diDETAILED 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 claim amendment submission filed on December 5, 2025 and subsequent Request for Continued Examination filed on December 29, 2025 have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlyle et al. US 2018/0282923 in view of Rosselli et al. US 2024/0309565, Curro et al. US 2002/0039867, and Patel et al. US 2007/0092704 (previously cited on Office Action mailed September 8, 2025).
Regarding Claim 8, Carlyle et al. discloses a tea bag (‘923, Paragraph [0069]). It is known in the food and beverage art that tea bags are used to contain tea. The tea bag comprises a nonwoven cellulose fiber (‘923, Paragraphs [0032] and [0069]) that is a water expandable material (‘923, Paragraphs [0053] and [0165]) that allows a flow of water (‘923, Paragraph [0137]) and blocks the flow of water after being in contact with water for a predetermined period of time (humidity state of the fabric is adjusted to be used as a control parameter for controlling medium retaining and/or medium releasing and/or medium passing or blocking properties of the fabric or parts thereof (‘923, Paragraph [0055]). It is noted that the claim does not specify the particular period of time or the conditions during which the flow or water is blocked. The water expandable material comprises a multilayer structure including a first layer and a second layer (‘923, Paragraphs [0096] and [0098]). The water expandable material has water paths closed and the passage of water is suppressed (humidity state of the fabric is adjusted to be used as a control parameter for controlling medium retaining and/or medium releasing and/or medium passing or blocking properties of the fabric or parts thereof) when the water expandable material is exposed to water and reaches a temperature above a predetermined level (‘923, Paragraph [0055]). It is noted that the claim does not specify the particular predetermined temperature level. The first layer and the second layer are formed of different materials from each other or of a single material (‘923, Paragraph [0127]).
Carlyle et al. discloses the nonwoven cellulose fiber comprising a modifying substance of carbon compounds for electrical conductivity (‘923, Paragraph [0129]). However, Carlyle et al. is silent regarding the water expandable material capable of returning to its original shape.
Rosselli et al. discloses a flexible fabric or fiber based material which reversibly changes with temperature (‘565, Paragraph [0002]), which reads on the material returning to its original shape. The fabric material also comprises carbon nanotube yarns (‘565, Paragraphs [0150] and [0157]).
Both Carlyle et al. and Rosselli et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of flexible fabrics or fiber based material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flexible fabric and fiber based material of Carlyle et al. and construct the fabric material of the tea bag out of a material capable of returning to its original shape as taught by Rosselli et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Rosselli et al. teaches that there was known utility in the textile fabric art to use materials capable of returning to its original shape.
Further regarding Claim 8, Carlyle et al. discloses the fabric containing different layers being formed with anisotropic behavior having different properties and functionalities in the different layers (‘923, Paragraphs [0150] and [0182]). Rosselli et al. discloses the fabric being flexible and stretchable by elastic and/or plastic deformation (‘565, Paragraph [0135]) wherein the fabric changes its shape induced by external mechanical deformation at warm conditions (‘656, Paragraphs [0063]-[0066]). However, Carlyle et al. modified with Rosselli et al. is silent regarding the multilayered structure including a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer and a plastic strain of the first layer being greater than that of the second layer.
Curro et al. discloses a tea bag made from a laminate web (‘867, Paragraph [0136]) comprising a central layer that is more extensible than outer layers which central layer extends either elastically or by plastic deformation but remains generally uniformly distributed in unapertured regions of the web (‘867, Paragraph [0072]), which indicates that the plastic strain of the first layer is greater than that of the second layer. Curro et al. also discloses the multilayer structure comprising at least three layers or plies disposed in a layered face to face relationship (‘867, Paragraph [0043]) wherein each individual layer is made from different materials from one another (‘867, Paragraphs [0043] and [0101]).
Both modified Carlyle et al. and Curro et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of multilayered tea bags comprising multiple layers having different properties from other layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multilayered tea bag of modified Carlyle et al. and construct the first layer to have a plastic strain greater than that of the second layer since Curro et al. teaches that it was known in the tea bag art to construct a multilayered tea bag with a first layer having a plastic strain that is greater than that of the second layer.
Further regarding Claim 8, Carlyle et al. discloses the fibers in the different layers being formed with different average diameter and different functionalities having anisotropic behavior (‘923, Paragraph [0150]) and adjusting the anisotropic alignment of the pores of each individual layer to adjust anisotropic swelling behavior (‘923, Paragraphs [0165] and [0182]) and the crystallinity of the fibers can be adjusted (‘923, Paragraph [0165]). Curro et al. discloses the layers of the laminate web having distinct regions differentiated by fiber orientation (‘867, Paragraph [0083]). However, Carlyle et al. modified with Roselli et al. and Curro et al. is silent regarding the plastic strain of the second layer being greater than that of the third layer wherein the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer are arranged in sequence from an outside of the tea bag toward an inside of the tea bag, i.e. Carlyle et al. modified with Roselli et al. and Curro et al. does not explicitly state that the outer first layer has a greater plastic strain than the intermediate second layer which has a greater plastic strain that the inner third layer.
Patel et al. discloses an article in the form of a bicomponent fiber wherein fibers in which the high crystallinity polymer has been plastically deformed (‘704, Paragraph [0017]) wherein the article is a three layer film laminate (‘704, Paragraphs [0256]-[0257]) wherein the article comprises a low crystallinity layer and a high crystallinity layer wherein the high crystallinity layer is capable of undergoing plastic deformation upon elongation wherein elongation is a uniaxial or biaxial stretching of the article to a degree sufficient to cause plastic deformation of the high crystallinity layer (‘704, Paragraph [0246]) wherein the high crystallinity layer has a level of crystallinity sufficient to permit yield and plastic deformation during elongation which high crystallinity layer is oriented in the machine, cross (transverse), or oblique direction only or in two or more of these directions as detected by microscopy (‘704, Paragraph [0275]). Although Patel et al. does not explicitly teach the multilayered article having the outer first layer has a greater plastic strain than the intermediate second layer which has a greater plastic strain that the inner third layer, Patel et al. discloses having multiple layers with different levels of crystallinity capable of undergoing plastic deformation upon elongation wherein the high crystallinity layer is oriented in various configurations such as in the machine, cross/transverse, or oblique direction only or in two or more of these directions. The primary reference of Carlyle et al. already establishes adjusting the crystallinity of the fibers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multilayered tea bag of modified Carlyle et al. that already recognizes adjusting the properties of each individual layer including the crystallinity of the fibers and adjust the anisotropic plastic strain properties to be in any orientation as taught by Patel et al. since shifting the position of the direction in which the plastic strain of each individual layer of the multilayer laminate is greater than the plastic strain of adjacent individual layers of the multilayer laminate would not have modified the operation of the multilayered tea bag in view of In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C.). Patel et al. discloses that the orientation of the individual layers having greater plastic strain in the form of elevated crystallinity levels in the individual layers are obvious variants of one another.
Further regarding Claim 8, the limitations “by plastic processing” and “having physical properties altered during the plastic processing” are product by process limitations. 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 view of In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2113.I.). Nevertheless, Carlyle et al. discloses the first layer and the second layer having properties altered during processing (‘867, Paragraphs [0051] and [0055]).
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous indefiniteness rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that the previous anticipation rejection of Claim 16 under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn since Claim 16 has been cancelled herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection of Claim 8 under 35 USC 103(a) has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The obviousness rejection relies upon the secondary reference of Patel et al. to render obvious the orientation of the plastic strain levels of each individual layer relative to another individual layer.
Regarding applicant’s allegation on Page 8 of the Remarks that the claimed plastic strain ordering arranged from the outer face of the tea bag toward the inner face discloses a particular gradient and positional arrangement to deliver controlled radial expansion, peel suppression at the outer interface, and puncture resistance at the inner interface during hydration which performance is not obtained from the cited structures lacking the specific three layer identity, the ordered plastic strain relationship, or the outside to inside continuous stacking, Examiner notes that these statements are not supported with any objective evidence to support these allegations. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record in view of In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP § 716.01(c).II.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meier et al. US 2014/0174934 discloses a liquid filter medium (‘934, Paragraph [0105]) comprising a first nonwoven layer (layer 1) and a second nonwoven layer (layer 2) wherein the gradient with regard to the fiber diameter decreases in the direction of the first nonwoven layer (‘934, Paragraph [0075]) wherein the individual layers differ in regard to the selected fiber diameters and also by use of various synthetic polymer fibers (‘934, Paragraph [0078]) wherein the second layer (layer 2) has a higher air permeability than the air permeability of the first layer (layer 1) (‘934, Paragraph [0102]).
Peng et al. “A simple anisotropic hyperelastic constitutive model for textile fabrics with application to forming simulation” (published 2013) discloses a method of characterizing the anisotropic nonlinear material behavior of dry fabrics under large deformation (Peng et al., Page 276).
The prior art made of record, cited previously by Examiner on a previous 892 Notice of References Cited form, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gres et al. US 2022/0258959 discloses a plastic laminate formed of paper inside a plastic laminate having MC/CD stretching properties with tensile value at break superior to 5% along with isotropic or anisotropic paper characteristics (“959, Paragraph [0054]) wherein the plastic laminate is used to form a coffee pod capable of expanding (‘959, Paragraph [0078]).
Carlyle et al. US 2020/0164616 discloses a nonwoven fabric comprising a fiber structure controlled in a way to tailor different functions of anisotropic behavior and mechanical properties obtained by an adjustment of physical properties of the fiber and the fabric composed thereof by an adjustment of a merging factor, an adjustment of a multilayer configuration of a fabric, an adjustment of fiber thickness, and an adjustment of the fiber density corresponding to number and dimension of hollow spaces in an interior of the fabric wherein different layers have anisotropic behavior in different mechanical, chemical, and/or hydrodynamic properties in different directions of the fabric (‘616, Paragraph [0053]).
Tseng et al. US 2021/0002801 discloses a filter comprising a polymeric fiber (‘801, Paragraph [0002]) having three layers (‘801, Paragraph [0111]) with high, low, and extra low air permeability respectively (‘801, Paragraph [0112]) wherein the fibers are subjected to a one step drawing process in which newly formed fibers exit the orifices of a spinneret that is passed through a heated zone where such a temperature is set to lead to plastic deformation of the fibers (‘801, Paragraph [0062]).
Ridley et al. US 2021/0025091 discloses a yarn comprising a multilayer thermally adaptive structure having anisotropic behavior (‘091, Paragraph [0043]) wherein strength values are anisotropic in materials and a particular direction (‘091, Paragraph [0100]) wherein a first and second fiber has different thermal expansion coefficients and which cross fibers may or may not change shape or length in response to temperature changes (‘091, Paragraph [0140]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792