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 § 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.
Claim(s) 39-40, 42-53 and 55-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2018/0281344 to Duweltz in view of “Acronal MS 886 Technical Data Sheet” to BASF.
Regarding Claims 39-40, 42-53 and 55-60
Duweltz teaches a sterilization wrap and method of making comprising providing an outer layer comprising a thermoplastic material and providing an inner layer comprising a wet-laid nonwoven material and an acrylic or styrenic binder, wherein the outer layer is secured and bonded to the inner layer by at least a first weld area, and a second weld area along associated first and second edges wherein the wrap may only have two layers (Duweltz, abstract, paragraphs [0068]-[0077], [0115]-[0119], [0126], fig. 1-11). Duweltz teaches that in the weld area a surface of the inner layer may be exposed (Id.). Duweltz teaches that the inner layer may comprise 50 to 100% of cellulose fibers such as cotton fibers which would necessarily provide absorbency and would necessarily be either mercerized or un-mercerized, and between 0 and 50% of synthetic fibers such as PET or polypropylene which would necessarily provide moisture wicking properties (Id., paragraphs [0042]-[0053]). Duweltz teaches that the inner layer may be micro-creped (Id., paragraphs [0007], [0053]). Duweltz teaches that the basis weight of the outer layer may be between 30 and 60 gsm and the inner layer may be between 30 and 50 gsm, and therefore in total the wrap may comprise a basis weight between 60 and 110 gsm, which overlap the claimed ranges (Id., paragraph [0050] and [0067]). Duweltz teaches that the wrap is permeable to a sterilizing agent, impermeable to bacteria and meets the requirements of ISO 11607 part 1 as a sterile barrier system (Id., paragraphs [0005], [0014], [0054]). Duweltz teaches that the bond strength is greater than or equal to 100 cN/15mm (Id., paragraph [0033]). Duweltz teaches that the outer layer is directly secured and directly bonded to the inner layer by at least the first weld area and does not appear to teach the necessary addition of layers after the outer layer is secured and bonded to the inner layer (Id.).
Duweltz does not appear to teach that the acrylic or styrenic binder is specifically an anionic acrylate-styrene and/or acrylate-styrene-acrylonitrile. However, BASF teaches a binder for bonding nonwoven fabrics comprising anionic acrylic-styrene dispersions having acrylonitrile (BASF, page 1). BASF teaches that the binder provides nonwovens with high heat resistance and very little tendency to yellow (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of Duweltz and to use as the styrenic or acrylic binder, the binder of BASF, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite having improved heat resistance and appearance.
Regarding Claim 53
The prior art combination does not appear to specify the amount of binder in the inner layer. However, it should be noted that the amount of binder is a result effective variable. As the relative amount of binder increases, the material exhibits improved fiber adhesion and durability at the expense of weight and cost. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of binder since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the binder in order to provide the maximum strength and durability for the product.
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Duweltz and BASF as applied to claims 39-40, 42-53 and 55-60 above in view of US Pub No. 2003/0176133 to Walker.
Regarding Claim 54
The prior art combination does not specify the addition of a surfactant. However, Walker teachers a binder dispersion composition including acrylates for high-wet strength fibrous substrates comprising anionic surfactants such as sodium lauryl ether sulfate (sodium laureth sulfate) in an amount of between 1 and 10% which overlaps the claimed range of between 0.5 and 5% (Walker, abstract, paragraph [0026], [0035], [0053]). Walker teaches that the surfactants improve dispersion (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the composite of the prior art combination, and to use the specific anionic sulfonated fatty acid, such as sodium laureth sulfate, as taught by Walker, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite comprising surfactants which are known in the art to be predictably suitable for use in fibrous binder applications as dispersing agents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the first and second layers are not bonded. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the majority of strength of the weld area is due to the “thermo-fusible sheet,” Duweltz teaches that the “non-thermo-fusible sheet” comprises thermo-fusible compounds such as PET, PA or PP which result in a bond between the two layers (Id., paragraphs [0020], [0044], [0065]).
Applicant argues that Duweltz requires additional layers or overlapping portions in order to create the weld area. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, with the exception of claim 41, do not exclude an overlapping configuration for the weld area.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to amended claim 41 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 41 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786