DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-31 are pending in the application. Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Upon additional consideration, new grounds of rejection have been applied below.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 15 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a surface are of the nonwoven fabric.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a reverse bicomponent arrangement and in which.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “comprises a linear low density polyethylene has a melt index.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18, 24-25 and 27-29 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 1, 10 and 25 recite the limitation “a fiber grade polyethylene resin.” The examiner notes that applicant’s specification discloses two specific types of ASPUN polyethylene resins, which applicant has described as being fiber grade polyethylene resins. However, there is no disclosure in the specification of fiber grade polyethylene resins broadly. In addition, although applicant identifies LLDPE as an example of a fiber grade polyethylene resin, there is no mention in applicant’s specification, or evidence of record, that LLDPE (or the other polyethylenes in [0051]-0052] of US 2018/0327948), as a class, are considered to be a fiber grade polyethylene resin. Thus, the specification does not provide support for the limitation of a “fiber grade polyethylene resin.” Claims 2-9, 11-18, 24 and 27-29 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 10.
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 1-18 and 24-31 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 25 recite the limitation “a fiber grade polyethylene resin.” It is unclear what makes a resin a fiber grade polyethylene resin or not (for instance, would polyethylene resins other than those disclosed in [0051]-0052] of US 2018/0327948 meet the claimed limitation?). Claims 2-9, 11-18, 24 and 27-29 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 10.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the nonwoven fabric exhibits a 15 to 45% increase in toughness in comparison to a similar nonwoven fabric comprising a Ziegler-Natta catalyzed polypropylene in place of the metallocene catalyzed polypropylene.” It is unclear what falls within the scope of “a similar nonwoven fabric” and what does not. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as being open to any type of nonwoven fabric. Claims 2-9, 24-25 and 27-29 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 8 and 10 recite the limitation “1 to 10 percent of the polyethylene component and 10 to 40 percent of the third polymer component.” It is unclear if these percents are weight percents.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the fabric exhibits an increase in toughness in comparison to a similar nonwoven fabric comprising a Ziegler-Natta catalyzed polypropylene in place of the metallocene catalyzed polypropylene.” It is unclear what falls within the scope of “a similar nonwoven fabric” and what does not. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as being open to any type of nonwoven fabric. Claims 11-18 are rejected as being dependent on claim 10.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “wherein the fibers comprise 4 to 10 percent of the polyethylene component.” It is unclear if this percent is a weight percent.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “wherein the nonwoven fabric exhibits an increase in MD elongation at Peak in comparison to a similar nonwoven fabric comprising a Ziegler-Natta catalyzed polypropylene in place of the metallocene catalyzed polypropylene.” It is unclear what falls within the scope of “a similar nonwoven fabric” and what does not. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as being open to any type of nonwoven fabric.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “The fabric of claim 1, polyethylene components has a melt index measurable with ISO 1133.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “polyethylene components.” It is also unclear how the polyethylene components relate to the rest of the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “wherein the linear low density polyethylene has a melt index that is greater than 10 g/ 10 min.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the linear low density polyethylene.”
Claim 30 recites the limitation “wherein the nonwoven fabric exhibits an increase in MD elongation at Peak in comparison to a similar nonwoven fabric comprising a Ziegler-Natta catalyzed polypropylene in place of the metallocene catalyzed polypropylene.” It is unclear what falls within the scope of “a similar nonwoven fabric” and what does not. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as being open to any type of nonwoven fabric. Claim 31 is rejected as being dependent on claim 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 25-28 and 30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mehta (US 2006/0183860 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 7, 25-28 and 30, Mehta teaches homogeneous polymer blends and articles made therefrom including fibers, nonwovens, fabrics, films, and molded parts ([0002] and [0038]). Mehta teaches homogeneous blends comprising 1) from 60 to 99 weight percent of one or more semi-crystalline polymers (based upon the weight of the semicrystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), each semi-crystalline polymer comprising propylene and from 0 to 5 weight % alpha-olefin comonomer, and 2) from 1 to 40 weight% of one or more semi-amorphous polymers (based upon the weight of the semi-crystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), each semi-amorphous polymer comprising propylene and from 5 to 12 weight % of one or more C2 and or C4 to C10 alpha-olefin comonomers (Abstract). Mehta teaches that a miscible blend is homogeneous, while an immiscible blend is heterogeneous ([0029] and [0084]). With regard to the semi-crystalline polymer, Mehta teaches that, in a preferred embodiment, preferred propylene polymers include those produced by metallocene catalyst systems ([0057]). In certain embodiments, the blends of the invention may also comprise a third polymer component ([0090]). In these embodiments, the third polymer component (TPC) comprises low density polyethylene (density 0.915 to less than 0.935 g/cm3), linear low density polyethylene, ultra low density polyethylene (density 0.85 to less than 0.90 g/cm3), very low density polyethylene (density 0.90 to less than 0.915 g/cm3), medium density polyethylene (density 0.935 to less than 0.945 g/cm3), high density polyethylene (density 0.945 to 0.98 g/cm3), or combinations thereof ([0090]).
