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 and specification amendments submitted on January 2, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended, claim 21 is new, and claims 18-20 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-17 and 21 pending for examination.
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) 1-3, 5-6, and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowlson (US 2018/0326699)1,2 in view of Hanson (US 2007/0077834)2.
With respect to claims 1, 3, 6, and 10, Knowlson ‘699 teaches production of a nonwoven web, comprising: preparing a mixture of defibrated natural cellulose fibers, bonding fibers, and optionally manmade fibers (staple fibers); airforming the mixture to obtain at least one homogeneous airlaid web; hydroentangling the airlaid web to consolidate the web on at least one side; and drying and thermobonding the hydroentangled web to obtain the nonwoven web (paragraph [0013]). The nonwoven comprises 50-90 wt% natural cellulose fibers and 10-50 wt% bonding fibers and optional manmade fibers (paragraph [0013]). In one aspect the nonwoven web comprises 60% to 85% by weight of wood pulp (natural cellulose fibers); from 20% to 5% by weight of lyocell (regenerated cellulose) (manmade fibers); and from 10 to 20% by weight bonding fibers (paragraphs [0019], [0028]). The manmade fibers preferably have a length from 6.0 to 12.0 (paragraphs [0025], [0030]).
Knowlson ‘699 does not explicitly refer to the nonwoven as a coform material. The instant specification on page 3 defines “coform material” as composite materials containing a mixture or stabilized matrix of two materials. As described above, Knowlson ‘699 teaches a homogeneous mixture of natural cellulose fibers and pulp fibers. Therefore the nonwoven of Knowlson ‘699 is interpreted as reading on the claimed coform material.
Knowlson ‘699 further teaches that a MD/CD ratio is less than 3 and a CD wet tensile strength is at least 8 N/5 cm (160 N/m) (paragraphs [0018]) and therefore is silent as to the nonwoven having a machine direction tensile strength of from about 539.40 N/m to about 965.22 N/m.
Hanson teaches an absorbent cleaning pad formed from a unitized airlaid composite (paragraph [0026]) composed of at least binder fibers and an absorbent material such as fluff pulp (paragraph [0046]). Hanson further teaches that the web tensile strength is substantially linearly proportional to the concentration by weight of binder fibers in the unitized airlaid structure (paragraph [0047]). As the percentage by weight of the binder fibers increases relative to the percentage by weight of absorbent matter, the tensile strength of the unitized airlaid composite increases, however the absorbency decreases (paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the tensile strength of the nonwoven of Knowlson ‘699 through the proportion of binder fibers used to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide enough tensile strength for the desired end use while ensuring the presence of a sufficient amount of absorbent material to achieve the desired absorbency. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to the coform material being substantially free of polypropylene polymers, Knowlson ‘699 teaches that the bonding fibers may have a polypropylene or polyester core and a polyethylene or polyester low melt sheath (paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the different combinations of core/sheath fibers proposed by Knowlson ‘699, including a combination that is free from polypropylene, in order to determine which provides the desired bonding properties. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 2, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Knowlson ‘699 further teaches in one aspect the nonwoven web comprises 60% to 85% by weight of wood pulp (natural cellulose fibers); from 20% to 5% by weight of lyocell (manmade fibers); and from 10 to 20% by weight bonding fibers (paragraphs [0019], [0028]).
The weight percentage of pulp range of Knowlson ‘699 substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 2. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Knowlson ‘699, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claim 5, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Knowlson ‘699 further teaches the manmade fibers preferably have a length from 6.0 to 12.0 (paragraphs [0025], [0030]).
The staple fiber length range of Knowlson ‘699 substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 5. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Knowlson ‘699, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claims 9 and 12-13, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Knowlson ‘699 teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the nonwoven having a TS7 softness value of about 8 or less, measured as an output of an EMREC Tissue Softness Analyzer (“TSA”), a Martindale Abrasion Rating of about 2 or more, as determined by a Martindale Wear and Abrasion Tester, a mean crush energy of from about 110 gf*mm to about 850 gf*mm, and a mean cup crush peak of from about 5 gf to about 60 gf.
