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 the specification and claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11-13, cancellation of claims 17-20 and the addition of claims 21-22, in the response filed March 20, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1-16 and 21-22 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. For example, RE38,105 and RE38,505 in para 0057 of the originally filed application has not be cited on an IDS.
Claim Interpretation
The term “consolidated” in claim 1 is interpreted as meaning “the bringing together of at least a portion of the fibers of a nonwoven web into closer proximity or attachment there-between (e.g., thermally fused together, chemically bonded together, and/or mechanically entangled together) to form a bonding site, or bonding sites, which function to increase the resistance to external force” as discussed in para 0018 of the originally filed disclosure.
BIAX-meltblown fibers in claims 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, and 21-22 is interpreted as meaning “meltblown filaments or fibers made by a meltblown process that is intermediate between the conventional meltblown process and the conventional spunbond process. A description of the process and apparatus used is given in U.S. Pat. No. 6,013,223” (see para 0023 of the published application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2004/0265498 to Qashou in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0177888 to Escafere.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-15, Qashou teaches a cleaning article comprising a first abrasive meltblown layer (plurality of meltblown fibers) and a second soft, air absorbent integrated by hydroentanglement (physical entanglement) on an image transfer device (Qashou, abstract, para 0005-0006). Qashou teaches the meltblown layer comprising coarse discontinuous filamentary element formed from polyolefins (polymer component), such as polypropylene (claims 3-4) (Id., para 0005, 0016). Qashou teaches the absorbent precursor web and the meltblown precursor web being juxtaposed and hydroentangled on a three-dimensional image transfer device (Id., para 0020-0021), reading on the plurality of meltblown fiber consolidated together via physical entanglement of the plurality of meltblown fibers and the nonwoven fabric includes a three-dimensional (3D) image imparted therein.
Qashou does not teach meltblown layer being a BIAX-meltblown fiber layer.
However, Escafere teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising a meltblown fibers, such as produced with a high strength meltblown process, and woodpulp for use in wipes (Escafere, abstract, para 0075-0077). Escafere teaches a high strength meltblown filament being filaments made by meltblown process that is intermediate between the conventional meltblown process and the conventional spunbond process (BIAX meltblown fiber) resulting in higher tenacity (Id., para 0034). Escafere teaches the high strength meltblown web allow low basis weight that are high strength and self-supporting (Id., para 0075-0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the article of Qashou, wherein the meltblown layer is formed using the high strength meltblown process as taught by Escafere, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known meltblown process predictably suitable for use in wipe applications used in conjunction with cellulose material and to impart higher strength and tenacity.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches a specific embodiment using polypropylene with the meltblown having filaments in the range of between 5 and 50 microns (Qashou, para 0016, claim 1).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of the plurality of meltblown fibers having an average diameter from about 5 to about 15 microns, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the diameter of the fibers, and therefore the average diameter, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the prior art combination teaches optionally, prior to extrusion, the single polymeric resin used to form the fiber being compound with various melt-additives, including colorants (Qashou, para 0017), and therefore encompasses no additives. The prior art combination teaches an embodiment using polypropylene (polymeric component) (Id., para 0016) and does not disclose the use of additives, reading on the polymeric component being 100% by weight of a polyolefin (claim 4). As the additive component is optional in claim 11, the limitations of claim 11 are met.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches the soft absorbent layer being a continuous filament nonwoven layer (Qashou, para 0018) and does not require staple fibers (Id., all, claim 1), reading on the nonwoven fabric being devoid of staple fibers.
Regarding claim 8-9, shows a photomicrograph of the nonwoven showing the 3D image comprising a 3D pattern on a first side of the nonwoven fabric and includes a plurality of recessed portions (claim 8) and plurality of elevated portions (claim 9) in a z-direction relative to an imaginary central plane extending through the nonwoven fabric in an x-y plane that is perpendicular to the z-direction (Qashou, Fig. 2, 4, para 0010-0013, 0020-0024).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches the article comprising aperture extending entirely through the laminate (Qashou, para 0023), reading on the nonwoven further comprising one or more aperture extending completely through the nonwoven fabric.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art combination teaches the soft absorbent layer being a continuous filament nonwoven layer, specifically a spunbond (Qashou, para 0018), reading on a second layer comprising a first meltspun nonwoven comprising a first plurality of spunbond fibers. The prior art combination teaches the absorbent precursor web (second layer) and the meltblown precursor web (first layer comprising a nonwoven fabric according to claim 1) being juxtaposed and hydroentangled on a three-dimensional image transfer device (Id., para 0020-0024, Figs 2-5, para 0010-0013), reading the first plurality of spunbond fiber being physically entangled with the plurality of meltblown fibers, and therein the composite nonwoven fabric includes a three-dimensional (3D) image imparted therein.
Regarding claims 13-14, shows a photomicrograph of the nonwoven showing the 3D image comprising a 3D pattern on a first side of the nonwoven fabric and includes a plurality of recessed portions (claim 13) and plurality of elevated portions (claim 14) in a z-direction relative to an imaginary central plane extending through the nonwoven fabric in an x-y plane that is perpendicular to the z-direction (Qashou, Fig. 2, 4, para 0010-0013, 0020-0024).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches further comprising an additional layer, such as a spunbond scrim (Qashou, para 0023), reading on a second plurality of spunbond fibers. Qashou teaches incorporation of a fibrous batt into the nonwoven fabric by application of suitable bonding means, including hydroentanglement (Id., para 0019), which would result in physical entanglement of the fibers within and adjacent the batt.
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the second plurality of spunbond fiber being physically entangled with the plurality of meltblown fibers, the first plurality of spunbond fibers, or both. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of the prior art combination, wherein the additional layer is hydroentangled into the laminate, motivated by the desire to use conventionally known bonding techniques disclosed by Qashou as predictably suitable as used explicitly to attach and impart 3D image to the meltblown layer and absorbent layer and ensure cohesion between the layers to form the cohesive laminate used for wiping. Hydroentanglement would results in the spunbond fibers of the additional layer being physically entangled with the plurality of meltblown fibers, the first plurality of spunbond fibers, or both.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art combination teaches the article comprising aperture extending entirely through the laminate (Qashou, para 0023), reading on the composite nonwoven further comprising one or more aperture extending completely through the composite nonwoven fabric.
Claims 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2004/0265498 to Qashou in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0177888 to Escafere, as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-15 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2003/0211802 to Keck.
Regarding claims 5-6, the prior art combination teaches the soft, absorbent layer being a fibrous nonwoven layer or a continuous filament nonwoven layer, such as a spunbond (Qashou, para 0018). The prior art combination teaches the absorbent layer comprising natural fiber, synthetic fibers and blends thereof (Id., para 0005). The prior art combination teaches the absorbent layer being capable of picking up liquids and particulates (Id., para 0018). The prior art combination teaches the absorbent precursor web (second layer) and the meltblown precursor web (first layer comprising a nonwoven fabric according to claim 1) being juxtaposed and hydroentangled on a three-dimensional image transfer device (Id., para 0020-0024, Figs 2-5, para 0010-0013), reading the first plurality of absorbent fiber being physically entangled with the plurality of meltblown fibers.
The prior art combination does not explicitly teaches the absorbent fiber being a plurality of cellulosic fibers comprising natural cellulose, synthetic cellulose, or a combination thereof, and the weight of the meltblown fibers based on the total fiber weight of the nonwoven including the plurality of cellulosic fibers.
However, Keck teaches a tuft coform nonwoven web comprising a matrix of thermoplastic meltblown filaments, such as polyolefin fibers, and at least one secondary material, including absorbent fiber such as cellulosic derived fibers including wood pulp fibers, cotton, (natural cellulose) and rayon fibers (synthetic cellulose) (claim 5) suitable for use as a wipe (Keck, abstract, para 0049,0052-0053, 0056-0061, 0087). Keck teaches the selection of the secondary material will determine the properties of the resulting coform material, including the absorbency (Id., para 0057). Keck teaches the content of the absorbent material including the liquid holding capacity (Id., para 0115). Keck teaches the coform matrix containing about 20 and about 50% of the secondary material and between about 50% and 80% by weight of the thermoplastic filament, especially in application where low linting is desired (Id., para 0114), reading on the plurality of meltblown fibers comprising between about 50% and 80% by weight of the nonwoven fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of the prior art combination, wherein the absorbent fibers are the wood pulp fiber, cotton fibers, or rayon fibers of Keck and contains about 50% and 80% by weight of the meltblown fibers as taught by Keck, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known absorbent fibers predictably suitable for use in wipe containing meltblown fibers with predictably suitable thermoplastic meltblown fiber content and by the desire of predictably influencing absorbency of the wipe and having low linting properties.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art combination is silent with regards to the basis weight of the nonwoven.
However, Keck teaches a tuft coform nonwoven web comprising a matrix of thermoplastic meltblown filaments, such as polyolefin fibers, and at least one secondary material, including absorbent fiber such as cellulosic derived fibers including wood pulp fibers, cotton, (natural cellulose) and rayon fibers (synthetic cellulose) (claim 5) suitable for use as a wipe (Keck, abstract, para 0049,0052-0053, 0056-0061, 0087). Keck teaches the tufted coform material having a total basis weight in the range of about 34 gsm to about 600 gsm and being dependent on the particular utility when in the form of a wipe (Id., para 0113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the basis weight is in the range of about 34 gsm to about 600 gsm as taught by Keck, motivated by the desire of forming a nonwoven containing meltblown fibers having a conventionally known basis weight predictably suitable for use in wipe.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of about 15 to about 200 gsm, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the basis weight, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art and based on the desired application of the wipe.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2003/0211802 to Keck in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0177888 to Escafere.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11, Keck teaches a tuft coform nonwoven web (nonwoven fabric including a three-dimensional image imparted therein) comprising a matrix of thermoplastic meltblown filaments (plurality of meltblown fibers), such as polyolefin fibers (claims 3-4), and at least one secondary material, such as cellulosic derived fibers including wood pulp fibers (natural cellulose) and rayon fibers (synthetic cellulose) (claim 5) (Keck, abstract, para 0049,0052-0053, 0056-0061, 0087). Keck teaches the thermoplastic fibers and the secondary fibers being mechanically entangled and being attenuating by air and below-wire-vacuum to pull the meltblown filaments and secondary material into a forming surface (Id., para 0096, 0143, 0064-0073), reading on the plurality of meltblown fiber being consolidate together via physical entanglement of the plurality of meltblown fibers and the plurality of cellulosic fibers being physically entangled with the plurality of meltblown fibers (claim 5). Keck teaches the selection of the secondary material will determine the properties of the resulting coform material, including the absorbency (Id., para 0057). Keck teaches the forming surface geometry and processing conditions being used to alter the tufts, including the attenuating air and below-wire-vacuum (Id., para 0064-0073), reading on the nonwoven fabric including a three-dimensional (3D) image imparted therein.
Keck does not teach meltblown layer being a BIAX-meltblown fiber layer.
However, Escafere teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising a meltblown fibers, such as produced with a high strength meltblown process, and woodpulp for use in wipes (Escafere, abstract, para 0075-0077). Escafere teaches a high strength meltblown filament being filaments made by meltblown process that is intermediate between the conventional meltblown process and the conventional spunbond process (BIAX meltblown fiber) resulting in higher tenacity (Id., para 0034). Escafere teaches the high strength meltblown web allow low basis weight that are high strength and self-supporting (Id., para 0075-0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Keck, wherein the meltblown layer is formed using the high strength meltblown process as taught by Escafere, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known meltblown process predictably suitable for use in wipe applications used in conjunction with cellulose material and to impart higher strength and tenacity.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches the meltblown fibers being generally smaller than 10 microns in average diameter, generally between about 2 and 7 microns (Keck, para 0035, 0117).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of an average diameter from about 5 to about 15 microns, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the average diameter, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the prior art combination teaches the thermoplastic meltblown filament being prepared from thermoplastic polymer, including polyolefin (Keck, para 0052-0053) and does not require an additive (Id., all), reading on the polymer component comprising about 100% by weight of at least one polyolefin. As the additive component is optional in claim 11, the claim limitations are met.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches the coform matrix containing about 20 and about 50% of the secondary material and between about 50% and 80% by weight of the thermoplastic filament, especially in application where low linting is desired (Keck, para 0114), reading on the plurality of meltblown fibers comprising between about 50% and 80% by weight of the nonwoven fabric.
Regarding claim 8-9, the prior art combination teaches nonwoven web having a three-dimensional textured structure with outward projections (plurality of elevated portions) (called “tufts”) from the surface with an area between that does not project out (plurality of recessed portions) (Keck, para 0002, 0007, Fig 6A and 6B), reading on the 3D image comprising a 3D pattern on a first side of the nonwoven fabric and includes a plurality of recessed portions (claim 8) and plurality of elevated portions (claim 9) in a z-direction relative to an imaginary central plane extending through the nonwoven fabric in an x-y plane that is perpendicular to the z-direction.
Claims 1, 12, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2010/0266824 to Westwood in view of US Pub. No. 2003/0211802 to Keck.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 21-22, Westwood teaches a multilayer meltblown composite (nonwoven fabric) comprising a first meltblown layer and a second meltblown layer formed by the Biax-Fiberfilm meltblown line and teaches the multilayer construction being passed through a hydroentangling apparatus entangling the fibers (physical entanglement) (Westwood, abstract, para 0096, 0121), reading on a plurality of BIAX-meltblown fibers consolidated together via physical entanglement of the plurality of BIAX-meltblown fibers. Westwood teaches the multilayer construction being used to form personal hygiene wipes and apparel (Id., para 0117). As the composite contains only the meltblown layer, the plurality of BIAX-meltblown fibers account for 100% by weight of a total fiber weight of the nonwoven fabric (claims 21-22). Westwood teaches one or more spunbond can be disposed on the meltblown layers (Westwood, para 0020), reading on a composite nonwoven fabric comprising the first layer comprising a nonwoven fabric according to claim 1 and a second layer comprising a first meltspun nonwoven comprising a first plurality of spunbond fiber wherein the first plurality of spunbond fibers are physically entangled with the plurality of BIAX-meltblown fibers.
Westwood does not appear to teach the nonwoven fabric including a three-dimensional (3D) image imparted therein.
However, Keck teaches a nonwoven web prepared from meltblown filament and containing projections (three-dimensional image imparted therein) which aid in the scrubbing and cleaning ability (Keck, abstract). Keck teaches the nonwoven being used in wipes (Id., para 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven to having projection on the surface as taught by Keck, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known meltblown surface predictably suitable for use in wipe applications and to aid in scrubbing and cleaning ability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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