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 .
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I claims 1-9 and 18-21 directed to a nonwoven fabric. Accordingly, claims 10-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dutkiewicz et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2016/0040337.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-9, 18-19, Dutkiewicz discloses a multilayered nonwoven material [0002]. Paragraph 0007 discloses that continuous filaments in the nonwoven can be bonded. Paragraph 0071 discloses that lyocell fibers [bridgeable fibers] are particularly suitable because of their characteristic soft feel, water absorption and biodegradability. Paragraph 0099 discloses a binder to create bonds between the fibers. Paragraph 0104 discloses that the binder can include polyhydroxybutyrate, polylactic acid polymers polybutylene succinate [biodegradable binders]. Paragraph 0105 discloses that the binder can be present in the amount of 30 weight %. Paragraph 0128 discloses that the nonwoven material can have a basis weight from about 30 g/m2. Paragraph 0129 discloses that the nonwoven material can have density of 0.15 g/cc [150 g/mm].
Regarding claim 20, paragraph 0107 discloses that the binder can include additives such as opacity enhancers, delustrants and optical brighteners. Applicant’s claim 20 is not specific to the additive.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raoof et al., EP 3233636.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 8, Raoof discloses an oral pouched product wherein the pouch is made of a fleece material [nonwoven] comprising staple fibers [0001]. Paragraph 0024 discloses that the linear mass density of the pouch ranges from 2.5 decitex to 5 decitex [greater than 140 g/mm]. Paragraph 0064 discloses that the basis weight of the pouch ranges from 25 g/m2 to 35 g/m2. Paragraph 0081 discloses a binder of acrylic co-polymer present in the amount of 35-45 weight %.
Regarding claim 5, paragraph 0062 discloses that nonwoven material is card [drylaid].
Regarding claims 6, paragraph 0058 discloses that the fleece may comprise fibers of cellulose such as cotton and/or one or more synthetic polymers. Applicant’s claim 6 does not exclude viscose fibers as the claim includes open language.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bodin, U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2020/0297024.
Regarding claims 1-4, Bodin discloses an oral pouch formed of a nonwoven material including a binder and cellulose based staple fibers wherein the fabric has a linear density less than 1.7 decitex [170 g/mm] and a basis weight above 30 g/m2 [abstract and 0045]. Paragraph 0055 discloses that the basis weight can be 32 g/m2. Paragraph 0062 discloses that the linear density is less than or equal to 1.5 decitex [150 g/mm]. It is disclosed in paragraph 0068 that the binder constitutes 25-55 weight % of the total packaging material.
Regarding claim 5, the abstract and paragraph 0045 discloses that the fibers are carded.
Regarding claim 6, paragraph 0060 discloses lyocell fibers.
Regarding claim 8 , paragraph 0050 discloses that the binder can include a co-polymer formed from polymerization of a monomer such as vinyl acetate.
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 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutkiewicz et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2016/0040337.
Dutkiewicz remains relied upon for claims 1 and 18.
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Dutkiewicz is silent to the fabric including 100% lyocell fibers. Dutkiewicz does disclose in paragraph 0071 discloses that lyocell fibers [bridgeable fibers] are particularly suitable because of their characteristic soft feel, water absorption and biodegradability. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would utilize 100% lyocell fibers in the nonwoven fabric for the benefit of obtaining a nonwoven fabric having enhanced soft feel, water absorption and biodegradability
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8 and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12-14 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/263839 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in both co-pending applications recite
A nonwoven fabric comprising a chemically bonded web of staple fibers and a non-fibrous binder.
The claims in both co-pending applications recite that the web is composed of a plurality of carded layers of staple fibers.
The claims in both co-pending applications recite that the non-fibrous binder can include polybutylene succinate [biodegradable].
The claims in both co-pending applications recite that the binder is present in an amount of greater than or equal to 30 wt %.
The claims in both co-pending applications recite that the binder is present in an amount of less than or equal to 50 wt %.
The claims in both co-pending applications recite that the fabric density is greater than 140 g/mm.
The claims in both co-pending applications recite that the fabric density is less than 140 g/mm.
The claims in both co-pending applications recite that the basis weight of the nonwoven fabric is greater than 25 g/m2.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Please note that U.S. Patent Application 18/263,839 corresponds to U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2024/0117539.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786