DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 4/14/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 25, and 30 have been elected. Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, and 18 are amended. Claims 2, 6, 10, 13-16, 19, 21-24, and 26-36 are cancelled. Claims 37 and 38 are added. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 25, 37 and 38 are pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 25, and 30, in the reply filed on September 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the amendment of claim 18 overcomes prior indefiniteness rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 4/14/2026, with respect to claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of 1/15/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that prior art CHEN fails to teach the step i) of the instant claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that CHEN teaches the application of plasticizers with the language of “may be included”. This does not denote teaching away or suggest barring plasticizer use. Further the Examiner notes the order of addition of components to solution hold no weight in the final solution structure unless a chemical reaction is to occur in reaction. No such reaction is claimed or described.
Regarding the application method of spraying, CHEN teaches the base sheet is wet laid and formation method may vary depending on the application of the final sheet [0073]. CHEN teaches the fiber contained in the viscous material can be applied by spray [0110]. CHEN further teaches the viscous material is fibrillated during spraying creating fibrils [0111]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the layer of the dispersion in step i) is applied by spraying”.
Applicant argues that CHEN does not teach the separate fibers of ii) in instant claim 1.
CHEN teaches two distinct fibers a general cellulose fiber and a synthetic fiber [0061]. CHEN teaches the web fibers can have an average fiber length of less than 5mm [0142]. The examiner notes this range includes configurations where the original bacterial cellulose fiber has an average fiber length of 1.5mm and the synthetic fiber has an average fiber length of 15 mm.
Applicant argues that additional prior art does not remedy the deficiencies of CHEN.
The examiner notes the response to arguments above. CHEN teaches the amended claim 1 and the dependent claims thereof.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 25, 30, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US 20040123963 A1).
For claim 1, CHEN teaches a method and product that include a non-woven textile [ABSTRACT]. CHEN teaches the use of multiple fibers [0023 AND 0060] in a slurry that is applied onto a substrate (wire or felt) [0073]. CHEN teaches one of the fibers used is a bacterial fiber [0060]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for producing a non-woven textile (100), wherein said method comprises the following steps: i) applying a layer of a dispersion comprising dispersion medium and biobased first fibers (110) on a support, wherein the biobased first fibers (110) are fibers derived from a micro-organism cultured in a liquid culture medium”. CHEN teaches the addition of plasticizer to solution [0133]. This teaches the limitation of “and wherein, prior to said applying, a plasticizer has been added to the dispersion”. CHEN teaches second synthetic fibers are dispersed onto the layer as binder or on top of the layer [0079]. This teaches the limitation of “ii) depositing reinforcing second fibers (120) on the layer of the dispersion, wherein the reinforcing second fibers (120) are separate fibers which are not part of a fabric”. CHEN teaches the average fiber length of the synthetic fibers can be 15mm or greater [0141]. CHEN also teaches the web fibers can have an average fiber length of less than 5mm [0142]. The examiner notes this range includes configurations where the original bacterial cellulose fiber has an average fiber length of 1.5mm and the synthetic fiber has an average fiber length of 15 mm. This teaches the limitation of “and wherein the second fibers have an average length that is at least 10× larger than the average length of the first fibers”. CHEN also teaches the furnish is dewatered to make a web [0073]. This teaches the limitation of “and iii) eliminating the dispersion medium to form the non-woven textile (100) comprising a web of biobased first fibers (110)”.
Regarding the application method, CHEN teaches the base sheet is wet laid and formation method may vary depending on the application of the final sheet [0073]. CHEN teaches the fiber furnish can also be air formed (sprayed with air medium) [0076]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the layer of the dispersion in step i) is applied by spraying”.
For claim 3, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches the web is removed from the forming surface [0074]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising removing the non-woven textile from the support”.
For claim 7, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches that bacteria cellulose [0060] is mixed into water (medium) [0073] and dried [0073]. CHEN teaches additional layers can be applied on top of the formed sheet through a stratified headbox [0079]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein step i) is preceded by a step comprising - supplying a dispersion of biobased first fibers (110), said first fibers (110) being dispersed in a dispersion medium, and - eliminating at least part of said dispersion medium so as to form a web on the support which step is performed at least once, and step i) comprises applying the layer of dispersion onto the web”.
For claim 8, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches that bacteria cellulose [0060] is mixed into water (medium) [0073] and dried [0073]. CHEN teaches additional layers can be applied on top of the formed sheet through a stratified headbox [0079]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the method further comprises between steps ii) and iii) a step of applying a further layer of a further dispersion on top of the layer of the dispersion, said further dispersion comprising further dispersion medium and biobased third fibers”.
For claim 9, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches the use of bacteria cellulose [0060]. The examiner understands bacteria cellulose is formed from culture. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the biobased first fibers (110) are in the form of a biological material chosen from: fungal mycelium, yeast, algae, bacteria, cultured animal or plant cells, fibers derived from animal and/or plant cells cultured in a liquid culture medium”.
