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 on May 27, 2026. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on May 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 16-21 have been cancelled. Claims 22, 29, and 30 have been amended. Claims 31 and 32 have been added. As such, Claims 22-26 and 28-32 are currently pending in the application.
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 22-26, 28, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0226150 to Aydin et al. (“Aydin”) in view of International Application Publication No. 2019/152638 to Salam et al. (“Salam”), and optionally in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0021553 to Saas et al. (“Saas”).
With regard to Claims 22, 24, 26, and 29, Aydin discloses a bio-based polyelectrolyte complex composition suitable for use as a binder in fibrous nonwoven materials. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Aydin teaches that the binder composition is an aqueous composition because the solvent used is water. Paragraphs [0025] and [0031]. Aydin teaches that the fibers forming the nonwoven fabrics can by synthetic fibers, such as polylactic acid-based fibers, paragraph [0095], or be plant-based fibers, such as cellulose or pulp. Paragraph [0096]. Aydin discloses that the binder composition can comprise a cellulose derivative, such as carboxymethylcellulose. Paragraph [0027]. However, Aydin does not disclose the degree of substitution for the carboxymethylcellulose. Salam discloses an aqueous cellulosic binder comprising carboxymethylcellulose, which is used to bind a nonwoven fabric. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Salam also discloses that the fiber web can comprise plant-based fibers, such as cellulosic fibers, or synthetic fibers, such as polylactic acid. Paragraphs [0027] and [0116]. Salam discloses that the aqueous binder composition has an acidic pH. Paragraph [0075]. Salam teaches that the “properties (e.g., solubility, viscosity) of the CMC are dependent upon the length of the polymeric chain, as well as upon the degree of substitution. Generally, CMC is commercially available with a degree of substitution of from about 0.3 to about 2, most commonly from about 0.6 to about 0.9. As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, and with the help of this disclosure, and without wishing to be limited by theory, the pKa of CMC depends on the degree of substitution, and for the most commonly available CMC (e.g., degree of substitution from about 0.6 to about 0.9), the pKa is about 4-5.” Paragraph [0040]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide carboxymethylcellulose in the binder composition disclosed by Aydin with a degree of substitution in the range of 0.65 to 1 because Salam teaches that such a range is most common in the carboxymethylcellulose art and provides the CMC with a suitable pKa for use in acidic conditions in the same field of endeavor as a binder composition for fibrous materials. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Aydin discloses that the pH of the aqueous binder composition provided to the nonwoven material is preferably at a value of 1.8 to 4. Paragraph [0029]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. M.P.E.P. 2144.05. With regard to the pH of the nonwoven material, itself, Table 2 of Applicant’s Specification shows a correlation between aqueous solution pH and nonwoven fabric pH (spray solution pH values shown below are within the preferred pH range taught by Aydin, but higher pH spray solution values are within the purview of Aydin).
Ref
pH spray solution
Avg pH nonwoven fabric
9.1
2.5
3.07
10.1
2.5
3.34
9.2
3.0
3.66
10.2
3.0
3.77
9.3
3.5
3.95
10.3
3.5
4.33
It can be appreciated that the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily expect that applying a spray solution have a pH in the range of 3.0 to 4.0, which is within the preferred range disclosed by Aydin, would tend to result in the nonwoven fabric having pH that falls within the claimed range of 3.5 to 5.5. Although an exact mirroring of values is not present, such a standard is not required when a correlation is quite clear. “The hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” M.P.E.P. 2141.03. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. M.P.E.P. 2144.05. In the alternative, Saas is also related to fibrous products comprising an adhesive binder. See, e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0082], entire document. Saas teaches that “[t]he current pH level of tissue paper products is hence between 6.5 and 8.5 whereas the pH of healthy skin lies in the range between 4.5 and 6.0.” Paragraph [0006]. Saas concludes that a suitable pH for the tissue products should be in the range of 3.5 to 6.0. Paragraph [0020]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the fibrous product taught by the combination of Aydin with Salam with pH in the range of 3.5 to 5.5 in order to provide the product with better compatibility with skin, as shown to be known by Saas.
Aydin further discloses that the binder composition can include a monocarboxylic acid, such as lactic acid or salicylic acid. Paragraph [0029]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a monocarboxylic acid to the binder composition disclosed by Aydin, since Aydin lists monocarboxylic acid materials as viable options for their composition, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960). With regard to Claim 23, Aydin, alone, or combined with Salam or Saas, does not report the wet maximum tensile strength in the machine direction and cross direction of the nonwoven fabric, as measured by a tensile tester according to NWSP 110.4R0. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that the wet maximum tensile strength in the machine direction and cross direction is at least 110 N/m in the nonwoven fabric disclosed by Aydin or the combination of references. Support for the presumption is found because Aydin discloses using similar materials, i.e. a nonwoven fabric constructed from plant-based fiber bonded together with a bio-based adhesive, formed from similar processes, i.e., airlaying the fibers to form the nonwoven fabric then consolidating the fibers with the adhesive by spray bonding, in order to make similar end-use products, i.e. a nonwoven fabrics. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). Even if not inherent, Salam teaches that strengthening agents can be utilized to improve the tensile strength of the material, without any undue burden, rendering the adjustments of wet tensile strength obvious by inclusion of the strengthening agent. Salam discloses “an increased amount of wet strength agent leads to an increased number of chemical bonds.” Paragraph [0182]. If the person having ordinary skill in the art desired to increase wet maximum tensile strength in the machine- and/or cross-machine directions, then such a feat can simply be accomplished by adding the wet tensile strength agent. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to increase the amount of strengthening agent provided to the nonwoven fabric taught by Aydin in order to increase CD wet strength and MD dry strength to the desired level, since Salam teaches that the amount strengthening agent is a result effective variable affecting the wet strength properties of the fabric, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980). With regard to Claim 25, Aydin teaches that the nonwoven fabric can be formed from an airlaying process. Paragraph [0221]. With regard to Claim 28, Aydin, alone, or combined with Salam or Saas, does not report the wet elongation in the machine direction and cross direction of the nonwoven fabric, as measured by a tensile tester according to NWSP 110.4R0. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that the wet elongation in the machine direction and cross direction is at least 6% in the nonwoven fabric disclosed by Aydin or the combination of references. Support for the presumption is found because Aydin discloses using similar materials, i.e. a nonwoven fabric constructed from plant-based fiber bonded together with a bio-based adhesive, formed from similar processes, i.e., airlaying the fibers to form the nonwoven fabric then consolidating the fibers with the adhesive by spray bonding, in order to make similar end-use products, i.e. a nonwoven fabrics. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). With regard to Claim 31, Aydin, alone, or combined with Salam or Saas, does not report the mean wet tensile strength of the nonwoven fabric to be at least 92 N/m. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that the mean wet tensile strength of the nonwoven fabric disclosed by Aydin or the combination of references is at least 92 N/m. Support for the presumption is found because Aydin discloses using similar materials, i.e. a nonwoven fabric constructed from plant-based fiber bonded together with a bio-based adhesive, formed from similar processes, i.e., airlaying the fibers to form the nonwoven fabric then consolidating the fibers with the adhesive by spray bonding, in order to make similar end-use products, i.e. a nonwoven fabrics. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). Even if not inherent, Salam teaches that strengthening agents can be utilized to improve the tensile strength of the material, without any undue burden, rendering the adjustments of wet tensile strength obvious by inclusion of the strengthening agent. Salam discloses “an increased amount of wet strength agent leads to an increased number of chemical bonds.” Paragraph [0182]. If the person having ordinary skill in the art desired to increase the wet mean tensile strength, then such a feat can simply be accomplished by adding the wet tensile strength agent. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to increase the wet mean tensile strength to the desired level, since Salam teaches that the amount strengthening agent is a result effective variable affecting the wet strength properties of the fabric, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aydin alone, or alternatively, over Aydin in view of Salam.
With regard to Claim 32, Aydin discloses a bio-based polyelectrolyte complex composition suitable for use as a binder in fibrous nonwoven materials. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Aydin teaches that the binder composition is an aqueous composition because the solvent used is water. Paragraphs [0025] and [0031]. Aydin teaches that the fibers forming the nonwoven fabrics can by synthetic fibers, such as polylactic acid-based fibers, paragraph [0095], or be plant-based fibers, such as cellulose or pulp. Paragraph [0096]. Aydin discloses that the binder composition can comprise a cellulose derivative, such as carboxymethylcellulose. Paragraph [0027]. Aydin discloses that the pH of the aqueous binder composition provided to the nonwoven material is preferably at a value of 1.8 to 4. Paragraph [0029]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. M.P.E.P. 2144.05. Aydin does not report the mean wet tensile strength of the nonwoven fabric to be at least 92 N/m. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that the mean wet tensile strength of the nonwoven fabric disclosed by Aydin is at least 92 N/m. Support for the presumption is found because Aydin discloses using similar materials, i.e. a nonwoven fabric constructed from plant-based fiber bonded together with a bio-based adhesive, formed from similar processes, i.e., airlaying the fibers to form the nonwoven fabric then consolidating the fibers with the adhesive by spray bonding, in order to make similar end-use products, i.e. a nonwoven fabrics. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). Even if not inherent, Salam teaches that strengthening agents can be utilized to improve the tensile strength of the material, without any undue burden, rendering the adjustments of wet tensile strength obvious by inclusion of the strengthening agent. Salam discloses “an increased amount of wet strength agent leads to an increased number of chemical bonds.” Paragraph [0182]. If the person having ordinary skill in the art desired to increase the wet mean tensile strength, then such a feat can simply be accomplished by adding the wet tensile strength agent. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to increase the wet mean tensile strength to the desired level, since Salam teaches that the amount strengthening agent is a result effective variable affecting the wet strength properties of the fabric, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Figure 3 and Figure 4 of the present application illustrate that using aqueous solution pH values between 3 and 4.5 have optimal results in terms of wet strength. The Examiner disagrees. First, it is noted that if the Applicant intends to rely on examples in the Specification to show non-obviousness, the Applicant should clearly state how the examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the comparative examples are commensurate in scope with the prior art. In this instance, the results shown in Figures 3 and 4 of the present application are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Examples 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11.2, 11.3, and 11.4 each only utilize the specific ingredients of carboxymethyl cellulose combined with lactic acid. However, Applicant’s Claim 22 covers a much broader range of ingredients, such as the broader class of “bio-based binder” and the broader class of “monocarboxylic acid.” Examples 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11.2, 11.3, and 11.4 each only utilize cellulose fibers derived from wood. However, Applicant’s Claim 22 covers a much broader class of plant-based fibers. As such, Claim 22 is not commensurate in scope with Applicant’s examples. Additionally, although Applicant argues that Aydin teaches a much broader range of pH being less than 7, this argument is overcome by Aydin’s disclosure of a preferred pH range of 1.8-4. Paragraph [0029]. Aydin actually directs the person having ordinary skill in the art to the pH values that are claimed. As such, the comparative examples cited by Applicant are not commensurate in scope with the applied prior art. Second, Applicant has not overcome the allegation of inherency of the tensile strength to the prior art references. Third, the Office has alleged that even if not inherent, that Salam teaches that strengthening agents can be utilized to improve the tensile strength of the material, without any undue burden, rendering the adjustments of wet tensile strength obvious by inclusion of the strengthening agent. Salam discloses “an increased amount of wet strength agent leads to an increased number of chemical bonds.” Paragraph [0182]. If the person having ordinary skill in the art desired to increase the wet mean tensile strength, then such a feat can simply be accomplished by adding the wet tensile strength agent.
Applicant argues that Aydin teaches a much broader pH range of less than 7, compared to the range required by the claims of 3.0 to 4.5. The Examiner disagrees. Aydin teaches that the preferred pH range of the aqueous composition 1.8-4. Paragraph [0029]. Moreover, even if not inherent to Aydin, Salam teaches that strengthening agents can be utilized to improve the tensile strength of the material, without any undue burden, rendering the adjustments of wet tensile strength obvious by inclusion of the strengthening agent. Providing an increase in strength is an obvious modification, simply by adding a wet strength agent, without any inventive or undue burden.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. McConnell can be reached at 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights