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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, corresponding to Claims 1-9, in the reply filed on July 25, 2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. M.P.E.P. § 818.01(a). Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,177,370 to Skoog et al. (“Skoog”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0314171 to Abubakar et al. (“Abubakar”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,429,854 to Currie et al. (“Currie”).
With regard to Claim 1, Skoog discloses a hydraulically entangled composite fabric comprising a synthetic fiber structure first zone, a synthetic fiber structure second zone positioned proximate to the synthetic fiber structure first zone, and a short fiber third zone positioned between the first and second zones, wherein the fibers are entwined. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Skoog discloses the composite fabric is useful in medical gowns, wipe, and clothing material3. Column 1, lines 12-18. Skoog discloses that the short fiber third zone includes pulp fibers, column 3, lines 35-36, such as wood pulp fibers, column 6, lines 41-42, which thus provides the claimed middle layer of wood pulp fiber web. Skoog discloses that each of the upper first zone and the lower second zone can comprise a meltblown web layer in combination with a spunbond web layer. Column 5, lines 21-42 and Figure 3. Skoog discloses that each of the upper first zone and the lower second zone fabrics can be pre-bonded by hydroentanglement. Column 3, lines 53-60. Skoog further teaches that the spunbond fibers are entangled with the meltblown fiber layer and the wood pulp fiber layer via fluid jet entanglement, column 9, lines 60-62, and that fibers from the upper first and lower second zones become entwined with the wood pulp fibers of the middle third zone. Column 3, lines 32-34. However, Skoog differs from the claimed invention in that Figure 3 of Skoog shows that the meltblown fibers layers are between the spunbond fiber layers and the wood pulp fiber layer, whereas Claim 1 requires that the spunbond fiber layers are between meltblown fibers and the wood pulp fiber. In other words, the outermost layers of Skoog are spunbond in configuration whereas the outermost layers of the claimed invention are meltblown in configuration. Nonetheless, such modification is well known in the art and can be provided with a reasonable expectation of success.
Abubakar is also related to composite fabrics comprising spunbond and meltblown fabric layers useful in medical gowns, wipes, and clothing. See, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [003] and [0071], entire document. Abubakar teaches that it is well known that the ordering of layers is entirely optional in multilayer nonwoven fabrics comprising spunbond and meltblown layers, noting that suitable composites include SMS, MSM, MSxM, and SMxS layered configurations. Paragraph [0069]. As such, Abubakar teaches that using meltblown fabric layers as the outermost layer instead of spunbond fabric layers as the outermost layer is well-known alternative. Currie is also related to composite nonwoven fabrics comprising spunbond and meltblown fabric layers useful in medical gowns, wipes, and clothing. See, e.g., Abstract, column 1, lines 7-12, entire document. Currie teaches that providing meltblown layers as the outermost layer can vary the performance of the wiper material. Column 2, lines 11-31. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the composite wipe disclosed by Skoog with one or more spunbond fiber layers between outermost meltblown fibers and the wood pulp fiber in order to alter performance of the wiper material in a known and predictable fashion, since such a modified configuration is recognized in the art as being a known and predictable modification, as shown by Abubakar, and because Currie teaches that such a modification can serve to improve the functionality of the wipe.
With regard to Claim 2, Skoog discloses the spunbond fibers comprise continuous filaments which may be monocomponent or bicomponent. Column 7, lines 28-52. Skoog also discloses that the thermal bonding can be performed using melt-fusible thermoplastic filaments. Column 8, lines 43-50. With regard to Claim 3, Claim 2 from which Claim 3 depends, does not require the presence of bicomponent filaments. As such, the recitation of Claim 3 is optional unless a bicomponent fibers are necessarily present, which is not the case in Skoog. With regard to Claim 4, Skoog discloses that the basis weight of the spunbond web layer(s) is in the range of 12 to 34 gsm. Column 5, lines 43-44. “In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” M.P.E.P. 2144.05. With regard to Claim 7, Currie teaches that it is well known to provide meltblown fibers with a diameter as low as 10 microns. Column 4, lines 62-64. With regard to Claims 8 and 9, Skoog discloses that the pulp content of the nonwoven composite fabric can be about 72%. See, e.g., Table 3, Sample Numbers 4-6.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skoog in view of Abubakar and Currie, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0130540 to Crane (“Crane”)
With regard to Claim 5, Skoog does not disclose the configuration of the meltblown fiber. Crane is also related to composite nonwoven materials useful in absorbent products, such as a wipe. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Crane teaches that meltblown fibers utilized in composite multi-layer fabrics comprising spunbond and meltblown layers can be provided as a monocomponent fiber. Paragraph [0024]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the meltblown fibers of Skoog with a single component configuration in order to provide simplified construction, in accordance with well-known practice in the art, as shown to be known by Crane. With regard to Claim 6, Claim 5 from which Claim 6 depends, does not require the presence of bicomponent filaments. As such, the recitation of Claim 6 is optional unless a bicomponent fibers are necessarily present, which is not the case in Skoog, as combined with Crane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789