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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Dreher reference does not disclose a process without any breaks or stoppages between the spinning, commingling, collecting, and converting the composite structure into individual consumer units because the step of imparting a texture “does not rise to the level of teaching the varied, integrated “converting operation” of the present invention.” Examiner disagrees. The claim does not specify any converting operations and they are not defined in the specification. The examples including slitting, stacking, calendering, etc., noted by the Applicant are only examples provided in the specification and are not positively recited claim limitations in claim 1. Applicant does not further explain why the texturizing step of Dreher would not meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of “converting” as it is used in the claims.
Applicant further argues that Dreher does not teach the converting step into the “individual consumer products.” Applicant argues that imparting a texture is not transforming the web into a consumer-ready article of manufacture. Applicant does not cite any evidence to support this assertion. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant has not explained how or why imparting a texture onto the web could not constitute converting it to an “individual consumer product” as claimed nor has Applicant provided any construction of what the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “individual consumer product” is. Examiner is interpreting this as a product that could be individually used by a consumer. The product made in Dreher could be used individually by a consumer as a cleaning product without any further operations.
Beginning on page 6 of the remarks, Applicant notes the differences between a continuous and a batch process and notes that continuous processes are more complex. Applicant argues that the instant application calls out the use of static mixers and extruders. Examiner does not find this persuasive because mixing is not mentioned in the claims. Applicant also mentions on page 7, presumably referring to Dreher, that the assembly process occurs in two steps whereas the instant application uses one continuous process. As noted in the rejection, Dreher seems to describe one continuous line in such a way to meet the claims and a continuous process is obvious in view of batch processes.
Applicant presents arguments regarding the belt in several embodiments of Dreher regarding an open ended conveyor belt and a partially controlled environment. Applicant asserts that controlling the environment is important. Applicant cites several Figures referring to embodiments of Dreher that are not the cited embodiment. It is not clear how this argument is related to the claims because the environment and closed or open nature of the belt is not in the claims.
Claims 2-20 also remain rejected in view of the above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the steps of…converting the composite structure into individual consumer products.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previously recited step of “converting” did not mention individual consumer products. It is not clear if these two steps are the same step or different steps and what the converting step should include. This is interpreted such that the converting step as recited in step d should produce an individual consumer product and articles of manufacture.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of articles of manufacture” in line 9 but “a plurality of articles of manufacture is already cited in lines 1-2. It is not clear if these terms are referring to the same or different components. This will be interpreted to refer to the same components as in lines 1-2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Dreher (US 8,980,816, made of record on the IDS dated 5/7/2024.)
Regarding claim 1, Dreher meets the claimed, A process for making a plurality of articles of manufacture, comprising the steps of: a. spinning a plurality of soluble filaments from one or more dies to form a filament stream; (Dreher Figure 11 and col. 49 lines 32-35 describe spinning filaments from a die to form fibrous elements 32, col. 14 lines 40-41 describe soluble filaments) b. introducing a plurality of solid additives into the filament stream such that the solid additives and soluble filaments are comingled; (Dreher Figure 11 and col. 49 lines 35-39 describe adding particles 36 to the spun fibrous elements 32) c. collecting the commingled solid additives and soluble filaments on a collection device such that a composite structure comprising commingled soluble filaments and solid additives is formed at the formation zone on the collection device; (Dreher col. 49 lines 39-44 describe collecting the fibrous elements 32 and with the particles 36 mixed therein on a collection belt 60 to form a fibrous structure 28) and d. converting the composite structure into a plurality of articles of manufacture (Dreher col. 49 lines 39-44 describe a step of imparting a texture onto the fibrous structure 28 after being collected on the belt 60) wherein the steps a. through d. are performed on a single, continuous manufacturing line without any breaks or stoppages or interruptions between the steps of spinning, commingling, collecting, and converting the composite structure into individual consumer products (Dreher col. 49 lines 31-44 and Figure 11 shows the spinning, additive comingling, collection on the belt, and patterning on the belt (converting) all happening on one singular line which is a continuous line. The fibrous structure produced after patterning is considered an “individual consumer product” because it is a product that a consumer could use, see col. 3 lines 8-10 or col. 8 lines 4-14.)
