DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 3-7, 9-11, 13-20, and 22 are amended, resulting in claims 1-23 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4, 13, and 16-18 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.
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 16-18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuzkasap (WO 2020/101588)1 in view of Shiotani (JP 2003-201658)1,2.
With respect to claims 1-3, Yavuzkasap teaches a nonwoven material comprising wool fiber and wool yarn waste (recycled) (page 3, lines 12-14). The fibers have a length of 75-88 mm (page 4, lines 11-13). The nonwoven may be used as heat and sound insulation (page 2, lines 25-28).
It is noted that “freed fibers” and “freed yarn sections” are defined on page 4 of the instant specification as individual fibers and yarn sections having discontinuous length that have been obtained or extracted from a recycled textile material. Since Yavuzkasap teaches wool fibers and yarns obtained from waste textiles as described above, Yavuzkasap is interpreted as teaching freed fibers and freed yarn sections as defined by the instant specification.
Yavuzkasap is silent as to the waste yarn having an average fiber length of greater than about 5 mm, preferably of from about 6-25 mm, and the waste fibers having an average fiber length from about 6-18mm.
Shiotani teaches a sound absorbing material that can be manufactured utilizing fiber waste (paragraph [0001]). The fiber waste has a fiber length of 2 to 60 mm (paragraph [0033]). If the fiber length is less than 2 mm, it tends to reduce the strength of the base material and generates dust (paragraph [0034]). On the other hand, if the fiber length exceeds 60 mm, the fibers become excessively entangled, making defibration and blending difficult, making base control material difficult (paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the length of the waste fibers and yarns of Yavuzkasap to include the claimed ranges. One would have been motivated to provide fibers that are short enough that the fibers are not excessively tangled but not so short that the strength and dust generation of the base material is adversely affected. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim art disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 4, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Yavuzkasap further teaches the wool fiber waste ratio and the wool yarn waste ratio within the blend may each be 35% or 40% (page 3, line 28-page 4, line 5). This results in each of the wool fiber water and the wool yarn waste being present in an amount of 50% based on the total of the wool fiber waste and the wool yarn waste.
With respect to claim 13, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Yavuzkasap further teaches the wool fiber waste ratio is preferably 25-45% and the wool yarn waste ratio is preferably 25-45% in the blend (page 3, lines 18-21). This results in a waste fiber and yarn ratio in the blend of 50-90%.
As to the ranges recited in the claims, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
With respect to claim 17, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Yavuzkasap further teaches the waste fibers have a fineness of 2.4-2.7 dtex (2.16-2.43 den) (page 4, lines 11-13).
With respect to claim 18, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Yavuzkasap does not explicitly teach the fineness of the yarn, however it is reasonable to presume the yarn will have a fineness of at least one constituent fiber, or greater when multiple fibers are present in the yarn. Therefore the yarn has a fineness of at least 2.4-2.7 dtex (2.16-2.43 den) (page 4, lines 11-13).
The yarn fineness range of Yavuzkasap substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 18. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Yavuzkasap, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuzkasap (WO 2020/101588)3 in view of Shiotani (JP 2003-201658)1,4. Supporting evidence provided by “Yarn” (Complete Textile Glossary).
With respect to claim 14, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The ordinary artisan would recognize that a yarn is either a spun yarn (comprising fibers twisted together), filaments laid together without twist, or filaments laid together with twist (“Yarn”). It is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to select the type of yarn used based on the waste fabric available and the desired end properties of the nonwoven such as intensity and conductance (see e.g., Yavuzkasap page 5, lines 10-13).
Claim(s) 5-12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuzkasap (WO 2020/101588)5 in view of Shiotani (JP 2003-201658)1,6 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Milding (US 6037282)1.
With respect to claim 5, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Yavuzkasap further teaches the blended fiber includes polyester (page 3, lines 9-13), but is silent as to the polyester being “freed”.
Milding teaches nonwoven materials comprising recycled fibers (col. 1, lines 58-67), where the recycled fibers may be pulp fibers, cotton fibers, or polyester fibers (col. 2, lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used recycled waste polyester as the polyester of Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani in order to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills (Milding; col. 1, lines 49-55).
With respect to claims 6-8, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani is silent as to the waste fibers and yarns comprising cellulose fibers, specifically cotton fibers and polyester fibers.
Milding teaches nonwoven materials comprising recycled fibers (col. 1, lines 58-67), where the recycled fibers may be pulp fibers, cotton fibers, or polyester fibers (col. 2, lines 23-30). The shredded materials are known to be used in sound insulation (col. 1, lines 41-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wool of Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani to be recycled waste cotton fibers and the polyester fibers to be recycled polyester fibers because recycled cotton fibers and polyester fibers are known in the art as suitable for recycled sound insulation nonwovens and would yield the predictable result of sound insulation. This would result in 75% cotton and 30% polyester (Yavuzkasap; page 3, lines 28-36).
With respect to claims 9-10 and 15, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani is silent as to the nonwoven being formed as a fluid formed web or a foam formed web with hydroentangling.
Milding teaches nonwoven materials comprising recycled fibers (col. 1, lines 58-67), where the nonwoven may be formed through foam forming followed by hydroentangling which allows freedom of choice of the fibers, allows the use of longer fibers, and provides a high degree of uniformity during fiber forming (col. 2, lines 31-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the nonwoven of Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani through foam forming by hydroentangling in order to enable the use of more types of fibers, allow the use of longer fibers, and provide a high degree of fiber uniformity in the final nonwoven. It is noted that because the foam-forming process uses a liquid the resulting nonwoven is considered a fluid formed web.
With respect to claims 11-12, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani is silent as to the nonwoven containing pulp fibers.
Milding teaches nonwoven materials comprising recycled fibers (col. 1, lines 58-67), where the re cycled fibers may be pulp fibers, cotton fibers, or polyester fibers (col. 2, lines 23-30). The pulp fibers may be used in amounts of 60 wt% of the nonwoven (col. 3, lines 30-33). The shredded materials are known to be used in sound insulation (col. 1, lines 41-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonwoven of Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani to include 60 wt% recycled waste pulp fibers because pulp fibers are known in the art as suitable for recycled sound insulation nonwovens and yield the predictable result of a sound insulating material.
With respect to claim 19, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani is silent as to the nonwoven being free of flock.
Milding teaches nonwoven materials comprising recycled fibers (col. 1, lines 58-67). Milding further teaches that with the mechanical tearing of the waste material, the freeing of the fibers is often incomplete so that the recycled fibers can be present partially in the form of flocks (col. 2, lines 53-65). These flocks give non-uniformities which may reduce the strength of the nonwoven (col. 2, lines 53-65).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the flocks in the nonwoven of Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani in order to increase the strength of the nonwoven.
Claim(s) 16 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavuzkasap (WO 2020/101588)7 in view of Shiotani (JP 2003-201658)1.8 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Castillo (US 2017/0342617) and Milding (US 6037282)1.
With respect to claims 16 and 20-23, Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani is silent as to the basis weight of the nonwoven and as to an absorbent product comprising the nonwoven material.
Castillo teaches a fibrous web structure for baby wipes that may have a basis weight of 40-90 gsm to strike the best balance between thickness/caliper, absorption capacity, opacity, drape, feel, tensile strength, and economy (paragraph [0060]). The wipes are stacked and pre-moistened (paragraphs [0149]-[0152]). Castillo further teaches that materials comprising recycled fibrous web structure may be suitable for the fibrous web structure (paragraph [0125]). As mentioned above, Milding teaches that shredded materials are known to be used in sound insulation (col. 1, lines 41-47) and can be used as absorbent materials (col. 1, line 58 – col. 2, line 3).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nonwoven of Yavuzkasap in view of Shiotani as a nonwoven absorbent wipe as described by Castillo because it is known in the art that the recycled materials described by Yavuzkasap are also suitable for use as absorbent articles and would yield the predictable result of a nonwoven capable of absorbing liquids.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Machine Translation used as reference
3 Cited in IDS
4 Machine Translation used as reference
5 Cited in IDS
6 Machine translation used as reference
7 Cited in IDS
8 Machine translation used as reference
Prosecution Insights