It is reasonable to presume that the softness, Martindale abrasion rating, mean cup crush energy, and mean cup crush peak are inherent to Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson. Support for said presumption is found in that Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches similar structure, material, and methods of making the claimed invention as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For example, page 24 of the instant specification describes the air-forming processes as being suitable for forming coform material having desired strength and softness. Similarly, Knowlson ‘699 teaches the nonwoven is formed by an airforming process (paragraph [0013]) and further teaches the softness of the nonwoven can be controlled in the hydroentangling process in order to provide a soft nonwoven web (paragraph [0038]). Page 26 of the instant specification describes the cup crush values as a measure of stiffness, with lower cup crush values indicating a softer nonwoven. As discussed above, Knowlson ‘699 discloses the method disclosed by the instant specification as making soft nonwovens, and teaches further methods to provide a soft nonwoven through hydroentangling. With respect to the Martindale Abrasion Rating, it is noted that in addition to the same methods as discussed above, Knowlson ‘699 uses the same materials in similar proportions as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Therefore, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 11, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Knowlson ‘699 further teaches the basis weight of the nonwoven web is from 20-100 gsm (paragraph [0013]), specifically 40-60 gsm (paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
With respect to claims 14-15, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Knowlson ‘699 further teaches that a MD/CD ratio is less than 3 and a CD wet tensile strength is at least 8 N/5 cm (160 N/m) (paragraphs [0018]).
Knowlson ‘699 teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the nonwoven a mean MD elongation % of from about 25%to about 40% and a mean CD elongation % of from about 45% to about 80%. It is reasonable to presume that the MD and CD elongations are inherent to Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson. Support for said presumption is found in that Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches similar structure, material in similar proportions, and methods of making the claimed invention as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 16, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Knowlson ‘699 further teaches the nonwoven is useful as an industrial disposable wipe (paragraph [0001]).
With respect to claim 17, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above. Knowlson ‘699 further teaches the wipe may contain a solvent in the nonwoven web (paragraph [0050]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowlson (US 2018/0236699)3,4 in view of Hanson (US 2007/0077834)2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goda (US 2004/0265577)2.
With respect to claim 4, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Knowlson ‘699 further teaches the manmade fibers (staple fibers) may be polyester (paragraph [0028]).
Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson is silent as to the staple fibers comprising crimped polyethylene terephthalate fibers.
Goda teaches polyester staple fibers and a nonwoven fabric comprising the same (paragraph [0001]). The polyester staple fibers provide a nonwoven web with a soft hand and a uniform texture (paragraph [0006]). The polyester fibers are exemplified as polyethylene terephthalate (paragraph [0072]) and are crimped (paragraph [0013]).
Since both Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson and Goda teach nonwoven fabrics comprising polyester staple fibers, 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 polyester staple fibers of Knowlson ‘699 to be crimped polyethylene terephthalate in order to provide a nonwoven that is soft in hand and has a uniform texture.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowlson (US 2018/0236699)5,6 in view of Hanson (US 2007/0077834)2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Radwanski (US 4879170)2,7.
With respect to claim 8, Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson is silent as to the staple fibers comprising meltblown fibers.
Radwanski teaches a nonwoven fibrous elastic material wherein the nonwoven is a hydraulically entangled coform of meltblown fibers and fibrous material such as pulp and staple fibers (col. 1, lines 7-18). The use of meltblown fibers as part of the admixture subjected to hydraulic entangling results in a high degree of entanglement and allows the use of shorter staple of pulp fibers (co. 6, lines 22-25). The use of a coform including meltblown fibers also decreases the amount of energy needed to achieve satisfactory hydraulic entangling and provides improved entangling and intertwining among the constituent fibers while still allowing the cellulose fibers to freely move (col. 6, lines 26-47). The coforms are known as suitable for use in wipes (col. 1, lines 19-30).
Since both Knowlson ‘699 in view of Hanson and Radwanski teach coform nonwovens comprising cellulose pulp fibers and staple fibers that are suitable for wipes, 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 nonwoven of Knowlson ‘699 to include a meltblown fibers in order to provide a nonwoven that has a high degree of entanglement while still allowing the cellulose fibers to move, and decreases the amount of energy needed to achieve the satisfactory entanglement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is noted that for rejoinder of the withdrawn method claims the method claims must include the allowable subject matter.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claim 21 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 21, the prior art does not teach or suggest a coform material comprising: a nonwoven web containing a mixture of staple fibers and an absorbent material including pulp fibers, the staple fibers being present in the nonwoven web in an amount of from about 5wt.% to about 50 wt.%, the pulp fibers being present in the nonwoven web in an amount of from about 50wt.% to about 95 wt.%, wherein the staple fibers and pulp fibers are thermally bonded or hydraulically entangled to form the nonwoven web, wherein the nonwoven web has a machine direction (MD) tensile strength of from about 539.40 N/m to about 965.22 N/m, further wherein the coform material is substantially free from thermoplastic polymer materials, as claimed in claim 21.
Knowlson (US 2018/0326699), cited above, is considered the closest prior art of record. Knowlson ‘699 teaches production of a nonwoven web, comprising: preparing a mixture of defibrated natural cellulose fibers, bonding fibers, and optionally manmade fibers (staple fibers); airforming the mixture to obtain at least one homogeneous airlaid web; hydroentangling the airlaid web to consolidate the web on at least one side; and drying and thermobonding the hydroentangled web to obtain the nonwoven web (paragraph [0013]). The nonwoven comprises 50-90 wt% natural cellulose fibers and 10-50 wt% bonding fibers and optional manmade fibers (paragraph [0013]). In one aspect the nonwoven web comprises 60% to 85% by weight of wood pulp (natural cellulose fibers); from 20% to 5% by weight of lyocell (regenerated cellulose) (manmade fibers); and from 10 to 20% by weight bonding fibers (paragraphs [0019], [0028]). The manmade fibers preferably have a length from 6.0 to 12.0 (paragraphs [0025], [0030]).
Knowlson ‘699 further teaches that a MD/CD ratio is less than 3 and a CD wet tensile strength is at least 8 N/5 cm (160 N/m) (paragraphs [0018]) and therefore is silent as to the nonwoven having a machine direction tensile strength of from about 539.40 N/m to about 965.22 N/m.
Hanson (US 2007/0077834), cited above, is considered relevant to the claimed invention. Hanson teaches an absorbent cleaning pad formed from a unitized airlaid composite (paragraph [0026]) composed of at least binder fibers and an absorbent material such as fluff pulp (paragraph [0046]). Hanson further teaches that the web tensile strength is substantially linearly proportional to the concentration by weight of binder fibers in the unitized airlaid structure (paragraph [0047]). As the percentage by weight of the binder fibers increases relative to the percentage by weight of absorbent matter, the tensile strength of the unitized airlaid composite increases, however the absorbency decreases (paragraph [0047]).
Knowlson ‘699 further teaches that the bonding fibers may have a polypropylene or polyester core and a polyethylene or polyester low melt sheath (paragraph [0032]). Since it is known in the prior art from Hanson that increasing the binder fibers is necessary to provide an increase in tensile strength, and the bonding fibers of Knowlson ‘699 are thermoplastic, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a coform that is substantially free from thermoplastic polymer materials could have a machine direction tensile strength of from about 539.10-965.22 N/m as claimed.
As such there is no prior art, either alone or in combination, which discloses or renders obvious a coform material comprising: a nonwoven web containing a mixture of staple fibers and an absorbent material including pulp fibers, the staple fibers being present in the nonwoven web in an amount of from about 5wt.% to about 50 wt.%, the pulp fibers being present in the nonwoven web in an amount of from about 50wt.% to about 95 wt.%, wherein the staple fibers and pulp fibers are thermally bonded or hydraulically entangled to form the nonwoven web, wherein the nonwoven web has a machine direction (MD) tensile strength of from about 539.40 N/m to about 965.22 N/m, further wherein the coform material is substantially free from thermoplastic polymer materials, as claimed in claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on January 2, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 of the response Applicant submits that neither Knowlson ‘699 nor Hanson teaches that the coform material is substantially free from polypropylene.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the coform material being substantially free of polypropylene polymers, Knowlson ‘699 teaches that the bonding fibers may have a polypropylene or polyester core and a polyethylene or polyester low melt sheath (paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the different combinations of core/sheath fibers proposed by Knowlson ‘699, including a combination that is free from polypropylene, in order to determine which provides the desired bonding properties. See MPEP 2143.
It is noted that Hanson was relied on to teach how the claimed tensile strength may be achieved and was not relied on to teach a specific material for the bonding fibers.
Conclusion
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.
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 on 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 Hereinafter referred to as Knowlson ‘699
2 Previously presented
3 Hereinafter referred to as Knowlson ‘699
4 Previously presented
5 Hereinafter referred to as Knowlson ‘699
6 Previously presented
7 Cited in IDS