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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 – 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Röttger (WO 2020/079083 A1). The rejections of claims 10 and 19 further rely on Le Brech (US 2004/0129632 A1), which Röttger incorporates by reference (e.g. p. 19, ll. 2 – 10) and therefore forms part of Röttger’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, Röttger discloses a fabric (e.g. p. 4, l. 3, to p. 22, l. 17) comprising:
a plurality of fibers (“biodegradable fibers”: e.g. p. 4, l. 11, to p. 5, l. 31; p. 8, l. 20, to p. 10, l. 23; p. 11, l. 14, to p. 13, l. 5; p. 16, l. 23, to p. 17, l. 2; p. 18, ll. 18 – 25; p. 19, ll. 12 – 29),
wherein the plurality of fibers are made of a fiber material comprising a cellulose ether (“ethyl cellulose”: e.g. p. 9, ll. 1 – 6; the instant specification considers this a cellulose ether: e.g. p. 4, ¶ 3),
wherein the plurality of fibers form a nonwoven web (e.g. p. 4, l. 3, to p. 6, l. 11; p. 7, ll. 13 – 21; p. 8, l. 13, to p. 22, l. 17).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Röttger discloses the cellulose ether is ethyl cellulose (e.g. p. 9, ll. 1 – 6).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Röttger discloses the amount of the cellulose ether is in the range, e.g., from 20 to 60 wt.-% based on the total weight of the fiber material (e.g. p. 10, ll. 19 – 23), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Röttger discloses the average length of the fibers is in the range from 1 mm to 100 mm (e.g. p. 9, l. 21, to p. 10, l. 13) and/or the average coarseness of the fibers is in the range from 0.5 to 10 dtex (e.g. p. 10, ll. 15 – 17).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Röttger discloses the fabric comprises a plurality of layers, wherein a layer of the plurality of layers comprises the nonwoven web (e.g. p. 5, ll. 20 – 31; p. 11, l. 19, to p. 12, l. 16; p. 18, ll. 18 – 25; p. 19, ll. 12 – 19).
Regarding claim 8, Röttger discloses a method of producing a fabric (e.g. p. 4, l. 3, to p. 22, l. 17), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a fiber material comprising a cellulose ether (“ethyl cellulose”: e.g. p. 9, ll. 1 – 6; the instant specification considers this a cellulose ether: e.g. p. 4, ¶ 3);
generating fibers from the fiber material (“biodegradable fibers”: e.g. p. 4, l. 11, to p. 5, l. 31; p. 8, l. 20, to p. 10, l. 23; p. 11, l. 14, to p. 13, l. 5; p. 16, l. 23, to p. 17, l. 2; p. 18, ll. 18 – 25; p. 19, ll. 12 – 29); and
arranging the fibers to form a nonwoven web (e.g. p. 4, l. 3, to p. 6, l. 11; p. 7, ll. 13 – 21; p. 8, l. 13, to p. 22, l. 17).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Röttger discloses the step of arranging the fibers includes a spunlace process (e.g. p. 4, l. 11, to p. 5, l. 6; p. 11, l. 19, to p. 12, l. 16; p. 19, l. 31, to p. 20, l. 7).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Röttger discloses their fibers are generated by a “conventional wet-laid-process”, e.g. one as Le Brech discloses (e.g. p. 19, ll. 2 – 10). Le Brech specifies their process is a melt-blown process (e.g. ¶¶ [0023], [0040], [0063], [0064], [0066]), which the instant specification identifies is a suitable species of meltextrusion process (e.g. p. 12, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Röttger discloses the steps of generating the fibers and of arranging the fibers form a continuous process (e.g. p. 19, ll. 2 – 19).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Röttger discloses the method further comprises absorbing cellulosic material into and/or onto the nonwoven web (“binder”, “pulp fibers”: e.g. p. 4, l. 11, to p. 5, l. 31; p. 6, ll. 8 – 11; p. 8, ll. 20 – 32; p. 10, ll. 25 – 29; p. 11, l. 1, to p. 14, l. 3; p. 15, l. 1, to p. 17, l. 2; p. 17, l. 31, to p. 18, l. 12; p. 18, ll. 18 – 31; p. 19, ll. 12 – 29; p. 20, l. 9, to p. 21, l. 2; p. 22, ll. 1 – 7).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Röttger discloses the fibers are arranged on a substrate, e.g. a further nonwoven web (“layer” or “carrier” comprising “tissue”: e.g. p. 5, ll. 20 – 31; p. 11, l. 28, to p. 12, l. 2; p. 18, ll. 18 – 25; p. 19, ll. 16 – 19).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Röttger discloses the fibers are arranged by at least one of a wetlaid process (e.g. p. 10, ll. 1 – 4; p. 19, ll. 2 - 19) and an airlaid process (e.g. p. 9, ll. 28 – 31; p. 10, ll. 6 – 9; p. 11, l. 19, to p. 12, l. 2; p. 19, ll. 2 – 19).
Regarding claim 15, Röttger discloses a fabric obtainable by the method discussed with respect to claim 8 above (e.g. p. 4, l. 3, to p. 22, l. 17).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Le Brech (as incorporated within Röttger’s disclosure) discloses the fibers are generated by a meltblown process and/or a spunbond process (e.g. ¶¶ [0023], [0040], [0063], [0064], [0066]).
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 12, Röttger discloses the cellulosic material comprises, e.g., cellulosic pulp fibers (“binder”, “pulp fibers”: e.g. p. 4, l. 11, to p. 5, l. 31; p. 6, ll. 8 – 11; p. 8, ll. 20 – 32; p. 10, ll. 25 – 29; p. 11, l. 1, to p. 14, l. 3; p. 15, l. 1, to p. 17, l. 2; p. 17, l. 31, to p. 18, l. 12; p. 18, ll. 18 – 31; p. 19, ll. 12 – 29; p. 20, l. 9, to p. 21, l. 2; p. 22, ll. 1 – 7).
Claims 1 – 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wahal (US 2013/0122773 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wahal discloses a fabric (e.g. ¶¶ [0008] – [0119]) comprising:
a plurality of fibers (“polymer melt filaments”: e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008] – [0013], [0028] – [0030], [0032] – [0034], [0036] – [0045], [0048], [0049], [0052], [0054] – [0057], [0060], [0062], [0067] – [0077], [0081], [0086], [0087], [0090], [0112] – [0118]),
wherein the plurality of fibers are made of a fiber material comprising a cellulose ether (ethyl cellulose is mentioned as a suitable species: e.g. ¶ [0040]; the instant specification considers this a cellulose ether: e.g. p. 4, ¶ 3),
wherein the plurality of fibers form a nonwoven web (e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008], [0013], [0028], [0029], [0043] – [0045], [0067], [0071], [0081] – [0090], [0096], [0117], [0118]).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Wahal discloses the cellulose ether is ethyl cellulose (e.g. ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Wahal discloses the fiber material further comprises a biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer blended with the cellulose ether (triethyl citrate and triacetin are mentioned as an exemplary species: e.g. ¶¶ [0040], [0044], [0091], [0100]; the instant specification identifies these as a species of biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer: e.g. p. 6, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Wahal discloses the fiber material further comprises a biobased and/or biodegradable filler material blended with the cellulose ether (“titania”, “titanium dioxide”: e.g. ¶¶ [0098], [0099], [0101]; titanium dioxide (TiO2) is mentioned as a suitable species of biobased and/or biodegradable filler material in the instant specification: e.g. p. 7, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Wahal discloses the fabric comprises a plurality of layers, wherein a layer of the plurality of layers comprises the nonwoven web (e.g. ¶¶ [0029], [0074] – [0077], [0114]).
Regarding claim 8, Wahal discloses a method of producing a fabric, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a fiber material (for making “polymer melt filaments”: e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008] – [0013], [0028] – [0030], [0032] – [0034], [0036] – [0045], [0048], [0049], [0052], [0054] – [0057], [0060], [0062], [0067] – [0077], [0081], [0086], [0087], [0090], [0112] – [0118]) comprising a cellulose ether (ethyl cellulose is mentioned as a suitable species: e.g. ¶ [0040]; the instant specification considers this a cellulose ether: e.g. p. 4, ¶ 3);
generating fibers from the fiber material (“polymer melt filaments”: e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008] – [0013], [0028] – [0030], [0032] – [0034], [0036] – [0045], [0048], [0049], [0052], [0054] – [0057], [0060], [0062], [0067] – [0077], [0081], [0086], [0087], [0090], [0112] – [0118]); and
arranging the fibers to form a nonwoven web (e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008], [0013], [0028], [0029], [0043] – [0045], [0067], [0071], [0081] – [0090], [0096], [0117], [0118]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Wahal discloses the fibers are generated by a meltextrusion process (meltblown and spunbond processes are disclosed: e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0009], [0010], [0030] – [0032], [0034], [0043], [0045], [0057], [0067] – [0071], [0073], [0074], [0077], [0081], [0082], [0089], [0090]; a meltblown process and a spunbond process are mentioned in the instant specification as examples of meltextrusion processes: e.g. p. 12, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 8, Wahal discloses the steps of generating the fibers and of arranging the fibers form a continuous process (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0006], [0067], [0069], [0071], [0082], [0086], [0089], [0090]).
Regarding claim 15, Wahal discloses a fabric obtainable by the method as discussed above with respect to claim 8 (e.g. ¶¶ [0008] – [0119]).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Wahal discloses the biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer comprises, e.g. triethyl citrate (TEC) (e.g. ¶ [0100]).
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, Wahal discloses the biobased and/or biodegradable filler material comprises, e.g., at least one mineral-based filler material, e.g., titanium dioxide (TiO2) (e.g. ¶¶ [0098], [0099], [0101]).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 10, Wahal discloses the fibers are generated by a meltblown process and/or a spunbond process (e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0043]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Röttger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wahal and Aranishi (US 2004/0030043 A1).
Regarding claim 3, although Röttger is not explicit as to the fiber material further comprising a biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer blended with the cellulose ether, this feature would have been obvious in view of Wahal.
MPEP § 2143, I, C, states the following regarding use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a "base" device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement;"
(2) a finding that the prior art contained a "comparable" device (method, or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted previously, Röttger discloses a fabric but does not specify a biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer blended with the cellulose ether..
With respect to (2), like Röttger, Wahal discloses a fabric (e.g. ¶¶ [0008] – [0119]) comprising:
a plurality of fibers (“polymer melt filaments”: e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008] – [0013], [0028] – [0030], [0032] – [0034], [0036] – [0045], [0048], [0049], [0052], [0054] – [0057], [0060], [0062], [0067] – [0077], [0081], [0086], [0087], [0090], [0112] – [0118]),
wherein the plurality of fibers are made of a fiber material comprising a cellulose ether (ethyl cellulose is mentioned as a suitable species: e.g. ¶ [0040]; the instant specification considers this a cellulose ether: e.g. p. 4, ¶ 3),
wherein the plurality of fibers form a nonwoven web (e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008], [0013], [0028], [0029], [0043] – [0045], [0067], [0071], [0081] – [0090], [0096], [0117], [0118]).
Wahal discloses the fiber material further comprises a biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer blended with the cellulose ether (triethyl citrate and triacetin mentioned as an exemplary species: e.g. ¶¶ [0040], [0044], [0091], [0100]; the instant specification identifies these as a species of biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer: e.g. p. 6, ¶ 2).
With respect to (3), plasticizers are, by definition, species which improve the plasticity of a composition, and in the case of Röttger and Wahal, for making a composition more fluid for extrusion of fibers (Aranishi: e.g. ¶ [0004]). Accordingly, adding a plasticizer to Röttger’s fiber material would have been seen as beneficial from the standpoint of improving fiber formability, and Wahal provides suitable species for doing so.
With respect to (4), both Röttger (e.g. p. 1, ll. 11 – 15; p. 4, ll. 4 – 7; p. 5, ll. 4 – 6; p. 6, ll. 5 – 11; p. 7, ll. 13 – 21; p. 17, ll. 21 – 29; p. 21, l. 11, to p. 22, l. 17) and Wahal (e.g. ¶ [0088]) discuss using their fabrics to form wipes. Given both Röttger and Wahal are in the same field of endeavor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have further understanding that Wahal’s disclosure can predictably be combined with Röttger’s disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Röttger’s fiber material to further comprise, e.g. triethyl citrate and/or triacetin, as a plasticizer, the motivation being to improve fiber formability with a composition known for compatibility with cellulose ethers. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art provides a fiber material comprising a biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer blended with the cellulose ether within the scope of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 16, although Röttger and Wahal are not explicit as to the biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer having a viscosity, measured according to DIN EN ISO 3219, that differs by less than 20% the viscosity of the cellulose ether, Wahal notes one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the concentration of plasticizer to be used as an additive to the fibers (e.g. ¶ [0100]). Given the purpose of a plasticizer is for improving plasticity for extrusion (Aranishi: e.g. ¶ [0004]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the viscosity of the plasticizer relative to the cellulose either dictates, at least in part, the concentration of the plasticizer.
More specifically, while the purpose of a plasticizer implies the viscosity of the plasticizer will be smaller to at least some extent relative to the cellulose ether, it is understood that a viscosity which is too different begins to negatively impact fiber formation. For example, Aranishi identifies melt tension as being a property which can degrade with excessively fluid fiber materials, thereby causing a loss in mechanical properties of the fibers (e.g. ¶ [0045]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify for the biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer having a viscosity, measured according to DIN EN ISO 3219, that differs by less than 20% the viscosity of the cellulose ether, the motivation being to maintain the mechanical properties of the fiber material when forming the fibers.
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Wahal discloses the biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer comprises, e.g. triethyl citrate (TEC) (e.g. ¶ [0100]).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Röttger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wahal.
Regarding claim 4, although Röttger is not explicit as to the fiber material further comprising a biobased and/or biodegradable filler material blended with the cellulose ether, this feature would have been obvious in view of Wahal.
MPEP § 2143, I, C, states the following regarding use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a "base" device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement;"
(2) a finding that the prior art contained a "comparable" device (method, or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted previously, Röttger discloses a fabric but is not explicit as to the fiber material further comprising a biobased and/or biodegradable filler material blended with the cellulose ether.
With respect to (2), like Röttger, Wahal discloses a fabric (e.g. ¶¶ [0008] – [0119]) comprising:
a plurality of fibers (“polymer melt filaments”: e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008] – [0013], [0028] – [0030], [0032] – [0034], [0036] – [0045], [0048], [0049], [0052], [0054] – [0057], [0060], [0062], [0067] – [0077], [0081], [0086], [0087], [0090], [0112] – [0118]),
wherein the plurality of fibers are made of a fiber material comprising a cellulose ether (ethyl cellulose is mentioned as a suitable species: e.g. ¶ [0040]; the instant specification considers this a cellulose ether: e.g. p. 4, ¶ 3),
wherein the plurality of fibers form a nonwoven web (e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0008], [0013], [0028], [0029], [0043] – [0045], [0067], [0071], [0081] – [0090], [0096], [0117], [0118]).
Wahal discloses the fiber material further comprises a biobased and/or biodegradable filler material blended with the cellulose ether (“titania”, “titanium dioxide”: e.g. ¶¶ [0098], [0099], [0101]; titanium dioxide (TiO2) is mentioned as a suitable species of biobased and/or biodegradable filler material in the instant specification: e.g. p. 7, ¶ 2).
With respect to (3), Wahal uses species such as titanium dioxide as one or more of a nanoparticle for reducing components from a fluid stream by absorption or reaction, or a pigment for imparting color (e.g. ¶¶ [0092], [0098], [0099], [0101]). Accordingly, adding a nanoparticle or pigment to Röttger’s fiber material would have been seen as beneficial for imparting these properties.
With respect to (4), both Röttger (e.g. p. 1, ll. 11 – 15; p. 4, ll. 4 – 7; p. 5, ll. 4 – 6; p. 6, ll. 5 – 11; p. 7, ll. 13 – 21; p. 17, ll. 21 – 29; p. 21, l. 11, to p. 22, l. 17) and Wahal (e.g. ¶ [0088]) discuss using their fabrics to form wipes. Given both Röttger and Wahal are in the same field of endeavor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have further understanding that Wahal’s disclosure can predictably be combined with Röttger’s disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Röttger’s fiber material to further comprise, e.g., titanium dioxide, e.g. as a nanoparticle for reducing components from a fluid stream by absorption or reaction, or a pigment for imparting color as Wahal suggests.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, Wahal discloses the biobased and/or biodegradable filler material comprises, e.g., at least one mineral-based filler material, e.g., titanium dioxide (TiO2) (e.g. ¶¶ [0098], [0099], [0101]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahal as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Aranishi.
Regarding claim 16, although Wahal is not explicit as to the biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer having a viscosity, measured according to DIN EN ISO 3219, that differs by less than 20% the viscosity of the cellulose ether, Wahal notes one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the concentration of plasticizer to be used as an additive to the fibers (e.g. ¶ [0100]). Given the purpose of a plasticizer is for improving plasticity for extrusion (Aranishi: e.g. ¶ [0004]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the viscosity of the plasticizer relative to the cellulose either dictates, at least in part, the concentration of the plasticizer.
More specifically, while the purpose of a plasticizer implies the viscosity of the plasticizer will be smaller to at least some extent relative to the cellulose ether, it is understood that a viscosity which is too different begins to negatively impact fiber formation. For example, Aranishi identifies melt tension as being a property which can degrade with excessively fluid fiber materials, thereby causing a loss in mechanical properties of the fibers (e.g. ¶ [0045]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify for the biobased and/or biodegradable plasticizer having a viscosity, measured according to DIN EN ISO 3219, that differs by less than 20% the viscosity of the cellulose ether, the motivation being to maintain the mechanical properties of the fiber material when forming the fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights