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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 1/20/26 is acknowledged. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody III et al., US 20170246832 A1 in view of Sworen et al., US 2023/0332348 A1.
The published patent application issued to Moody III et al., teach plurality of non-woven fabrics used in liquid barrier applications such as drapes, lab coats and/or absorbent articles (title, abstract and figures 1 and 2). Moody III et al., teach spun-bond and melt-blown fabrics arranged in various configurations (paragraph 0046). For Example, Moody III et al., teach a multi-layer configuration comprising alternating spun-bond and melt-blown fabrics (paragraph 0046). In one embodiment, Moody III et al., teach a multi-layer configuration comprising SSMMMS wherein S is spun-bond non-wovens and M is melt blown fine fiber non-wovens (paragraphs 0045-0046). With specific regard to claim 1, the Examiner is of the position that a multi-layer SSMMMS configuration meets the claimed arrangement. The nonwoven fabric, in accordance with certain embodiments of the invention, may comprise a basis weight from about 5 to about 100 grams-per-square-meter (gsm) (paragraph 0087). With regard to claim 13, Moody III et al., teach fine fibers of submicron size of less than 1 micron (paragraph 0044). With regard to claims 14-15, Moody III et al., teach the claimed structural arrangements (paragraphs 0047-0072 and figures). With regard to claims 17 and 18, Moody III et al., teach a diaper comprising a liquid permeable top-sheet, a liquid impermeable back-sheet and absorbent core located between said top-sheet and back-sheet (paragraph 0091). With specific regard to claim 18, Moody III et al., does not teach a back-sheet made of a film. With regard to claim 16, Moody III et al., does not specifically teach the claimed hydro-head and air permeability; however, the Examiner is of the position that such properties can be optimized depending on the number and type of layers used and the arrangement of those layers used to form the liquid barrier. Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed hydro-head and air permeability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Moody III et al., does not teach the claimed non-fluorinated barrier coating (NFBC).
The published patent application issued to Sworen et al., teach providing water repellency to a fibrous substrate. Sworen et al., teach a treatment composition applied on the fibrous substrate, where the composition comprises (a) 20-99.5 wt.% a silicone polyether polymer, and (b) 0.5-4 wt.% at least one surfactant comprising at least one cationic surfactant or a mixture of at least one cationic and at least one nonionic surfactant, and the silicone polyether polymer has 6-100 wt.% silicon containing repeat units (I) or (II) and 0-94 wt.% repeat units from ethylenically unsaturated comonomers (abstract).
Therefore, motivated by the desire to provide water repellency to non-woven fabrics used to form liquid barrier products it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to treat the non-woven fabrics of Moody III et al., with the water repellency composition of Sworen et al.
4. Claim(s) 2-6, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody III et al., US 20170246832 A1 in view of Sworen et al., US 2023/0332348 A1 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Isaac, US 12,558,273.
Moody III et al., in view of Sworen et al., do not teach the claimed alcohol repellent agent.
The patent issued to Isaac teach a fibrous article treated to have alcohol repellency (title and abstract). The AR treatment may include any known method of AR or water repellency treatment. Some examples include and are not limited to treatment with fluorocarbons; polydimethylsiloxane; treatment with compounds formed by reacting stearic acid and formaldehyde with melamine. Other AR or liquid repellent treatments may include and are not limited to: Unidyne TG-5502™, and/or Unidyne TG 5601™, and/or Undyne XF™, Series non-fluorinated repellent finish all manufactured by Daikin Chemicals; Teflon™ treatments which may include Phobol® CP/ND, Phobotex, Phobol® Extender SFB, Zelan™ and/or Capstone™ based treatments, all manufactured by Huntsman or treatment with known fluorocarbon alternatives such as OrganoTex®, manufactured by Organotex at Linjalvagen 9: SE-187 66 Taby Sweden; Siltech® E-2178 Cross-linked Alkyl Siloxane Emulsion and/or Siltech® E-2152 Cross-linked Amino Siloxane Emulsion manufactured by Siltech. In another example, the AR or liquid repellency treatment may be provided as a melt additive during and/or before forming of the non-woven. Some examples may include polymer additives such as HYDREPEL®, manufactured by Goulston Surface Modification Technologies. In one example, at least one or a combination of the non-woven substrate, the topsheet and/or the absorbent core may be treated with an alcohol repellent (“AR)” treatment or liquid repellent treatment (column 9, 25-55). Any one of or a combination of the layers of article 100 may be liquid repellent or alcohol resistance (“AR”) treated. While throughout the disclosure AR treatment may be referred to, the term AR treatment may refer to any liquid or water repellent treatment (column 9, 25-55).
With regard to the claimed wetting agent, the Examiner considers any one of the surfactants of Sworen et al., sufficient to meet the claimed wetting agent.
With regard to the claimed radiation cured limitations, Sworen et al., teach that the composition is UV cured (0011-0017 and 0039).
Isaac does not teach the claimed amount of alcohol repellency treatment as set forth in claim 6. Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed amount of alcohol repellency additive, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 12, the combination of cited prior art does not teach the claimed ratio of alcohol repellent to wetting agent. Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed ratio of alcohol repellency to wetting agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to formulate the water repellent treatment coating of Sworen et al., coated on the multi-layer substrates of Moody III et al., with an alcohol repellent as taught by Isaac. Motivation to add an alcohol repellent to the water repellent treatment coating of Sworen et al., is found in the desire expand the number of liquids the treatment coating can repel.
5. Claim(s) 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody III et al., US 20170246832 A1 in view of Sworen et al., US 2023/0332348 A1 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Isaac, US 12,558,273 as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Elsbernd et al., US 20180298209 A1.
The combination of cited prior art above does not teach the claimed binder.
The published patent application issued to Elsbernd et al., teach a coating composition to provide a repellent surface to a substrate (title, abstract and paragraphs 0001-0005). Said composition comprises a non-fluorinated polymeric organic binder (abstract and paragraph 0006). Elsbernd et al., teach that while fluorinated organic polymeric binders can be used, they are typically considerably more expensive than non-fluorinated binders. Further, non-fluorinated organic polymeric binders can exhibit better adhesion to non-fluorinated polymeric, metal, or other substrates (paragraph 0045). The coating compositions typically contain at least about 0.01%, 0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 15% or greater solids of the (e.g. non-fluorinated organic) polymeric binder, based on the total weight of the coating composition (paragraph 0056). Based on the weights disclosed by Moody III et al., set forth above, the amount of binder limitation to fabric basis weight of claim 9 is met. Suitable polymeric materials for substrates include, but are not limited to, polyesters (e.g., polyethylene terephthalate or polybutylene terephthalate), polycarbonates, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) copolymers, poly(meth)acrylates (e.g., polymethylmethacrylate, or copolymers of various (meth)acrylates), polystyrenes, polysulfones, polyether sulfones, epoxy polymers (e.g., homopolymers or epoxy addition polymers with polydiamines or polydithiols), polyolefins (e.g., polyethylene and copolymers thereof or polypropylene and copolymers thereof), polyvinyl chlorides, polyurethanes, fluorinated polymers, cellulosic materials, derivatives thereof, and the like (paragraph 0062). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the water repellent composition of modified Sworen et al., used to treat the multi-layer substrates of Moody et al., with a binder as taught by Elsbernd et al. Motivation to employ a binder is found in the desire to improve adhesion of the water repelling composition to a substrate material.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of cited prior art does expressly teach the claimed ratio. Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed ratio of alcohol repellent to binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/517058 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter sought overlaps and encompasses the subject matter of copending Application No. 18/517058.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/517043 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter sought overlaps and encompasses the subject matter of copending Application No. 18/517043.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights