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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/045041 to Vater.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-7, Vater teaches absorbent nonwoven wipes having improved strength and hand feel comprising a non-homogeneous mixture of small diameter polymeric meltblown fibers and absorbent staple fibers with meltblown fiber rich outer surfaces and staple fiber rich inner regions, and wherein a minor amount of staple fibers also protrude through the meltblown fiber rich regions (Vater, Abstract). Note that as shown in at least Fig. 2A, Vater establishes an upper surface layer, a middle layer, and a lower surface layer. Vater teaches that suitable polymers for forming the meltblown fibers include propylene polymers (Id., page 5 line 9 to page 6 line 3). Vater teaches that the staple length absorbent fibers may comprise cellulosic fibers including woody fibers such as pulp fibers, non-woody fibers such as cotton, and synthetic fibers derived from cellulosic materials such as viscose, and that it is often desirable to employ mixtures of fibers (Id., page 8 lines 4-22). Vater teaches that the wipe comprises between about 20-40 wt.% polymeric meltblown fibers and about 60-80% absorbent staple fibers (Id., page 1 line 26 to page 2 line 7). Since Vater teaches the suitability of propylene meltblown fibers and viscose fibers mixed with cellulosic fibers including woody pulp fibers or non-woody cotton fibers, Vater appears to teach the claimed fibers. Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Since Vater teaches that the inner regions comprise staple fibers and the wipe comprises about 60-80% staple fibers, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the inner regions comprises an amount of staple fibers within the claimed range.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wipe of Vater, wherein the wipe comprises propylene meltblown fibers and a mixture of woody pulp fibers or non-woody cotton fibers and viscose fibers, such as in the claimed amounts, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional wiper based on the totality of the teachings of Vater.
Vater teaches that the length of staple fibers is between about 0.5 mm and about 90 mm (Vater, page 3 lines 9-11). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wipe of Vater, and adjusting and varying the length of the fibers, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional wiper based on the totality of the teachings of Vater.
Regarding the claimed interlacing and intertwining areas, Vater teaches that a nonwoven web means a structure or a web of material wherein fiber is entangled or intermeshed (Vater, page 3 lines 24-27). As shown at at least Fig. 2A, the areas between the layers appear to be interlaced and intertwined.
Alternatively, Vater establishes that the nonwoven web comprises entangled fibers and meltblown fiber rich outer surfaces. It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the entangling of fibers predictably results in increased strength of the wipe based on the increased bonding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wipe of Vater, and entangling the layers while maintaining meltblown fiber rich outer surfaces, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional wiper having the desired strength suitable for wiper applications.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Vater teaches that the meltblown fibers may be propylene. Although Vater does not appear to specifically teach that the fibers are single-component fibers, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the fibers are single-component as the fibers are made from a single propylene and, without the recitation of multiple components, one of ordinary skill would expect that the recited fibers are single component.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wipe of Vater, wherein the fibers are single component propylene fibers, as ordinarily, the recitation of fibers would presume single component fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786