DETAILED ACTION
Summary
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 arguments and claim amendments submitted on May 26, 2026 have been entered. Currently claims 14-19 are amended, claims 20-22 are new, and claims 1-13 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 14-22 pending for examination.
This is a second action non-final.
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) 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo (WO 98/07911).
With respect to claims 14-16 and 21, Luo discloses lyocell fibers having novel characteristics and the method of their preparation as well as yarns produced from the fibers, and to woven and nonwoven fabrics containing the fibers (page 1, lines 6-8). The process of Luo allows formation of fibers with a significant natural crimp, which is a desirable characteristic found in natural fibers (page 4, lines 30-36). The crimp is irregular and will have a peak to peak amplitude greater than about one fiber diameter and a period greater than about five fiber diameters (page 5, lines 30-32). Fiber lengths may be relatively short staple fibers (page 6, lines 11-15).
It is noted that the instant specification on page 7, lines 23-25 defines the term “natural crimp” as designating a crimp pattern of fibers that comprises waves of different and randomly distributed curvature and length. Since Luo teaches the formation of a natural crimp similar to natural fibers which is irregular, it teaches the structural limitations of claims 14-15.
The limitation “produced in a processing facility including a spinneret for extruding a spinning solution into a coagulation bath which contains a salt 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 the 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, Luo discloses a lyocell fiber with natural crimp in the form of a staple fiber forming a nonwoven fabric.
With respect to claims 17-19, Luo discloses lyocell fibers having novel characteristics and the method of their preparation as well as yarns produced from the fibers, and to woven and nonwoven fabrics containing the fibers (page 1, lines 6-8). The process of Luo allows formation of fibers with a significant natural crimp, which is a desirable characteristic found in natural fibers (page 4, lines 30-36). The crimp is irregular and will have a peak to peak amplitude greater than about one fiber diameter and a period greater than about five fiber diameters (page 5, lines 30-32). Fiber lengths may be relatively short staple fibers (page 6, lines 11-15).
It is noted that the instant specification on page 7, lines 23-25 defines the term “natural crimp” as designating a crimp pattern of fibers that comprises waves of different and randomly distributed curvature and length. Since Luo teaches the formation of a natural crimp similar to natural fibers which is irregular, it teaches the structural limitations of claims 17-18.
The limitation “produced by a method including extruding a spinning solution into a coagulation bath which contains a salt and 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, Luo discloses a lyocell fiber with natural crimp in the form of a staple fiber forming a nonwoven fabric.
With respect to claim 20, Luo discloses all the limitations of claim 14 above. The limitation “wherein the coagulation bath contains a salt and an alkali to produce the fiber tow” 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, Luo discloses a lyocell fiber with natural crimp in the form of a staple fiber forming a nonwoven fabric.
With respect to claim 22, Luo discloses all the limitations of claim 14 above. The limitation “wherein the regenerated cellulosic fiber is stretched to a final cellulose specific diameter before cutting, wherein the final cellulose specific diameter is retained at a point of cutting, and wherein, after cutting, the cut fibers are collected in the undried state in the non-woven fiber layer” 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, Luo discloses a lyocell fiber with natural crimp in the form of a staple fiber forming a nonwoven fabric.
Alternate Rejection
In the event it is determined the spinning solution used provides 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) 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigsson (US 2016/0138200)1 in view of Hedlund (US 2019/0062950)1 and Luo (WO 98/07911).
With respect to claims 14-22, 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 having a natural crimp formed in a nonwoven layer.
Luo discloses lyocell fibers having novel characteristics and the method of their preparation as well as yarns produced from the fibers, and to woven and nonwoven fabrics containing the fibers (page 1, lines 6-8). The process of Luo allows formation of fibers with a significant natural crimp, which is a desirable characteristic found in natural fibers (page 4, lines 30-36). The crimp is irregular and will have a peak to peak amplitude greater than about one fiber diameter and a period greater than about five fiber diameters (page 5, lines 30-32). Fiber lengths may be relatively short staple fibers (page 6, lines 11-15).
It is noted that the instant specification on page 7, lines 23-25 defines the term “natural crimp” as designating a crimp pattern of fibers that comprises waves of different and randomly distributed curvature and length. Since Luo teaches the formation of a natural crimp similar to natural fibers which is irregular, it teaches the structural limitations of claims 14-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the regenerated cellulose fibers of Stigsson in view of Hedlund with a natural crimp in nonwoven layer in order to provide fibers which have the desirable characteristics of natural fibers.
The limitations “the processing facility further comprising a cutter configured to cut the 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 fabric layer; and at least one pressing device configured to squeeze the non-woven fiber layer to impose the natural crimp on the cut fibers” in claims 14-15 and 17-18, and “wherein the regenerated cellulosic fiber is stretched to a final cellulose specific diameter before cutting, wherein the final cellulose specific diameter is retained at a point of cutting, and wherein, after cutting, the cut fibers are collected in the undried state in the non-woven fiber layer” in claim 22 are method limitations and do 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, Stigsson in view of Hedlund and Luo discloses a regenerated cellulose fiber with natural crimp in the form of a staple fiber forming a nonwoven fabric.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 14-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed May 26, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §102 and 103
The rejections of:
claim(s) 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (US 2019/0345641) and
claims 14-19 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)
have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments presented with respect to Jung.
Applicant’s arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the arguments on page 11 convincingly argue that “natural crimp” is defined by the specification and the arguments on pages 12-13 convincingly argue that Jung does not teach a natural crimp as defined by the specification.
A new rejection in light of Luo (WO 98/07911) has been applied above.
Response – Double Patenting
The terminal disclaimer filed on May 26, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of applications 18/292,781 and 18/694,402 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
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
1 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights