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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 20, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are currently pending in the above identified application.
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 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-20 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 “a cellulose acetate (CA) staple fibers.” It is unclear if a singular cellulose acetate fiber is requires a two or more. In dependent claims, 3-4, a singular CA staple fiber is referenced but appears open to collectively referring to the type of fibers.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the structural staple fiber.” However, claim 1, upon which claim 1 depends, recites structural staple fibers. It is unclear if only singular structural staple fiber of the claimed structural staple fibers (plural) is being limited or intends to limit the structural staple fibers collectively.
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, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 677852 to Celanese.
Regarding claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-19, Celanese teaches a nonwoven batt (claim 8) formed from a fiber mix (blend) comprising 75% by weight 3 inch, 35 denier per fiber cellulose acetate fibers (structural staple fibers having a dpf of 6.0 or more, comprising cellulose acetate staple fiber, claim 7) and 10% by weight of 1.6 inch 3 denier per fiber cellulose acetate fibers (cellulose acetate (CA) staple fibers) (Celanese, abstract, p. 9 line 1- p 10 line 2). Celanese teaches the denier being from 0.5 to 35 (Id., p. 4 lines 5-8). Celanese also teaches the use of a mixture of different denier is advantageous because higher denier per filament fibers provide structural strength as well as opened to the web whereas low denier per filament fiber provide greater surface area for high filtration (Id., p. 4 lines 14-18).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of not more than 2.0 dpf (denier per filament), 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 denier, 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 as well as to provide a greater surface area for higher filtration. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the 3 denier cellulose acetate staples fiber with lower denier cellulose acetate staple fibers, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known denier predictably suitable for use in the invention of Celanese and by the desire to provide greater surface area for high filtration and successfully practice the invention of Celanese base on the totality of the teachings of Celanese.
Regarding claims 1, 11-14, and 16 and the claimed properties of an initial clo value per mm value of at least 0.210 (claim 1), a short-term compression recovery that is equal to, or exceeding, the short-term compressive recovery of a web or batting replacing said fiber blend with 100% of either said staple fibers having a dpf of 3.0 or less or said structural fibers (“Comparative Blend”), as determined according the ASTM D6571-01 Standard Test Method for Determination of Compression Resistance and Recovery Properties of Highloft Nonwoven Fabric Using Static Force Loading method (claim 1), a clo value per mm value at 5 wash cycles of at least 0.16, and/or having a clo per mm value at 10 wash cycles of at least 0.13 (claim 11), a clo value per grams per square meter at 10 wash cycles of at least 0.015 clo/gsm, and/or having a clo value per grams per square meter at 20 wash cycles of at least 0.013 clo/gsm (claim 12), a loss of clo value between 5 and 20 wash cycles of not more than 0.015 clo units (claim 13), loft value at 10 wash cycles of at least 7 mm (claim 14), and short-term compression recovery that 2% higher than the short-term compressive recovery of the Comparative Blend (claim 16), in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose these features, the claimed properties appear to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since Celanese teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Celanese teaches a nonwoven comprising a fiber blend formed of crimped cellulose acetate fiber having a denier, CPI, length, and cross section as claimed and structural cellulose acetate fibers having a denier and length within the claimed range. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 3, Celanese also teaches the use of a mixture of different denier is advantageous because higher denier per filament fibers provide structural strength as well as opened to the web whereas low denier per filament fiber provide greater surface area for high filtration (Celanese, p. 4 lines 14-18). Celanese teaches an embodiment comprising lubricate-free cellulose acetate fibers having a denier of 3 (high static fibers) (Id., p. 4 line 30- p. 5 line 18). Celanese teaches the high static fibers being at least 15% by weight of the fiber, advantageously no more than 50% (Id., p. 3 lines 9-20). While Celanese does not explicitly teach the cellulose acetate fiber having 2 denier or less being 20-60% by weight, it is within the totality of the teaching of Celanese. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Celanese, wherein the amount of the fibers having a low denier, such as 2 or less, is adjusted and varied, such as within the claimed range, based on the desire to influence the amount of surface area available for filter and the strength as well as the desire to practice the invention of Celanese within the totality of the teachings of Celanese.
Regarding claim 4, Celanese teaches the lubricant-free fibers being Y-shape in cross-section to impart increased bulk, having 8 crimps per inch, and the 3dpf cellulose fiber being 1.6 inches (40.6 mm) (Celanese, p. 9 lines 1-p. 10 line 2), reading on the CA staple fiber having a crimp frequency of 8 CPI, Y shaped, and cut length of 40.6 mm.
Regarding claim 5, Celanese teaches the high static fibers comprising polyamide, polyester, and cellulose acetate and the low static fibers comprising inherently hydrophilic material or the same composition as the high static fibers but treated with an anti-static finish (Celanese, p. 4 line 30- p. 5 line 18). Celanese also teaches the use of a mixture of different denier is advantageous because higher denier per filament fibers provide structural strength as well as opened to the web whereas low denier per filament fiber provide greater surface area for high filtration (Celanese, p. 4 lines 14-18). Celanese teaches an embodiment comprising 75% lubricated 35 denier cellulose acetate fibers low static fibers (Id., p. 4 line 30- p. 5 line 18). Celanese teaches the high static fibers being at least 15% by weight of the fiber, advantageously no more than 50% (Id., p. 3 lines 9-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used polyamide or polyester as the 35 denier lubricated fiber, motivated by the desire of using predictably suitable materials disclosed by Celanese suitable for the low static fibers and disclosed suitable alternatives to cellulose. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have optimized the amount of the low static fiber, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to use predictably suitable amounts of the low static fiber based on the teachings of Celanese and the desire to predictably influence the properties of the nonwoven, including the structural strength. 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).
Regarding claim 6, Celanese teaches the fiber preferably being crimped at 6 to 12 crimps per inch and teaches the crimp increase the bulk and aids in interlocking so as to form a stronger and more rigid structure (Celanese, p. 4 lines 19-23). Celanese also teaches the use of non-circular cross-section further increases the bulk and rigidity (Celanese, p. 4 lines 25-29). While Celanese does not explicitly teach a blend of cellulose acetate fibers having a denier of 3 or less and differing in DPF, CPI, or shape, it is within the totality of teachings of Celanese to form such a blend and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to form such as blends based on the teachings of Celanese and the desire to predictably influence interlocking of the fiber, the strength of the resultant nonwoven using the fiber blend, and rigidity of the resultant nonwoven using the fiber blend.
Regarding claim 10, Celanese teaches the thickness being only slightly less than 5/8 inch (slight less than 15.8 mm) (Celanese, p. 9 lines 1-p. 10 line 2). Celanese teaches nonwoven batt can be made directly of any thickness (Celanese, p. 8 lines 24-30). Celanese teaches a filter thickness of 5/8 inch (Id., p. 8 lines 11-13) and teaches the nonwoven batt being used as stuffing in mattress, cushion, etc. (Id., p. 8 lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven, wherein the thickness (initial loft) is selected, such as within the claimed, based on the desired application of the nonwoven.
Regarding claim 17, Celanese teaches the cellulose acetate having an acetyl value of about 55% by weight (Celanese, p. 5 lines 5-12). While Celanese does not explicitly state that the cellulose acetate fibers are biodegradable, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose these features, the claimed property is deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Celanese teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Celanese teaches a fiber formed of cellulose acetate with an acetyl value of about 55%. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 18, Celanese teaches the nonwoven batt being used as stuffing in mattress, cushion, etc. as well as in any application requiring a lofty, resilient nonwoven structure (Celanese, p. 8 lines 24-30), reading on an article, specifically a mattress or cushion, comprising the nonwoven batting.
Regarding claim 19, Celanese teaches the nonwoven batt being formed using a Rando-Feeder and Rando-Webber and using air blowing (Celanese, p. 5 lines 19-24, p. 7 lines 11-26), reading on the nonwoven web that is air-laid. Examiner would also like to note that the limitation “air-laid” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 677852 to Celanese, as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-19 above, in view of WO 2018/160584 to Eastman.
Regarding claim 17, in the event that cellulose acetate of Celanese is not biodegradable, Eastman teaches staple cellulose acetate fibers that are used to produce nonwoven fabrics that are strong, soft, and biodegradable (Eastman, abstract). Eastman teaches the staple fiber having a denier per filament of less 3.0 and a crimp frequency of less than 22 crimps and has an average tenacity at least 85% of the average tenacity of an identical but uncrimped fiber (Id., para 007-009). Eastman teaches using the cellulose acetate fibers in the nonwoven web in an amount of at least about 200 weight percent and can have a round or Y-shaped cross-sectional shape (Id., para 021, 056). Eastman teaches the nonwoven being used in padding for pillows, upholstery, and mattresses (Id., para 042). Eastman teaches the coated staple fibers exhibiting unexpected and improved properties, such as strength, durability, flexibility, and softness as well as properties that facilitate faster, more efficient, and more uniform process of the fibers into nonwoven webs (Id., para 099). Eastman teaches the cellulose acetate staple fiber being used with one or more additional fibers including polyamide including nylon and polyester, and olefinic polymers such as polypropylene and polyethylene (Id., para 0104-0106). Eastman teaches the staple fibers and nonwoven formed therefrom can be biodegradable (Id., para 0132—0133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Celanese, wherein the cellulose acetate fibers are the cellulose acetate fibers of Eastman, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known cellulose acetate fibers predictably suitable for use in nonwoven used in padding in mattress and cushions and by the desire of imparting biodegradable properties in combination with strength, durability, flexibility, and softness to the nonwoven as well as faster, more efficient processing.
Regarding claim 20, Celanese does not explicitly teach a bale comprising the fiber blend.
However, Eastman teaches that once cut, the staple fibers may be abled or otherwise bagged or packaged for sequent transportation, storage, and/or use (Eastman, para 0068). Eastman teaches the cellulose acetate staple fiber being used with one or more additional fibers including polyamide including nylon and polyester, and olefinic polymers such as polypropylene and polyethylene to form a nonwoven (Id., para 0104-0106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber blend of Celanese, wherein the fibers are in bale, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known fiber blend forms predictably suitable for containing cellulose acetate and by the desire to package for subsequent transportation, storage, and/or use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Celanese, that the claimed dpf range of less than 2.0 for the cellulose acetate (CA) staple fibers is important to enable the inventive fiber blend for use in articles having unexpected results in clo value and loft as shown in Tables 1, 2, and 4 of the specification and argues that claimed range of criticality of the range. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Tables 1, 2, and 4 cited by Applicant only test a single CA denier of 1.8, comparing the effect of cross sectional shape and the embodiments using 1.8 denier to commercially available product with undisclosed fiber dimensions. There is no data related to the denier of the CA staple fiber beside the 1.8 denier examples. There is no data supporting unexpected clo values and loft results attributed to the denier of the CA staple fiber being 2 denier or less. There are not a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. As there is no evidence to support Applicant’s assertion that the claimed denier range of the CA staple fibers is critical, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection detailed above. Examiner would also like to highlight that independent claim 1 does not recite a specific amount of the claimed fiber types.
Additionally, Celanese establishes the benefit of a blend of different fiber deniers and that the denier as a result effective variable with regards to structural strength, web openness, and surface area for filtration. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Conclusion
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