For claim 11 CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches the use of synthetic secondary fibers [0061]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the second fibers (120) are selected from natural fibers, regenerated fibers, recycled fibers, synthetic fibers, or any combination thereof, or wherein the second fibers (120) are hydrophilic”.
For claim 12, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches printing fiber onto moist web [0088]. CHEN further teaches the moisture content at that stage is from 5 to 50% [0088]. CHEN also teaches the bacteria cellulose is present by at least 50% (equivalent to 25% of the dispersion) [0060]. This range is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the concentration of first fibers in the dispersion is at least 0.1% w/v, at least 5% w/v, at least 10% w/v, or at least 15% w/v”. See MPEP 2144.05(I)
For claim 17, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN also teaches the addition of oil plasticizer [0133]. The examiner understands oil would be immiscible in the aqueous dispersion making droplets when integrated. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the dispersion further comprises oil droplets”.
For claim 18, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches the use application of additional components like shaped hook components [0084]. CHEN does not teach the addition of the listed components. HAMILTON teaches a similar composite made of multiple fibers and plasticizer [0160]. HAMILTON also teaches the use of macro beads within the addition of nit materials (secondary fiber) [0229]. HAMILTON makes no mention of glue or adhesive in the addition of the macro beads. This teaches the limitation of ”wherein the method comprises a step of applying and adhering at least one component to the web; wherein said at least one component is selected from the group of led-lighting, sensors, RFID tags or NFC chips, or embellishments; and wherein said at least one component is embedded in the non-woven textile without gluing or sewing the component to the non-woven textile”. The examiner understands the optional language of “or” allows the use of one option to satisfy the requirements of the entire claim limitation. HAMILTON teaches the macro beads allows for the addition of additive particles within layers [0229]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the macro beads of HAMILTON in for the additive methods of CHEN to produce a similar product. One would be motivated based on the added benefit of the addition of additive particles within layers as taught by HAMILTON.
For claim 20, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches the addition of fiber by viscous material [0013]. The viscous material is water-free [0124]. CHEN also teaches the viscous material is used to carry pigments [0146]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the method further comprises a dyeing step, wherein dye or pigment is co- applied with at least one chosen from the first and second fibers, and wherein no liquid other than the dispersion is used to apply the dye and/or pigment”.
For claim 25, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches the use of a wire surface [0073]. The examiner understands one skilled in the art understands a wire surface is woven and not smooth. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the support has a three-dimensional non-flat surface”.
For claim 30, CHEN teaches the method and material that produces a multilayer web as above. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “Non-woven textile (100), wherein said non-woven textile (100) is obtained by a method according to claim1”.
For claim 37, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches the fiber contained in the viscous material can be applied onto the base sheet by spraying [0099 and 0110]. CHEN further teaches the viscous material is fibrillated during spraying creating fibrils [0111]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein in step ii) the second fibers are added by flocking, air laying, fiber spinning or electrospinning”.
For claim 38, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches the fibers of the instant claim can include bacteria based cellulose [0060]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the biobased first fibers are in the form of a biological material chosen from: bacteria”.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US 20040123963 A1) in view of HAMILTON (US 20040054331 A1).
For claim 4, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. CHEN teaches the use of plasticizer but does not specify the chemical makeup of the plasticizer used [0156]. HAMILTON teaches a similar composite made of multiple fibers and plasticizer [0160]. HAMILTON teaches that plasticizers are polyols [0160]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the plasticizer is a sugar alcohol, a polyol, polyolester and/or an alpha hydroxy acid, or a combination thereof, or wherein said plasticizer comprises one or more of glycols, glyceryl triacetate, polymeric polyols, quillaia, honey, molasses, aloe vera, castor oil, glycerides, triglycerides and other mineral or organic oil”. The examiner understands the optional language of “or” allows the use of one option to satisfy the requirements of the entire claim limitation. HAMILTON teaches the advantage of conditioners in the furnish is improved free flowing properties of the particles used in formation [0150]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the polyol plasticizer of HAMILTON in for the plasticizer of CHEN to produce a similar product. One would be motivated based on the added benefit of improved free flowing properties of the particles used in formation as taught by HAMILTON.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (US 20040123963 A1) and HAMILTON (US 20040054331 A1) in view of RIEBEL (US 20060155012 A1).
For claim 5, CHEN and HAMILTON teach the method according to claim 4, as above. CHEN and HAMILTON do not teach the use of sorbitol and citric acid. RIEBEL teaches a similar sheet manufacturing process that includes plasticizer [0061]. RIEBEL teaches the use of sorbitol and citric acid in combination as plasticizer [0061]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the plasticizer comprises a combination of sorbitol and citric acid”. RIEBEL teaches the plasticizer used are well known combinations [0061]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the sorbitol and citric acid combined plasticizer of RIEBEL in for the plasticizer of HAMILTON to produce a similar product. One would be motivated based on the added benefit of a well-known combinations of sorbitol and citric acid as taught by RIEBEL.
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 STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 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 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights