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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-20 are 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.
3. The term “substantially” in claims 2, 4, 14 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
4. The term “some” in claims 1 and 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “some” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
5. Claims 5-13 and 16-20 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-4, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanya et al., US 20140358101.
With regard to claims 1-4, the published patent application issued to Kanya et al., teach a multi-layer non-woven web comprising a first outer accumulation, a second outer accumulation, and an inner accumulation of fibers are disclosed. The Examiner equates the inner accumulation of fibers to the claimed third material layer. The outer accumulations of fibers may form respective first and second macroscopic outer web surfaces. The webs may bear a pattern of thermal bonds impressed on either or both of the first and second macroscopic surfaces, at which the fibers of the first accumulation are thermally bonded to fibers of the second accumulation. Fibers of the inner accumulation may be interlaced among the fibers of the first and/or second accumulations and be present at the first and/or second macroscopic outer web surfaces (title, abstract and figure 1).
With regard to claim 12, Kanya et al., teach that the fibers of each fiber layer are the same type (paragraph 0037).
With regard to claim 14, it appears that the second outer surface is “substantially” free of the third plurality of fibers (see figure 1).
With regard to claim 15, Kanya et al., teach using synthetic polymer fibers (paragraph 0007-0008).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 5-6, 8-10, 13, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanya et al., US 20140358101 in view of Fingal et al., US 2010/0203306.
Kanya et al., is set forth above. Kanya et al., does not teach the claimed pulp, cellulose and/or lyocell fiber types. Kanya et al., further does not teach the claimed carded non-woven structure.
The published patent application issued to Fingal et al., teach a multi-layer (three layer) absorbent non-woven wipe material (title and abstract).
With regard to claims 5-6 and 8-10, Fingal et al., teach a layered or stratified fibrous structure having surface regions 2 and a core region 3. The surface regions comprise absorbent fibers 4, such as cellulosic pulp fibers, viscose, hemp, flax, cotton, or similar, with cellulosic pulp fibers being particularly preferred. Cellulosic pulp fibers are very short fibers, with fiber lengths varying from around 3 mm for softwood fibers and around 1.2 mm for hardwood fibers, and even shorter, for recycled fibers. The absorbent fibers may be a combination or mixture of fibers, such as cellulosic pulp fibers and other longer absorbent fibers (paragraph 0039 and figure 1). Fingal et al., further teach forming a first layer or base web 8 of non-absorbent fibers 5 and then depositing a second layer 9 comprising absorbent fibers 4 on top of the first layer 8 and subsequently binding the two layers 8,9 together by hydroentangling with water jets 10, as shown in FIG. 2. The hydroentangling process moves and entangles the fibers 4,5,6 and causes the absorbent fibers 4 to accumulate on one side, forming a distinctly two-sided composite layer 11 with a higher proportion of absorbent fibers 4 at one surface 7 and a higher proportion of non-absorbent fibers 5,6 on the opposite surface 12, as shown in FIG. 3 (paragraph 0045). Fingal et al., also teach bonding of the first and the second composite layers 11 by means of an adhesive 13, as shown in FIG. 1, the adhesive preferably being a coating of hot melt thermoplastic adhesive that is applied between the composite layers 11 (paragraph 0047). The base web or first layer 8 of non-absorbent fibers is preferably a bulky non-bonded layer of endless synthetic filaments or staple fibers. However, it is alternatively possible to use base webs in the form of bonded nonwovens, such as bonded carded webs or spun-bond webs (paragraph 0048).
Therefore, motivated by the desire to provide a multi-layered absorbent wipe it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the multi-layer non-woven structure of Kanya et al., with the non-woven structures (e.g., carded, bonded, entangled etc.) and fiber types (e.g., pulp and cellulose) as taught by Fingal et al.
With regard to claim 13, Kanya et al., teach forming the multi-layer non-woven with synthetic polymer fibers (see Kanya et al., paragraph 0007-0008). Fingal et al., using non-absorbent fibers in the core (third material layer) such as lyocell (see Fingal et al., paragraph 0009). Lyocell is a known semi-synthetic material A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the fiber layers of Kanya et al., could also be formed using lyocell fibers. The modification involves the mere substitution of one material with another material known for its suitability as a synthetic/semi-synthetic fiber and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art.
With regard to claim 16, it appears the inner fiber (e.g., third fiber material) layer of Kanya et al., is approximately a third of the multi-layer structure. The Examiner is of the position that the Kanya et al., either alone or in combination with Fingal et al., render claim 16 obvious.
With regard to claims 18 and 19, since the core layer (e.g., third fiber layer) of Fingal et al., is taught as absorbent the Examiner is of the position that the fluid retention of the first and second outer layers would have a fluid retention lower than the absorbent (third layer) core. For this reason, the Examiner is of the position that Fingal et al., render claim 18 obvious. Fingal et al., does not specifically teach the claimed fluid retention value; however, the Examiner is of the position that this property would be inherent to the structure of Fingal et al. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 20, Fingal et al., teach a wet wipe comprising a lotion (title, abstract and paragraph 0055). Fingal et al., does not specifically teach the claimed composition of the lotion; however, the Examiner is of the position that absent unexpected results a person of ordinary skill in the art would select a lotion having typical constituents such as the claimed water, pH buffer and preservative to provide a wet wipe suitable for personal use. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
9. Claim(s) 10-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanya et al., US 20140358101 in view of Curro et al., US 7682686.
Kanya et al., is set forth above. Kanya et al., does not teach the claimed carded structure or the claimed length of the fibers.
The patent issued to Curro et al., teach a tufted carded non-woven web comprising multiple layers with fibers having a length of 2 inches (50 mm) (title, abstract and column 20, 29-40). Said multi-layer non-woven can be used to form wipes (wet) (column 24, 10-30). Based on the disclosure of Curro et al., a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the multi-layer structure of Kanya et al., can alternatively be made using a carded web with fibers having lengths in the claimed range. Motivation to vary the non-woven structure and/or fiber lenght is found in the desired end use or end product.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. 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