DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 9/17/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 25, and 30 have been elected. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 25, and 30-36 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.
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 18 is 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.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, and 30 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)”.
For claim 2, CHEN teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. 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 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 claim1, 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, for example sequins, beads, cord, applique and lace; 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”.
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 claim1, 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
Any inquiry concerning this or earlier communications from the examiner can be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL at (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 collaboration tool. For an interview, applicant can 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