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 .
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.
Claim 37-38 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.
In claims 37 and 38, the recitation of the web as comprising “at least one of synthetic, manmade cellulosic fiber, or natural cellulosic fibers” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear if this is reciting synthetic fibers (generally) or reciting synthetic cellulosic fibers. To clarify, this should read as either “at least one of synthetic fiber, manmade cellulosic fiber, or natural cellulosic fibers” or “at least one of synthetic cellulosic fiber, manmade cellulosic fiber, or natural cellulosic fiber”.
For purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as reciting “at least one of synthetic cellulosic fiber, manmade cellulosic fiber, or natural cellulosic fiber”.
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.
Claims 19-30, 34-35, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groshens (US 5,153,056) in view of Kulkarni (US 2017/0145610) and Bouchette (US 6,110,848).
As to independent claims 19 and 39, Groshens discloses a method for making a hydroentangled composite fabric, comprising: forming a first web (2a) of nonwoven fibers using a carding machine (see first web 2a in Fig. 3; Groshens discloses in col. 2, lines 42-45 that this web is formed of carded fibers, thus using a carding machine); forming a second web (2c) of nonwoven fibers using a carding machine (see second web 2c in Fig. 3; Groshens discloses in col. 2, lines 42-45 that this web is formed of carded fibers, thus using a carding machine); combining the first web (2a) of nonwoven fibers and the second web (2c) of nonwoven fibers into a final web of nonwoven fibers (webs 2a and 2c are combined when layered together upstream of rollers 23,24 in Fig. 3); and entangling the final web of nonwoven fibers with a woven fabric (1) using a plurality of water jets (12a, 12b). Groshens discloses that textile 1 is a woven fabric; col. 2, lines 29-30. See Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 1-5 and 40-51, and col. 4, lines 1-14.
Thus, Groshens discloses all of the steps of claims 19 and 39 except the pressure of the water jets is not disclosed and the use of two different carding machines (a first and a second carding machine) is not specifically disclosed.
With respect to the recitation in claims 19 and 39 of the use of a first and a second carding machine, Groshens discloses that the first web (2a) is a web of carded fibers, thus using a carding machine (see first web 2a in Fig. 3; Groshens discloses in col. 2, lines 42-45 that this web is formed of carded fibers, thus using a carding machine) and the second web (2c) is a web of carded fibers, thus using a carding machine (see second web 2c in Fig. 3; Groshens discloses in col. 2, lines 42-45 that this web is formed of carded fibers, thus using a carding machine). Although Groshens does not disclose whether these webs were formed by the same carding machine or by different carding machines, it would have been obvious to use two different carding machines so that the webs can be made at the same time, as is well known in the art. Bouchette discloses forming two card webs at the same time, in parallel, and then feeding these two card webs to a hydroentangling unit with a third web to form a layered hydroentangled structure (see Fig. 6). In Fig. 6, Bouchette discloses forming a first web of nonwoven fibers using a first carding machine (upper feed chute 72 feeds the fibers to the carding unit 74,75,76; i.e. the upper carding unit 74,75,76 in Fig. 6 forms a first carding machine) and forming a second web of nonwoven fibers using a second carding machine (lower feed chute 72 feeds the fibers to the lower carding unit 74,75,76; i.e. the lower carding unit 74,75,76 in Fig. 6 forms a second carding machine); see Bouchette col. 7, lines 1-8 and 23-26 and col. 8, lines 10-24. See Fig. 3 showing details of the carding machine and see Fig. 6 showing the first and second carding machines. This permits formation of the first card and the second card at the same time, rather than one at a time on a single carding machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first and second carding machines to form the first and second carded webs of Groshens in order to form the two carded webs at the same time, in parallel, for a more efficient production process as disclosed by Bouchette.
As to the recitation of a pressure of about 75-400 bars as recited in claim 19 or 50-400 bars are recited in claim 39, this pressure is typical for hydroentangling and is disclosed by Kulkarni. Kulkarni discloses entangling a web of carded fibers (see carding machine 314 in Fig. 3A; [0076, 0122]) with a woven fabric [0077-0078, 0090, 0101]. Kulkarni discloses the water jets are applied at a pressure of about 75-400 bars as in claim 19 and about 50-400 bars as recited in claim 39 (para. 0195 discloses a jet stream pressure of about 100-400 bar). Kulkarni further discloses that the high pressure water jets may entangle the layers using pressures above 180 bar and at or above 350 bar [0165]. Kulkarni discloses that the use of such high pressure jets produces a fabric with random entanglement and improved fabric properties [0098, 0165]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pressure within the claimed range for the water jets in the method of Groshens in order to provide improved fabric properties as taught by Kulkarni.
Regarding claim 20, Groshens in view of Bouchette discloses the first carding machine and the second carding machine operate in parallel to form the first web of nonwoven fibers and the second web of nonwoven fibers (see Fig. 6 of Bouchette, wherein the first carding machine (upper card 74,75,76) and second carding machine (lower card 74,75,76) operate in parallel). As noted above, this permits formation of the first card and the second card at the same time, rather than one at a time on a single carding machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first and second carding machines operating in parallel to form the first and second carded webs of Groshens in order to form the two carded webs at the same time for a more efficient production process as disclosed by Bouchette.
Regarding claim 21, Groshens does not disclose the type of weave for the woven fabric, however the recited weaves types are known to be combined with card webs, as taught by Kulkarni. Kulkarni discloses the woven fabric may comprise a plain weave, twill weave, or satin weave [0101], as in claim 20. Kulkarni discloses entangling such a woven fabric with the carded web to form an improved product (see Fig. 3A; paras. 0076-0078, 0090-0094, 0098-0103]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plain, twill, or satin weave fabric for the woven fabric of Groshens in order to produce an improved product as taught by Kulkarni.
Regarding claim 22, Groshens and Kulkarni do not disclose use of a percale weave, however this type of weave is similar to a twill, satin or sateen weave and is used in similar applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a percale weave fabric for the woven fabric of Groshens since percale weave is similar to twill and satin weaves which are taught by Kulkarni, and it is within the routine skill in the art to select the type of weave for the method of Groshens as a matter of design choice, depending upon the type of product to be manufactured out of the fabric. Moreover, in the absence of the disclosure as to any criticality or advantages of percale over twill or satin weaves, it appears that these would function equivalently and any of these known weaves could be used equivalently in the method of Groshens.
Regarding claim 23, Groshens does not disclose the thread count of the woven fabric, however Kulkarni discloses a thread count similar to that of claim 23. Kulkarni discloses the woven fabric substrate has a thread count in the range of Ne 5 to 160 [0101]. This overlaps the claimed range of 80-1000. It has been held that where the claimed range overlaps that of the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thread count as claimed for the woven fabric in the method of Groshens modified in view of Kulkarni, since Kulkarni discloses a similar thread count and it is within the routine skill in the art to select the optimal thread count. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 24-25, Groshens does not disclose warp end density or weft end density for the woven fabric, however Kulkarni discloses densities similar to that claimed. Kulkarni discloses that the woven fabric has a warp end density of about 42-300 threads/inch in the warp direction [0101], which overlaps the claimed range of 50-350 in the warp direction in claim 24. Kulkarni discloses that the woven fabric has a weft end density of 15-500 threads/inch in the weft direction, preferably 25-300 [0101], which overlaps the claimed weft end density of 50-350 in claim 25. It has been held that where the claimed range overlaps that of the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a warp end density and a weft end density as claimed for the woven fabric in the method of Groshens modified in view of Kulkarni, since Kulkarni discloses a similar warp end density and weft end density for the woven substrate, and it is within the routine skill in the art to select the optimal warp and weft end densities. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Groshens discloses that the woven fabric is made of synthetic fibers, for example polyester or polyamide, or artificial fibers (col. 2, lines 33-36). Thus, the warp and the weft yarns of the woven fabric comprise synthetic spun yarns or synthetic filament yarns as in claims 26 and 27.
Regarding claim 28, Groshens discloses the entangling step uses from 2 to 10 water jets (see Fig. 3, depicting 5 water jets in the nozzle set 12a; col. 4, lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 29, Groshens discloses that a second nozzle set may be provided in order to entangle both sides of the webs (col. 4, lines 11-14). In this case, Groshens depicts the nozzle set 12a having 5 water jets and the nozzle set 12b having 5 water jets (see Fig. 3), thus using 10 water jets in the entangling step, which is “more than 6 water jets” as in claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, Groshens does not disclose the pressure of the water jets. Kulkarni discloses entangling the web of carded fibers with the woven fabric substrate using water jets at a pressure of 100-400 bar [0195], as in claim 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use water jet pressure of 100-400 bars in the method of Groshens in order to provide improved fabric properties as taught by Kulkarni.
Regarding claim 34, Groshens does not specifically disclose the pore size of the woven fabric, however the woven fabric would inherently have pores therein due to the woven structure. Also, Kulkarni discloses that the woven fabric is further opened by the expander 310 in preparation for hydroentangling (at 324) [0077], which would ensure that the woven fabric has significant pores per claim 34, although Kulkarni also does not disclose the size of the pores. The entangling performed by both Groshens and Kulkarni would results in shrinkage of the pores, due to the entangling of the fibers with the woven fabric (Kulkarni [0077-0083]; Groshens col. 2, lines 56-61). Groshens specifically discloses that the fibers of the nonwoven layer are tangled in the woven (support) fabric, and one of skill in the art would recognize that this would shrink the pore sizes within the woven fabric. Regarding the initial pore size of about 40-50 microns and the post-entangling pore size of about 8-15 microns, as recited in claim 34, it is within the routine skill in the art to select the tightness/openness of the woven fabric and the resulting tightness of the hydroentangled fabric depending upon the desired end fabric characteristics and final fabric properties required (Kulkarni [0077, 0079, 0083]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pore size of about 40-50 microns in the woven fabric prior to entangling and a pore size of about 8-15 microns after entangling in the method of Groshens modified in view of Kulkarni, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 35, Kulkarni discloses entangling the final web of nonwoven fibers with the woven fabric further comprises pre-wetting the final web of nonwoven fibers with the woven fabric before applying the water jets at the pressure of about 75 bars to about 400 bars [0128]. Kulkarni discloses that the pre-wetting is performed with “low pressure” water jets [0128], although a pressure of “up to about 35 bars” is not specifically disclosed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pre-wet the final web of nonwoven fibers with the woven fabric in the method of Groshens using low pressure water jets in order to pre-treat the fabric for improved subsequent hydroentangling at higher pressures, as taught by Kulkarni. Further, it would have been obvious to use jets at a pressure of up to about 35 bars for the pre-wetting, since Kulkarni specifically teaches use of “low pressure” water jets, and a pressure of about 35 bars is typical for low pressure water jet treatment in the art. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 37-38, Groshens discloses that the nonwoven fiber webs (2) are formed of synthetic, artificial, or natural carded fibers (col. 2, lines 42-45). Groshens does not specifically disclose the use of cellulosic fibers, however Kulkarni discloses the use of cotton for the card web [0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cellulosic (cotton) fibers for the nonwoven fiber webs of Groshens since cotton fiber is conventionally used for card webs which are entangled with woven fabrics in order to produce a soft, absorbent product as taught by Kulkarni.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/15/2025, are persuasive with respect to the rejections of the claims as obvious over Groshens in view of Kulkarni. Specifically, applicant argues that Groshens does not disclose use of a first carding machine and a second carding machine as recited in claim 19. This is persuasive, however a new grounds of rejection has been made.
It is the examiner’s position that Groshens does disclose forming a first web (2a) of nonwoven fibers using a carding machine and forming a second web (2c) of nonwoven fibers using a carding machine; Groshens discloses in col. 2, lines 42-45 that the webs are formed of carded fibers, thus necessarily using a carding machine. Groshens does not disclose whether both webs are formed on the same carding machine, or whether two separate carding machines are used to form these two webs. Both techniques are conventional in the art.
Bouchette discloses forming two card webs at the same time, in parallel, using a first and second carding machine, and then feeding these two card webs to a hydroentangling unit with a third web to form a layered hydroentangled structure (see Fig. 6). In Fig. 6, Bouchette discloses forming a first web of nonwoven fibers using a first carding machine (upper feed chute 72 feeds the fibers to the carding unit 74,75,76; i.e. the upper carding unit 74,75,76 in Fig. 6 forms a first carding machine) and forming a second web of nonwoven fibers using a second carding machine (lower feed chute 72 feeds the fibers to the lower carding unit 74,75,76; i.e. the lower carding unit 74,75,76 in Fig. 6 forms a second carding machine); see Bouchette col. 7, lines 1-8 and 23-26 and col. 8, lines 10-24. See Fig. 3 showing details of the carding machine and see Fig. 6 showing the first and second carding machines. This permits formation of the first card and the second card at the same time, using two different carding machines, rather than one at a time on a single carding machine. As set forth in the rejection above, it would have been obvious to use first and second carding machines to form the first and second carded webs of Groshens in order to form the two carded webs at the same time, in parallel, for a more efficient production process as disclosed by Bouchette.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY VANATTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs and alternate Fridays.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/AMY VANATTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732