.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0356109 to Goenka in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0057346 to Nunn and JP 2006-207069 to Nakagawa.
NOTE: The English machine translation of JP 2006-207069 is being used for prior art application.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10, Goenka teaches a composite web comprising a web of chemical free natural staple fibers, including silk (at least one silk region that comprising silk fibers as a main component) and a web of man-made continuous filament yarns, including polypropylene (claim 8), (at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region that comprising polyolefin resin-containing synthetic fibers as a main component) such that a first side of the composite web composes the chemical free natural fiber and an opposite side of the composite web has the man-made continuous filament yarns (Goenka, abstract, para 0006-0007), reading on at least one silk region and at least one synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region are arranged in a thickness direction of the composite nonwoven fabric. Goenka teaches the composite web weight between about 20 gsm and about 40 gsm (claim 3) and the web of natural fiber weighing at least about 10 gsm and the web of man-made continuous filament synthetic yarn weight at least about 10 gsm (Id., para 0008), reading on the natural fiber, specifically silk, being about 25 to 75% by weight of the composite, specifically about 50% by weight at the low end of the taught composite web weight. Goenka teaches the web being hydroentangled (Id., para 0033). Geo teaches the staple fibers having a denier between about 0.7 and 4 and a length of about 12 mm to about 48 mm (Id., para 0030). Geo teaches used as a top sheet for an absorbent personal care product (Id., para 0029).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 40% to 70% by mass, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the weight percentage of the staple silk fibers, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Geo does not teaches the silk fiber being crimped silk fibers.
However, Nunn teaches the use of crimped fibers can provide more strength than straight fibers (Nunn, para 0018). Additionally, Nakagawa teaches a silk nonwoven fabric comprising crimp silk fiber suitable for use in sanitary goods such as diapers, masks, surgical clothes and medical products (Nakagawa, abstract, p. 1-2). Nakagawa teaches the silk fibers having 8 to 22 crimps per 25 mm that ensure entanglement between the fiber is ensured even in high-speed processing with no fluffing and deterioration of the product quality can be suppressed (Id., p. 3). Nakagawa teaches a nonwoven fabric using silk fiber having the unique gloss and texture of silk is fully utilized (Id., p. 4-5). Nakagawa teaches the nonwoven fabric having a thickness of 0.15 mm to 1 mm and a basis weight of 15 to 100 g/m2, more preferably 20 to 40 g/m2 (Id., p. 5). Nakagawa teaches the tensile strength of the silk nonwoven fabric being 0.3 kgf/5 cm or more (2.94 N/ 50 mm) and 15 kgf/5 cm or less (147 N/50 mm) (claim 6-7) (Id., p. 5). Nakagawa teaches using hydroentanglement to provide a nonwoven fabric having sufficient strength and high flexibility (Id., p. 5). Nakagawa teaches a nonwoven laminate comprising the silk fibers that is hydroentangled together (spunlaced) (Id., p. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite web of Geo, wherein the silk fiber are crimped silk fiber as taught by Nakagawa, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known silk fiber nonwoven material predictably suitable for use in sanitary products, to ensure entanglement even in high-speed processing with no fluffing and deterioration of the product quality, impart gloss and texture of silk, and to provide more strength than straight fiber by using crimped fiber as taught by Nakagawa and Nunn.
Regarding the claimed peel strength being from 0.5 N to 2.0 N, although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a crimped silk fiber nonwoven layer hydroentangled to a spunlaid layer of polypropylene fibers having a basis weight within the claimed range, wherein the crimped silk fibers have 8 to 22 crimps per 25 mm to ensure entanglement between the fiber. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches the composite web weight between about 20 gsm and about 40 gsm (Geo, para 0008). Nakagawa teaches the nonwoven fabric of crimped silk fibers having a thickness of 0.15 mm to 1 mm and a basis weight of 15 to 100 g/m2, more preferably 20 to 40 g/m2 (Nakagawa, p. 5). While the prior art combination does not explicitly teach the thickness of the nonwoven material comprising the second layer of silk fibers and first layer including spunlaid filament, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven wherein the material has a thickness between 0.15 mm to 1 mm as taught by Nakagawa, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known thickness for nonwoven fabric predictably suitable for use in sanitary application such as diaper and known for basis weight within the disclosed range of Geo.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the layers being hydroentangled (Geo, abstract), reading on a spunlace nonwoven fabric.
Regarding claims 6-7 and the claimed tensile strength in a machine direction and a direction perpendicular to the machine direction in plan view, although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a crimped silk fiber nonwoven layer hydroentangled to a spunlaid layer of polypropylene fibers having a basis weight within the claimed range. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the strength of the nonwoven, such as within the claimed range, based on the desire properties needed based on the desired end use by adjust the fiber composition and bonding. Nakagawa establishes it is known to form a tensile strength within the claimed range for the silk fiber nonwoven, therefore there is a reasonable expectation of success, and desire to achieve a high strength in a similar application.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches the use of crimped fibers can provide more strength than straight fibers (Nunn, para 0018). While Geo does not explicitly teach the filaments being crimped filaments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composite web of the prior art combination, wherein the continuous filaments are crimped as taught by Nunn, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known filament predictably suitable for use in nonwoven and by the desire to provide more strength than straight fibers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geo in view of Nunn and Nakagawa, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 above, as evidenced by Materials, Design, and Manufacturing for Lightweight Vehicles to Mallick.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the filaments having a thickness of greater than or equal to 2.5 dtex (Geo, para 0007). Polypropylene is known in the art to have a density of 0.9 g/cm3, as evidenced by Mallick (Mallick, Table 5.3), equating to an average fiber diameter of greater than or equal to 18.9 microns. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 10 micro to 30 micron, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the linear density, and therefore the fiber diameter, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geo in view of Nunn and Nakagawa, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0319408 to Uchimoto.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches the composite web being used as a top sheet for an absorbent personal care product (Geo, para 0029). The prior art combination teaches nonwoven being formed by spunbond process or meltblown process (Id., para 0028).
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach two spunbond nonwoven fabric as outermost layers and at least one melt-blown nonwoven fabric arranged between the two spunbond nonwoven fabrics.
However, Uchimoto teaches an absorbent product, such as diaper, comprising a top sheet that can comprising silk fibers in conjunction with polypropylene fibers and a back sheet comprising a SMS nonwoven fabric of synthetic hydrophobic fibers, such as polypropylene (Uchimoto, abstract, para 0037-0041, 0024, 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven material of the prior art combination, wherein the nonwoven filament web is the SMS laminate of Uchimoto, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known nonwoven laminate containing meltblown and spunbond layers predictably suitable for use in sanitary products such as diapers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to the application of Fingal.
Applicant argues that Fingal does not teach a composite nonwoven having a content ratio of silk fibers with respect to a total mass of the composite nonwoven fabric from 40% by mass to 70% by mass and a peel strength between the silk region and the synthetic fiber nonwoven fabric region of from 0.5 N to 2.0 N. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fingal teaches the staple fibers constituting 10-40% by weight of the material (Fingal, para 0026), reading on 10-40% by weight of silk fiber that overlaps with the claimed range of 40%-70% by weight. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Applicant has provided no evidence of unexpected result.
Regarding the claimed peel strength, the peel strength is a property necessarily present, however, the prior art combination is silent with regards to the specific value. Although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a crimped silk fiber nonwoven layer hydroentangled to a spunlaid layer of polypropylene fibers having a basis weight within the claimed range and content of silk fibers overlapping with the claimed range. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejected detailed above based on the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP H11200212 to Aoki teaches a composite nonwoven comprising natural fibers, such as silk, having a very high peel strength.
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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789