DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s RCE with Amendments and Remarks filed on 11/03/2025. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 are currently amended. Claims 11-12 are newly added (their status indicators are wrong).
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . -- The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the claim rejections citing Zhou (US 2018/00157633 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection citing Zhou has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleveland et al. (EP 0 678 614 A2; hereinafter “Cleveland”).
As to independent claim 1, Cleveland teaches a chemical treatment method for a nonwoven (see col. 1, lines 36-55: process for non-compressively and uniformly applying a liquid saturant through a permeable sheet, e.g. nonwoven webs; col. 5, lines 49-53), comprising: applying a flame retardant [species elected for “chemical formulation”] to one surface of a nonwoven comprised of a manufactured sheet, web or batt of natural and/or man-made fibers or filaments that are bonded to each other (see col. 4, lines 36-56: process includes 1) providing a continuously advancing permeable sheet having a first surface and a second surface and 2) depositing a substantially laminar flowing curtain of a liquid saturant generally across the width and onto the first surface of the continuously advancing permeable sheet; see col. 13, lines 20-26: liquid saturants may be solutions containing fire retardants), wherein the flame retardant does not extend from the one surface through a full thickness of the nonwoven (see col. 5, lines 37-48: the liquid saturant is drawn only partially through the permeable sheet to generate a substantially non-uniform distribution of liquid saturant throughout the permeable sheet); distributing the flame retardant through at least a portion of the full thickness of the nonwoven by a physical process selected from applying a pressing force or applying a suction force to the nonwoven (see col. 4, lines 48-50: process step 3) applying a vacuum to the second surface of the continuously advancing permeable sheet; col. 5, lines 29-48: the vacuum level should be sufficient to draw a substantial portion of the saturant through the permeable sheet) and then drying the flame retardant distributed within the nonwoven after the distributing step (see col. 4, lines 50-56: the process may further include the step of drying the liquid saturated permeable sheet; col. 12, lines 17-22: drying operations).
Cleveland fails to explicitly disclose [1] that the non-woven has a low-density ranging from 0.15 g/cm3 to 0.001 g/cm3 [in the “applying” step] and [2] that the non-woven has a resilience of having a thickness loss of not more than 80% after performing the steps of applying, distributing and drying.
As to claim 1, differences [1] and [2], since Cleveland teaches that the permeable sheet may be, for example, woven fabrics, knit fabrics, nonwoven fabrics, fibrous batts, and/or fibrous mats and may have a consistency of at least about 20 percent by weight of solid material and comprise the same fibers described in the present specification examples (see Cleveland col. 5, line 49 to col. 6, line 13 and col. 9, lines 1-55 and see the present specification pgs. 3-5 & Example 2), it follows that the nonwoven fabrics in Cleveland would satisfy the low-density and resilience properties recited in claim 1. If different results are achieved, it must be due to limitations that are not currently claimed. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to select a nonwoven having the claimed low-density and resilience properties by routine experimentation and common knowledge about nonwovens. One motivation for this choice would be to add fire retardant properties to a preferred finished article, such as a mattress, having a user desired firmness/softness, breathability and/or thickness.
As to claim 2, Cleveland teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said applying step is performed using an application device selected from the group recited in claim 2 (see col. 1, lines 8-22: printing or spraying may be used to apply a solution; col. 10, line 5 to col. 11, line 39 & FIG. 1-2: roller coating).
As to claims 3-4, Cleveland teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said chemical formulation comprises flame retardants [elected species in claim 3] and further includes at least one colorant (see col. 13, lines 20-50).
As to claim 5, Cleveland teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said distributing step is performed using a pressing plate or a pair of press rollers or vacuum suction (see col. 4, line 38 to col. 5, line 48: applying a vacuum to distribute the liquid saturant through a permeable sheet; see col. 11, line 40 to col. 12, line 58).
As to claim 12, Cleveland teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least a portion of the thickness the flame retardant is distributed through is less than the full thickness of the nonwoven (see Cleveland col. 4, line 38 to col. 5, line 48).
6. Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleveland et al. (EP 0 678 614 A2), in view of Craamer (US 2007/0026213 A1).
As to independent claim 6, Cleveland teaches a chemical treatment method, comprising: applying using a non-contact chemical deposition technology a flame retardant [species elected for “chemical formulation”] to one surface of a nonwoven comprised of a manufactured sheet, web or batt of natural and/or man-made fibers or filaments that are bonded to each other (see col. 4, lines 36-56: process includes 1) providing a continuously advancing permeable sheet having a first surface and a second surface and 2) depositing a substantially laminar flowing curtain of a liquid saturant generally across the width and onto the first surface of the continuously advancing permeable sheet; see col. 13, lines 20-26: liquid saturants may be solutions containing fire retardants), wherein the flame retardant does not extend from the one surface through a full thickness of the nonwoven to a second surface opposing said first surface and separated by the full thickness (see col. 5, lines 37-48: the liquid saturant is drawn only partially through the permeable sheet to generate a substantially non-uniform distribution of liquid saturant throughout the permeable sheet); then physically distributing the flame retardant from the first surface through at least a portion of the full thickness toward the second surface by either applying a pressing force or applying a suction force on the nonwoven (see col. 4, lines 48-50: process step 3) applying a vacuum to the second surface of the continuously advancing permeable sheet; col. 5, lines 29-48: the vacuum level should be sufficient to draw a substantial portion of the saturant through the permeable sheet) and then drying the flame retardant on the nonwoven (see col. 4, lines 50-56: the process may further include the step of drying the liquid saturated permeable sheet; col. 12, lines 17-22: drying operations).
Cleveland fails to explicitly disclose [1] that the non-contact chemical deposition technology is digital and [2] that the non-woven has a low-density ranging from 0.15 g/cm3 to 0.001 g/cm3 [in the “applying” step].
As to difference [1], Craamer, in analogous art of printing fabrics/textiles, teaches a non-contact digital chemical deposition technology (see para. 0010-0011: digitally forming a coating on a fibrous textile with digitally controlled nozzles; para. 0036-0040, 0050) that may be used for making a textile substrate fireproof or flameproof (see para. 0003). Even though Craamer does not explicitly teach that the textile materials are “a nonwoven separated a thickness”, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the known-technology of digital printing to a mattress or other thick, non-woven textile material by simple modifications to the structure of the printing device.
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Craamer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Cleveland by incorporating the digital printing technique taught by Craamer to arrive at the claimed invention because Cleveland suggests that there are many ways to apply a liquid saturant to a permeable sheet, for example printing, spraying or passing through treatment stations on rolls or under curtains of liquids (see Cleveland col. 1, lines 8-22 and col. 8, line 26 to col. 11, line 39). Craamer clearly teaches that known methods for coating a textile in treatment stations include digital printing (see Craamer para. 0045 & 0050). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the instantly claimed digital chemical deposition technology for the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success for applying a highly concentrated solution directly onto a substrate with a precisely controlled dosage that is selectively directed (see Craamer para. 0018, 0045-0052), and would expect such a method to have similar properties to those claimed, absent the showing of unexpected results.
As to claim 6, difference [2] and claim 7, since Cleveland teaches that the permeable sheet may be, for example, woven fabrics, knit fabrics, nonwoven fabrics, fibrous batts, and/or fibrous mats and may have a consistency of at least about 20 percent by weight of solid material and comprise the same fibers described in the present specification examples (see Cleveland col. 5, line 49 to col. 6, line 13 and col. 9, lines 1-55 and see the present specification pgs. 3-5 & Example 2), it follows that the nonwoven fabrics in Cleveland would satisfy the low-density and resilience properties recited in claims 6 & 7. If different results are achieved, it must be due to limitations that are not currently claimed. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to select a nonwoven having the claimed low-density and resilience properties by routine experimentation and common knowledge about nonwovens. One motivation for this choice would be to add fire retardant properties to a preferred finished article, such as a mattress, having a user desired firmness/softness, breathability and/or thickness.
As to claim 8, Cleveland and Craamer teach the method of claim 6, wherein the non-contact digital chemical deposition technology is a digital printer (see Craamer para. 0050, 0018, 0020, 0040).
As to claims 9-10, Cleveland and Craamer teach the method of claim 6, wherein the chemical formulation comprises flame retardants and further includes at least one colorant (see Cleveland col. 13, lines 20-50).
As to claim 11, Cleveland and Craamer teach the method of claim 6, wherein the at least a portion of the thickness the flame retardant is distributed through is less than the full thickness extending from the first surface to the second surface (see Cleveland col. 4, line 38 to col. 5, line 48).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katie L Hammer whose telephone number is (571)270-7342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 10am-6pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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.
KATIE L. HAMMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1761
/KATIE L. HAMMER/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1761 November 14, 2025
