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 amendment and accompanying remarks filed May 11, 2026 are acknowledged.
Examiner acknowledges amended claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18.
Examiner acknowledges withdrawn claims 11-17.
Examiner acknowledges cancelled claim 10.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-9 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dutkiewicz et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2016/0040337 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raoof et al., EP3233636 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bodin, U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2020/0297024 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 7 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutkiewicz et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 20160040337 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 8, and 18-19 under the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12-14 and 16 of co-pending Application Number 18/263,839 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
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 1-9 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dutkiewicz et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 20160040337, as evidenced by Wikipedia, Polybutylene succinate.
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]. Wikipedia, Polybutylene succinate provides evidence that the binder is biodegradable.
Dutkiewicz teaches the claimed invention but fails to teach that the nonwoven fabric has an air permeability greater than 1700 l/m2/s. It is reasonable to presume that an air permeability greater than 1700 l/m2/s is inherent to Dutkiewicz. Said presumption is based upon Dutkiewicz’s disclosure of a multilayered nonwoven material [0002]. Paragraph 0007 discloses that continuous filaments in the nonwoven can be bonded. Paragraph 0071 discloses that lyocell fibers [biodegradable 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]. Burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
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 [biodegradable 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
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the present claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the claims. Applicant argues that Dutkiewicz does not disclose an air permeability of greater than 1700 l/m2/s. Dutkiewicz does disclose a nonwoven fabric having the same components as required by Applicant’s. It is expected that the nonwoven fabric of Dutkiewicz have the same air permeability as claimed.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights