DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 14-19 in the reply filed on December 23, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 23, 2025.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 1-13 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 14-19 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 17-18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 recites variations of the limitation “pressing the non-woven fiber layer, thereby imposing a natural crimp on the fibers”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what structure is required for a crimp to be “natural”, and if it is possible for a crimp to be natural if it is provided mechanically, as required by the claims.
Claims 16 and 19 recite the limitation “wherein the product is selected from a list comprising … technical applications”. The limitation is indefinite because a technical application is not a product, and the scope of products that would be considered technical application is unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (US 2019/0345641).
With respect to claims 14-16, Jung teaches a lyocell fiber prepared in the form of a short staple fiber and used as a nonwoven fibrous aggregate for a mask pack (paragraph [0041]). The lyocell fiber may be crimped (paragraph [0046]).
The limitation “produced in a processing facility including a spinneret for extruding a spinning solution into a coagulation bath which contains a salt and preferably an alkali to produce a fiber tow, the spinning solution comprising cellulose dissolved in an aqueous solvent comprising NaOH and ZnO, the coagulation bath having a pH-value of at least seven, the processing facility further comprising a cutter configured to cut the fiber tow in an undried state into cut fibers; a fleece-forming device configured to suspend the cut fibers and collect them in form of a non-woven fiber layer, and at least one pressing device configured to squeeze the non-woven fiber layer to impose a natural crimp” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because as discussed above, Jung discloses a crimped lyocell fiber in the form of a staple fiber forming a nonwoven fibrous aggregate.
With respect to claims 17-19, Jung teaches a lyocell fiber prepared in the form of a short staple fiber and used as a nonwoven fibrous aggregate for a mask pack (paragraph [0041]). The lyocell fiber may be crimped (paragraph [0046]).
The limitation “produced by a method including extruding a spinning solution into a coagulation bath which contains a salt and preferably an alkali to produce a fiber tow, the spinning solution comprising cellulose dissolved in an aqueous solvent comprising NaOH and ZnO, the coagulation bath having a pH-value of at least seven, the method further comprising the steps of cutting the fiber tow in an undried state into cut fibers; suspending the cut fibers and collecting them in the form of a non-woven fiber layer; and pressing the non-woven fiber layer, thereby imposing a natural crimp on the fibers” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because as discussed above, Jung discloses a crimped lyocell fiber in the form of a staple fiber forming a nonwoven fibrous aggregate.
Alternate Rejection
In the event it is determined the processing facility and the production method provide additional structure to the final product than awarded above the claims are rejected as follows.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigsson (US 2016/0138200) in view of Hedlund (US 2019/0062950) and Jung (US 2019/0345641).
With respect to claims 14-19, Stigsson teaches a process for preparation of regenerated cellulosic fibers wherein an alkaline solvent is used in dissolving cellulose (paragraph [0001]). Cellulose is dissolved in an alkaline aqueous solvent system comprising sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to form a liquid (spinning dope) (paragraph [0006]). Following spinning of the cellulose the cellulose derivative is coagulated in a coagulation bath to form fibers (paragraph [0006]-[0007]). The coagulation bath includes salts such as sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, aluminum, and zinc salts, and has a pH of higher than about 6, such as higher than 7, preferably above about 8 or even above 10 (paragraphs [0007]-[0008]). The filaments are thereafter subjected to further treatments such as crimping and cutting (paragraph [0010]).
Stigsson is silent as to the aqueous solvent for the spinning solution comprising ZnO.
Hedlund teaches a process for extruding dissolved cellulose to form cellulose fibers or films (paragraph [0001]). The solution used to dissolve the cellulose comprises aqueous sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and zinc oxide (ZnO) (paragraphs [0025]-[0028]). The zinc oxide is a preferred additive for stabilizing the composition and reducing the risk of unwanted gelation in the spin dope (paragraphs [0058], [0064]).
Since both Stigsson and Hedlund teach dissolving cellulose to form fibers in an aqueous NaOH solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aqueous NaOH spinning dope of Stigsson to include ZnO in order to stabilize the composition and reduce the risk of unwanted gelation.
Stigsson in view of Hedlund is silent as to the fibers being formed into a non-woven layer.
Jung teaches a lyocell fiber prepared in the form of a short staple fiber and used as a nonwoven fibrous aggregate for a mask pack (paragraph [0041]). The lyocell fiber may be crimped (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have collected the regenerated cellulose fibers of Stigsson in view of Hedlund into a nonwoven because it is known in the art that crimped regenerated cellulose staple fibers are suitable for formation of a nonwoven for forming products such as mask packs.
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 14-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-19 of copending Application No. 18/292,781 (reference application) in view of Jung (US 2019/0345641). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to instant claims 14-15, claims 14-15 of ‘781 claims a regenerated cellulosic fiber and a product comprising a regenerated cellulosic fiber, produced in a processing facility for producing regenerated cellulosic fibers including a spinneret for extruding a spinning solution into a coagulation bath which contains a salt and preferably an alkali to produce a fiber tow, the spinning solution comprising cellulose dissolved in an aqueous solvent comprising NaOH and ZnO, the coagulation bath having a pH-value of at least seven, the processing facility further comprising a cutter for cutting the fibers to staple fibers in an undried state.
‘781 is silent as to the cut fibers being crimped and present in a non-woven fiber layer.
Jung teaches a lyocell fiber prepared in the form of a short staple fiber and used as a nonwoven fibrous aggregate for a mask pack (paragraph [0041]). The lyocell fiber may be crimped for suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have collected the regenerated cellulose fibers of ‘781 into a nonwoven because it is known in the art that crimped regenerated cellulose staple fibers are suitable for formation of a nonwoven for forming products such as mask packs. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to crimp the staple fibers in order to provide suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven.
With respect to instant claim 16, claim 16 of ‘781 claims the product according to claim 15, wherein the product is selected from a list consisting of yarns, fabrics, textiles, home textiles, garments, nonwovens, hygiene products, upholstery, or technical applications.
With respect to instant claims 17-18, claims 17-18 of ‘781 claims a regenerated cellulosic fiber and a product comprising a regenerated cellulosic fiber, produced by a method for producing regenerated cellulosic fibers including extruding a spinning solution into a coagulation bath which contains a salt and preferably an alkali to produce a fiber tow, the spinning solution comprising cellulose dissolved in an aqueous solvent comprising NaOH and ZnO, the coagulation bath having a pH-value of at least seven, the method comprising the steps of cutting the fiber tow to a staple fiber in an undried state.
‘781 is silent as to the cut fibers being crimped and present in a non-woven fiber layer.
Jung teaches a lyocell fiber prepared in the form of a short staple fiber and used as a nonwoven fibrous aggregate for a mask pack (paragraph [0041]). The lyocell fiber may be crimped for suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have collected the regenerated cellulose fibers of ‘781 into a nonwoven because it is known in the art that crimped regenerated cellulose staple fibers are suitable for formation of a nonwoven for forming products such as mask packs. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to crimp the staple fibers in order to provide suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven.
With respect to instant claim 19, claim 19 of ‘781 claims the product according to claim 18, wherein the product is selected from a list consisting of yarns, fabrics, textiles, home textiles, garments, nonwovens, hygiene products, upholstery, or technical applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 14-15 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 15-16, and 18 of copending Application No. 18/694,402 (reference application) in view of Jung (US 2019/0345641). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to instant claim 14, claim 16 of ‘402 claims a regenerated cellulosic fiber produced in a processing facility for producing regenerated cellulosic fibers comprising: a coagulation bath containing a salt and having a pH-value of at least seven; a spinneret configured to extrude a spinning solution into the coagulation bath to produce fibers, wherein the spinning solution comprises cellulose dissolved in an aqueous solvent.
‘402 is silent as to the fibers being cut, crimped, and present in a non-woven fiber layer.
Jung teaches a lyocell fiber prepared in the form of a short staple fiber and used as a nonwoven fibrous aggregate for a mask pack (paragraph [0041]). The lyocell fiber may be crimped for suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cut and collected the regenerated cellulose fibers of ‘402 into a nonwoven because it is known in the art that crimped regenerated cellulose staple fibers are suitable for formation of a nonwoven for forming products such as mask packs. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to crimp the staple fibers in order to provide suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven.
With respect to instant claim 15, claim 18 of ‘402 claims a product made from a regenerated cellulosic fiber produced in a processing facility for producing regenerated cellulosic fibers comprising: a coagulation bath containing a salt and having a pH-value of at least seven; a spinneret configured to extrude a spinning solution into the coagulation bath to produce fibers, wherein the spinning solution comprises cellulose dissolved in an aqueous solvent.
‘402 is silent as to the fibers being cut, crimped, and present in a non-woven fiber layer.
Jung teaches a lyocell fiber prepared in the form of a short staple fiber and used as a nonwoven fibrous aggregate for a mask pack (paragraph [0041]). The lyocell fiber may be crimped for suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cut and collected the regenerated cellulose fibers of ‘402 into a nonwoven because it is known in the art that crimped regenerated cellulose staple fibers are suitable for formation of a nonwoven for forming products such as mask packs. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to crimp the staple fibers in order to provide suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven.
With respect to instant claim 17, claim 13 of ‘402 claims a regenerated cellulosic fiber produced by a method comprising the steps of: extruding a spinning solution comprising cellulose dissolved in an aqueous solvent comprising NaOH and ZnO, the coagulation bathe having a pH-value of at least 7.
‘402 is silent as to the fibers being cut, crimped, and present in a non-woven fiber layer.
Jung teaches a lyocell fiber prepared in the form of a short staple fiber and used as a nonwoven fibrous aggregate for a mask pack (paragraph [0041]). The lyocell fiber may be crimped for suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cut and collected the regenerated cellulose fibers of ‘402 into a nonwoven because it is known in the art that crimped regenerated cellulose staple fibers are suitable for formation of a nonwoven for forming products such as mask packs. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to crimp the staple fibers in order to provide suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven.
With respect to instant claims 18-19, claim 15 of ‘402 claims a product made from a regenerated cellulosic fiber produced by a method comprising the steps of: extruding a spinning solution comprising cellulose dissolved in an aqueous solvent comprising NaOH and ZnO, the coagulation bathe having a pH-value of at least 7, wherein the product is selected from a list of yarns, fabrics, textiles, home textiles, garments, nonwovens, hygiene products, upholstery, technical applications, filter material, and paper.
‘402 is silent as to the fibers being cut, crimped, and present in a non-woven fiber layer.
Jung teaches a lyocell fiber prepared in the form of a short staple fiber and used as a nonwoven fibrous aggregate for a mask pack (paragraph [0041]). The lyocell fiber may be crimped for suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cut and collected the regenerated cellulose fibers of ‘402 into a nonwoven because it is known in the art that crimped regenerated cellulose staple fibers are suitable for formation of a nonwoven for forming products such as mask packs. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to crimp the staple fibers in order to provide suitable entanglement and processability of the nonwoven.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hagstrom (WO 2020/171767) discloses a process for forming a fiber tow, involving a wet spinning procedure comprising the steps of: dissolving cellulose pulp
in an alkaline aqueous solvent to form a cellulose spin dope composition, spinning the cellulose spin dope composition in a coagulation bath having a pH of more than 7.0, preferably a pH of at least 10, to produce a fiber tow, and passing the produced fiber tow through a sequence of consecutive stretching and washing steps in which the formed fiber tow is washed with a washing liquid by a countercurrent flow washing procedure (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789