Dreher does not explicitly describe the process itself as being continuous even though Figure 11 shows the process is on a continuous line, however, continuous operation are obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art, see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(E). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the process of Dreher to be the continuous process as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the step of spinning further comprises a step of providing a filament-forming composition comprising one or more filament-forming materials to the one or more dies (Dreher col. 49 lines 32-34 and col. 50 lines 9-15 describe providing the filament to the die.)
Regarding claim 3, Dreher meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the step of commingling comprises introducing the solid additives into the plurality of soluble filaments between at least one of the dies and the collection device (Dreher col. 49 lines 35-39 and Figure 11 show the particles 36 are added to the fibrous elements 32 between the die 50 and the collection belt 60.)
Regarding claim 4, Dreher meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the soluble filaments comprise filament forming material which is a polymer (Dreher col. 5 lines 1-16 describe the filament forming material is made of a polymer such as polyvinyl alcohol.)
Regarding claim 5, Dreher meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 4 wherein the polymer comprises polyvinyl alcohol (Dreher col. 5 lines 1-16 describe the filament forming material is made of a polymer such as polyvinyl alcohol.)
Regarding claim 6, Dreher meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein at least one of the soluble filaments comprises one or more active agents present within the filament (Dreher col. 4 lines 37-40 describe the filament-forming composition may include active agents.)
Regarding claim 7, Dreher meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 6 wherein at least one of the one or more active agents comprises a surfactant (Dreher col. 22 lines 2-3 describe surfactants included in the fibrous elements.)
Regarding claim 8, Dreher meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the solid additives comprise particles (Dreher col. 49 lines 32-39 describe particles 36.)
Regarding claim 9, Dreher meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein the particles comprise water-soluble particles (Dreher col. 14 lines 26-31 describe the particles contain both water soluble and water insoluble particles.)
Regarding claim 10, Dreher meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein the particles comprise water-insoluble particles (Dreher col. 14 lines 26-31 describe the particles contain both water soluble and water insoluble particles.)
Regarding claim 12, Dreher does not explicitly meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein the particles exhibit a D50 particle size of from about 100 µm to about 5000 µm as measured according to the Particle Size Distribution Test Method, however, Dreher col. 5 lines 16-31 describe median particle sizes including less than 1600 µm which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Dreher meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein the particles comprise at least one active agent-containing particle (Dreher col. 5 lines 32-35 describes particles with active agents.)
Claims 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Dreher as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Venturino (US 2007/0045905.)
Regarding claim 11, Dreher does not disclose an agglomerate and does not meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein at least one of the particles is an agglomerate.
Venturino also describes a method of combining a fibrous stream from a die with a particle additive and meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein at least one of the particles is an agglomerate (Venturino [0030] describes the particles which are added to the fiber streams contain an agglomeration of more than one type of material.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the particles in Dreher with the agglomerate particles of Venturino in order to combine multiple types of particles together to accomplish multiple different purposes, see [0030].
Regarding claim 19, Dreher discloses a texturizing process and does not meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the process further comprises one or more converting operations selected from the group consisting of: slitting, stacking, calendering, treating with optional ingredients, die cutting, printing, packaging, mechanical plybonding, chemical plybonding, and combinations thereof.
Venturino meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the process further comprises one or more converting operations selected from the group consisting of: slitting, stacking, calendering, treating with optional ingredients, die cutting, printing, packaging, mechanical plybonding, chemical plybonding, and combinations thereof (Venturino [0045] and [0048]-[0049] describes multiple streams of fibers are combined together, see also Figure 1, and [0049] describes the multiple streams may be pinched together via pinch rolls which is essentially mechanical plybonding.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Dreher with the mechanical plybonding step of running the material web through pinch rollers as described in Venturino in order to bond the layers of material together, see Venturino [0049].
Regarding claim 20, Venturino further meets the claimed, The process according to Claim 19 wherein the one or more converting operations yields a consumer useable saleable unit (Venturino [0049] describes the pinch roller step to form a product. Any product could be considered a consumer useable saleable unit.)
Claims 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreher as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Joseph (US 2020/0115833, made of record on the IDS dated 5/7/2025.)
Regarding claim 13, Dreher does not describe the entire particle distribution and does not meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein the particles exhibit a D10 of greater than 44 µm as measured according to the Particle Size Distribution Test Method.
Joseph also describes a process of loading particles in a fibrous web and while Joseph does not explicitly meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein the particles exhibit a D10 of greater than 44 µm as measured according to the Particle Size Distribution Test Method, however, Joseph [0130]-[0131], [0133], and in particular [0138]-[0139] describe the size and distribution of sizes of the particulates can be varied based on the intended service conditions. Since Joseph discloses that size distribution particles can make a product more suited for a particular service condition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the size distribution of particles through routine optimization in order to modify the suitability for the service condition, see Joseph [0144] and MPEP §2155.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 14, Dreher does not describe the entire particle distribution and does not meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein the particles exhibit a D90 of less than 1400 µm as measured according to the Particle Size Distribution Test Method.
Joseph also describes a process of loading particles in a fibrous web and while Joseph does not explicitly meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 8 wherein the particles exhibit a D90 of less than 1400 µm as measured according to the Particle Size Distribution Test Method, however, Joseph [0130]-[0131], [0133], and in particular [0138]-[0139] describe the size and distribution of sizes of the particulates can be varied based on the intended service conditions. Since Joseph discloses that size distribution particles can make a product more suited for a particular service condition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the size distribution of particles through routine optimization in order to modify the suitability for the service condition, see Joseph [0144] and MPEP §2155.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 16, Dreher does not disclose the amount of particles included in the fibrous structure and does not meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the process results in a solid additive inclusion efficiency of greater than 40% as measured according to the Inclusion Efficiency Test Method.
Joseph also describes a process of loading particles in a fibrous web and while Joseph does not explicitly meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the process results in a solid additive inclusion efficiency of greater than 40% as measured according to the Inclusion Efficiency Test Method, however Joseph [0144] discloses the amount of particles included in the fibrous web is between 10-90% by weight of the total weight and can be varied depending on the desired final attributes. Since Joseph discloses that the amount of particles affects the amount of chemical additives and thereby the final attributes of the product, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the amount of particles, and thereby the inclusion, through routine optimization in order to modify the final attributes of the product, see Joseph [0144] and MPEP §2155.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 17, Dreher does not describe the dispersion of the additives throughout the structure and does not meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the solid additives are dispersed throughout the composite structure at an overall CD basis weight variation % RSD of less than 40.0% as measured according to the CD and MD Basis Weight Variation Test Method.
Joseph also describes a process of loading particles in a fibrous web and while Joseph does not explicitly meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the solid additives are dispersed throughout the composite structure at an overall CD basis weight variation % RSD of less than 40.0% as measured according to the CD and MD Basis Weight Variation Test Method, Joseph [0145] and [0160] disclose that uniformly distributing the particles throughout the fibrous web is desired. A uniform distribution as described would be lower than a 40% variation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of distributing particles with the method of distributing the particles uniformly as described in Joseph in order to distribute the active agents evenly around the web, see Joseph [0145] or [0160].
Regarding claim 18, Dreher does not describe the dispersion of the additives throughout the structure and does not meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the solid additives are dispersed throughout the composite structure at an overall MD basis weight variation % RSD of less than 40.0% as measured according to the CD and MD Basis Weight Variation Test Method.
Joseph also describes a process of loading particles in a fibrous web and while Joseph does not explicitly meet the claimed, The process according to Claim 1 wherein the solid additives are dispersed throughout the composite structure at an overall MD basis weight variation % RSD of less than 40.0% as measured according to the CD and MD Basis Weight Variation Test Method. Joseph [0145] and [0160] disclose that uniformly distributing the particles throughout the fibrous web is desired. A uniform distribution as described would be lower than a 40% variation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of distributing particles with the method of distributing the particles uniformly as described in Joseph in order to distribute the active agents evenly around the web, see Joseph [0145] or [0160].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights