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 .
Amendments to claims 1, 5, and 9 and the cancellation of claim 3, in the response filed December 3, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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.
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 1-2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2003/0118776 to Anderson.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9, Anderson teaches a nonwoven web that is suitable for absorbing oil (oil absorber) comprising a fibrous material that contains cellulosic fibers, including pulp fibers, such as secondary or recycled fibers obtained from waste or paper (claim 4) (defibrated material obtained by defibrating fibers), and synthetic staple fibers (binding material being fibrous) (Anderson, abstract, para 0001, 0029-0030, 0056-0059, 0075-0076, 0084-0085). Anderson teaches the pulp fiber may have an low-average fiber pulp length less than about 1.2 mm, such as from 0.7 mm to 1.2 mm (average length of the fibers being 0.7 mm to 1.2 mm) (Id., para 0056-0058, 0023-0030). Anderson teaches the staple fibers having an average length of between about 0.25 inches and to about 0.375 inches (average length of the binding material being 6.35 mm to 9.525 mm) (Id., claim 23, para 0009, 0059). Anderson teaches the synthetic staple fiber being about 10% to about 20% by weight of the fibrous material (Id., para 0009). Anderson teaches the material, including the cellulosic fibers and the synthetic staple fibers, being hydraulically entangled (Id., para 0033), reading on the synthetic staple fiber serving as a binding agent that binds the fibers together.
The limitations “oil absorber configured to be disposed around a rotational driving unit of a robot” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. The nonwoven is capable of absorbing oil and is capable of being disposed around a rotational driving unit of a robot.
Examiner would also like to note that the limitation “defibrated material obtained by defibrating fibers” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. Anderson teaches the pulp fibers being from secondary recycled fibers, such as obtained from office waste, newsprint, brown paper stock, paperboard scrap (Anderson, para 0029, 0056). It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson teaches nonwoven web can be a sheet (Anderson, Fig. 8, para 0044, 0061-0066), reading on nonwoven (oil absorber) being formed in a sheet shape.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Anderson teaches the fibers being nylon sheath (cover layer) and polyethylene core (Anderson, para 0073), reading on the binding material being a thermoplastic resin (claim 6) and including a core that is fibrous and a cover layer by which an outer circumferential portion of the core is covered (claim 8).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson teaches the synthetic staple fiber being about 10% to about 20% by weight of the fibrous material (Anderson, para 0009), reading on the percent content of the synthetic staple fiber (binding material) being 11.1% to 25% by weight in relation to the pulp fiber (defibrated material).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “wherein the rotational driving unit includes a motor and a speed reducer coupled to one end portion of the motor, and the oil absorber is configured to be disposed at least at one of an outer circumferential portion of the speed reducer, surroundings around the motor, and an other end portion of the motor” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. The nonwoven of Anderson is capable of being used in conjunction with the claimed structure.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2018/0326699 to Knowlson.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-9, Knowlson teaches a nonwoven web comprising defibrated natural cellulose fibers (defibrated material obtained by defibrating fibers) having a length of no more than 3.5 mm, preferably 1.5 mm to 3.5 mm (average length of the fiber being 1.5 to 3 mm), with bonding fiber (binding material) having a length from 6 to 12 mm (average length of the binding material being 6 to 12 mm), and the web having good absorbency including oil (Knowlson, abstract, para 0001, 0003, 0013-0015, 0026-0027, 0038, 0040, 0049, 0051), reading on the nonwoven web being an oil absorber. Knowlson teaches the bonding fibers (binding material) containing a sheath that bonds with the other fibers (Id., para 0032), reading on the binding material binding the fibers together and being fibrous.
The limitations “oil absorber configured to be disposed around a rotational driving unit of a robot” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. The nonwoven is capable of absorbing oil and is capable of being disposed around a rotational driving unit of a robot.
Examiner would also like to note that the limitation “defibrated material obtained by defibrating fibers” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Knowlson teaches the nonwoven being in the form of a sheet (sheet shape) (Knowlson, para 0049).
Regarding claim 6 and 8, Knowlson teaches the bonding fiber preferably being composed of a core and sheath structure, wherein the sheath contains or is made of a polymer having a melting point lower than the melting point of the polymer or polymer composition of the core to bond with other fibers while the integrity of the fiber is retained by the non-melted core (Knowlson, para 0032), reading on a core that is fibrous and a cover layer by which an outer circumferential portion of the core is covered (claim 8). Knowlson teaches the bonding fibers comprising polyethylene and polypropylene or polyester (Knowlson, para 0032), reading on the bonding material being a thermoplastic resin (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, Knowlson teaches the cellulose fiber being from 50 to 90% by weight and the bonding fibers being from 10 to 50% by weight (Id., para 0025), with a specific embodiment being 60% to 85% by weight of wood pulp and 10 to 20% by weight bonding fibers (Id., para 0019), reading on the percentage content of the binding material being 11.8% to 33.3% by weight in relation to the cellulose fibers (defibrated material).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “wherein the rotational driving unit includes a motor and a speed reducer coupled to one end portion of the motor, and the oil absorber is configured to be disposed at least at one of an outer circumferential portion of the speed reducer, surroundings around the motor, and an other end portion of the motor” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. The nonwoven of Knowlson is capable of being used in conjunction with the claimed structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2003/0118776 to Anderson, claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9 remaining as applied above.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9, in the event it is shown that Anderson does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Anderson discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Anderson, wherein the cellulosic fibers are low-length pulp fiber that are secondary or recycled fiber obtained from water or paper with synthetic staple fiber, motivated by the desire of using predictably suitable component of the nonwoven web disclosed by Anderson and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Anderson based upon the totality of the teachings of Anderson.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2003/0118776 to Anderson, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, and 6-9 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0247828 to Ishizawa.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson teaches the use of low-average fiber length pulp having a length of 0.7 to 1.2 mm and being wood pulp (Anderson 0024-0030, 0057-0058).
Anderson is silent with regards to the average diameter of the fiber being 0.5 micron or greater and 200 micron or less.
However, Ishizawa teaches a commercially available wood pulp having a diameter of 23 microns and length of 0.7 mm (Ishizawa, para 0123, 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Anderson, wherein the low-average fiber length pulp if the commercially available wood pulp of Ishizawa, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known wood pulp having a predictably suitable length and by the desire of using commercially available materials to successfully practice the invention of Anderson.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0326699 to Knowlson, claims 1-2 and 6-9 remaining as applied above.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-9, in the event it is shown that Knowlson does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Knowlson discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Knowlson, wherein the natural cellulosic fibers are defibrated natural cellulosic fibers having a length between 1.5 mm to 3.5 mm with bonding fiber with core-sheath having a length from 6 to 12 mm, motivated by the desire of using predictably suitable component of the nonwoven web disclosed by Knowlson with predictably suitable structure and composition and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Knowlson based upon the totality of the teachings of Knowlson.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0326699 to Knowlson, as applied to claims 1-2 and 6-9 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2003/0118776 to Anderson.
Regarding claim 4, Knowlson teaches the cellulose fiber being natural cellulose fiber that can be any natural cellulose fiber including wood pulp fibers and could be mixtures of natural cellulose fibers (Knowlson, para 0026).
Knowlson does not explicitly teach the cellulose fibers being derived from waste paper or recycled paper.
However, Anderson teaches a nonwoven comprising cellulose fiber that has oil absorption capabilities and teaches the use of virgin wood fibers as well as secondary or recycled fibers obtained from office waste, newsprint, brown paper stock, paperboard scrap (Anderson, abstract, 0056, 0001, 0029-0030, 0057-0059, 0075-0076, 0084-0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Knowlson, wherein the cellulose fiber comprise the secondary or recycled fibers of Anderson, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known cellulose fiber predictably suitable for use in forming nonwoven having oil absorption capability and suitable for use in conjunction with other wood pulp fibers and desire to use recycled material minimize environmental impact.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0326699 to Knowlson, as applied to claims 1-2 and 6-9 above, in view of USPN 5,085,780 to Ostreicher.
Regarding claim 5, Knowlson teaches the length of the cellulose fiber being preferably 2.5 to 3.5 mm in length and can be any natural cellulose fiber, including wood pulp (Knowlson, para 0026).
Knowlson is silent with regards to the diameter of the fiber.
However, Ostreicher teaches wood pulp is known to have fiber diameters ranging from 15 to 25 microns with fiber length of 0.85 mm to about 6.5 mm (Ostreicher, col. 9 lines 35-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Knowlson, wherein cellulose wood pulp fiber having a diameter from 15 to 25 microns as taught by Ostreicher, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known natural cellulose wood pulp fiber diameters for fibers having a length within the suitable range and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Knowlson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Anderson and Knowlson does not teach an average length of the fiber being 0.1 mm or greater and 5 mm or less and the bonding material being fibrous and an average fiber length of the binding material being 1.0 mm or greater and 20 mm or less, specifically the average length of the binding material being 1.0 mm or greater and 20 mm or less. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Anderson, Anderson teaches the presence of synthetic staple fibers that are being mapped to the binding material that is fibrous. These fibers are taught as having a length within the claimed range, specifically about 0.25 inches and to about 0.375 inches corresponding to an average length of the binding material being 6.35 mm to 9.525 mm, within the claimed range of 1.0 mm or greater and 20 mm or less. As the material is entangled together, it serves to bind the fiber togethers and acts as a binding material that is fibrous. Anderson teaches the pulp fiber being low-average fiber pulp having a length less than about 1.2 mm, such as from 0.7 mm to 1.2 mm (Id., para 0056-0058), which is within the claimed range of 0.1mm or greater and 5 mm or less.
Regarding Knowlson, Knowlson teaches “a fiber length of the bonding fibers is from 6.0 to 12.0 mm” (Knowlson, para 0013), therefore reading on a binding material that is fibrous and has a length of 6mm to 12 mm, within the claimed range. Knowlson teaches “[t]he length of the natural cellulose fibers is no more than 3.5 mm, preferably 1.5 mm to 3.5 mm, most preferably 2.5 to 3.5 mm” (Id., para 0026), reading on the defibrated natural cellulose material having an average length within the claimed range.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejections detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2012/0111519 to Toubeau teaches a fibrous support to be impregnated and teaches to increase absorption capacity and decrease the rigidity, the short fiber have a medium arithmetic length in practice between 0.5 and 0.72 mm representing 40 to 60% and long fibers to guarantee the desired strength having a length between 1.2 and 1.5 mm representing from 30 to 50% by weight.
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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789