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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 39-40 and 42-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 39 and 56 are amended to include the limitation “wherein the outer layer is not secured or bonded to another layer or thickness of material,” while originally this limitation included the conditional statement “after the outer layer is secured and bonded to the inner layer by at least the first weld area.” The amended limitation introduces new matter that lacks written description support in the application as originally filed. The as filed application does not support the broader limitation, since the broader limitation is drawn to the final structure of the composite, while the original limitation and its relevant support in the specification only applies to the order of processing steps and does not necessarily limit the structure or presence of additional layers or thicknesses of materials.
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.
Claims 39-40 and 42-60 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.
Claims 39 and 56 comprise the limitation “the outer layer is not secured or bonded to another layer or thickness of material.” It is unclear what encompasses “another layer” or “thickness of material.” It is unclear if the phrase “another layer” indicates any other layer aside from the outer layer, or if it indicates any other layer aside from the inner layer. It is unclear if another thickness of material includes the material of the inner layer itself or a completely different material. In efforts to further the prosecution the limitation is interpreted as allowing securing or bonding to any layer or thickness of material.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 40 does not further limit the invention of Claim 39, since if there are only two materials secured and bonded together, they must be directly secured and directly bonded together. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 and May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the Final Rejection of April 2, 2026. However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 41 have not yet been addressed. Applicant argues that Duwaltz requires overlapping portions which would be outside the scope of the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above the claims do not sufficiently limit the structure to only two layers with no overlapping areas, thus the structure of Duwaltz meets the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
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
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights