DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of t/e previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 10/21/2025 wherein claims 1 and 9-11 have has been amended and claim 8 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 9-14 and 16 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 10/21/2025 overcome the rejection of claim 1-7, 12, 13 and 16 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Tuman et al. (US 2006/0240223). This rejection has been withdrawn as Tuman fails to disclose the adhesive comprising an ionic component, the plurality of staple fibers contain a cation, or a combination thereof.
Applicant’s amendments filed 10/21/2025 overcome the rejection of claim 1-7, 12-14 and 16 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Tuman et al. (US 2006/0240223). The rejection has been withdrawn for the reason noted under section 4.
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/4/2025 cancelling claim 8 renders moot the rejection of claims 8-11 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Tuman et al. (US 2006/0240223) further in view of Kim et al. (US 2006/0088670). This rejection has been withdrawn.
Maintained Rejections, of Record
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 1-7, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuman et al. (US 2006/0240223; of record) in view of Wang et al. (CN 108636844; translation provided).
Tuman teaches a cleaning sheet (e.g. a wipe; see [0004]; see instant claim 2) of the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
113
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprising a substrate (12) having opposing major surfaces (18, 12, 20), a pressure sensitive adhesive (14) on at least a portion of at least one of the substrate major surfaces and loose fibers arranged on the adhesive (16) wherein at least one of the individual loose fibers contacts the substrate at more than one point (see [0005, 0019]). The substrate is to be nonwoven and spunbonded (see [0008, 0009]) (see instant claims 1 and 6). It is observed that the loose fibers are ‘not parallel’ to the first plane of the nonwoven web substrate. Tuman’s cleaning sheet is overlapping with that of instant claim 1 as Tuman describes a nonwoven web having staple fibers attached via fixation to adhesive provided to web surface wherein the staple fibers are attached in a non-parallel fashion.
The loose surface fibers of Tuman are to have an outwardly distance from the substrate surface of 5 mm (5000 microns) or less (see [0008]) (see instant claims 1 and 3) and a denier of at least 1, at least 2 or at least 5 (see [0039] (see instant claims 1 and 3).
Tuman’s nonwoven substrate may be comprised of three-dimensional fibers such as polyethylene fibers (see [0037]) (see instant claim 5).
The outward fibers may be comprised of polyethylene and/or polypropylene fibers (see [0057]) (see instant claim 7).
The nonwoven substrate is to be embossed (see [0033]) (see instant claim 12).
Tuman discloses that their nonwoven substrate may be coated with adhesive on one or both of the top and bottom surfaces of the substrate (see [0022]). Tuman states that adhesive may be coated on the entire surface of the substrate (e.g. top, bottom and side surfaces) followed by attachment of the loosed fiber thereby (see instant claim 13).
Tuman describes nonwoven wipe substrates wherein adhesive/loosed fibers may be applied to both the top and bottom surfaces. Tuman teaches that the loose fibers may include a blend of fibers having different deniers (see [0059]) and comprise mixtures/combinations of polymers (e.g. polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamides, rayon, etc) (see [0057]) and that the fibers can be selected according to desired outcomes such as holding capacity, cleaning ability, noise minimization when using, etc. (see [0054]). The manipulation of the nature of the first and second pluralities of (staple) fibers would be well within the scope of Tuman so as to manipulate the properties desired for the final product (see MPEP 2143(I)(E)). The variance in dimensions would likely be a necessary outcome given the natural deviation in length and width as reflected by their averaged values. Regardless, one of ordinary skill in the art would identify that the plurality of surfaces could be modified to have fibers of different length, denier or fiber composition so as to modulate the properties of the final product (e.g. improved cleaning capacity, quitter cleaning surfaces, etc.) with a reasonable expectation for success.
Tuman teaches that the pressure sensitive adhesives used to affix the loose fibers to the nonwoven substrate include acrylates, silicones, polyisobutylenes, etc. (see [0047]). The adhesive may be crosslinked to improve cohesive strength (see [0049]). The adhesive coating may be applied as stripe or patterned coatings (see [0045])
Tuman fails to teach the adhesive component as comprising an anionic component, the plurality of staple fibers contain a cation, or a combination thereof.
Wang is directed to a cleaning wipe comprising a non-woven fabric substrate and an adhesive material attached to the surface of the non-woven fabric substrate (see page 1). An exemplified adhesive includes anionic acrylic adhesives such as anionic acrylic copolymer. It is taught that the adhesive component can greatly improve the dust removal properties of the resulting wipe. The acrylic adhesive of Wang (see Example 1 and claim 7) (see instant claims 1 and 9-11). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Tuman’s adhesive layer to include an anionic adhesive component such as those described by Wang with a reasonable expectation for success in improving the properties (e.g. durability, dust removal) of the adhesive layer. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the degree to which the adhesive is applied on to the surface of the substrate, this would have been an obvious parameter to modify according to ones desired outcome. However, given that Tuman teaches that all surfaces may be coated then at a maximum Tuman would reasonably suggest 100% of the substrate surface possess adhesive (see instant claim 10).
The pattern of adhesive applied to surface as recited by instant claim 11 is a design choice and would have no impact on the function/impact of the resulting product. See MPEP 2144.04(I). It is noted that Tuman does suggest that the adhesive layer be applied as stripes or patterns which would obviate the general idea of the adhesive layer being applied as a pattern. The selection of a pattern would have been well within that of an ordinarily skilled person.
Lastly, regarding the properties set forth by instant claims 1 and 16, e.g. a liquid capacity of about 200% to about 800%, measured as an increase in a weight of the nonwoven web from absorption of a liquid, a cup crush load of less than about 100 grams, when measured using a 34 gsm nonwoven web, a bacterial filtration efficiency of about 80% or greater, these properties would necessarily be present in the structure resulting from Tuman and Kim as the resulting structure would be identical to that claimed.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611