With regard to the claimed toughness and MD elongation properties, it is the position of the Office that the nonwoven fabric of Mehta would have the claimed properties as Mehta teaches the same materials and composition as those claimed and as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. The examiner also notes that “a similar nonwoven fabric,” as claimed, is interpreted as being open to any type of nonwoven fabric. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the claimed limitation would be met by the nonwoven of Mehta.
Regarding claim 4, Mehta teaches that the blends of the invention may be formed into fibers and non-wovens and that spunbond nonwoven fabrics may be produced ([0146]). With regard to the spunbonded fabric, Mehta teaches that the web is passed through compression rolls and then between heated calender rolls where the raised lands on one roll bond the web at points covering 10% to 40% of its area to form a nonwoven fabric ([0153]).
Regarding claim 5, Mehta teaches non-woven articles formed from one or more of the blends where the blend has a permanent set of greater than 65% ([0156] and [0087]).
Regarding claim 9, Mehta teaches that the blends can be used in application areas requiring soft films, such as those used in health-care applications and diapers ([0124]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mehta (US 2006/0183860 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Levy (US Patent No. 5,620,779).
Regarding claim 3, Mehta remains as applied above, teaching wherein a web is passed through compression rolls and then between heated calender rolls where the raised lands on one roll bond the web at points covering 10% to 40% of its area to form a nonwoven fabric ([0153]).
Mehta does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of fibers are point bonded to each other with a bonding pattern having a cross-direction rod shape.
However, Levy teaches a ribbed clothlike nonwoven fabric having a pattern of fused bond areas, including examples of bonding patterns such as that shown in Fig. 14, known as a “wire weave,” with a bond area of about 15% (see Abstract, Examples 1-2 and Figs. 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fabrics of Mehta with a known “wire weave” bonding pattern such as that shown in FIG. 14 of Levy in order to obtain ribbed nonwoven webs with a clothlike feel and look (e.g., similar to woven or knit materials) for use in garments and/or absorbent products such as diapers, wipes and feminine hygiene products (Abstract, cols. 3-4 lines 38-14, col. 6 lines 17-24, Examples 1-2 and Figs. 12-14).
Claims 6, 8, 10, 12-18, 24, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mehta (US 2006/0183860 A1), as applied to claims 1, 27 and 30 above, in view of Newkirk (US Patent No. 6,417,121).
Regarding claim 6, Mehta remains as applied above.
Mehta does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibers are multicomponent fibers having a sheath/core arrangement in which the sheath comprises polyethylene and the core comprises said polymeric blend.
However, Newkirk teaches multicomponent fibers that include at least two polymer components arranged in structured domains, wherein at least one of the polymer components is formed of a select blend of specific grades of polyethylene and polypropylene (col. 3 lines 16-25). At least one polymer domain is formed of a polymer blend, and other of the polymer domains of the fibers can be formed of a single polymer or of a polymer blend (col. 7 lines 43-55). Newkirk teaches that a preferred embodiment of the invention is a sheath/core bicomponent fiber in which the sheath is formed of a polymer blend, but that other of the polymer domains can also be formed of a polymer blend (for example, the core and/or both the sheath and core) (same paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the polymer blend of Mehta in a core and/or a sheath of a multi-component fiber in order to obtain fibers that can exhibit desirable yet contradictory properties, such as softness and abrasion resistance, or desirable hand with good elongation, as suggested by Newkirk (cols. 11-12 lines 40-2).
Regarding claims 8, 10 and 24, as applied above, Mehta teaches homogeneous blends comprising 1) from 60 to 99 weight percent of one or more semi-crystalline polymers (based upon the weight of the semicrystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), each semi-crystalline polymer comprising propylene and from 0 to 5 weight % alpha-olefin comonomer, and 2) from 1 to 40 weight% of one or more semi-amorphous polymers (based upon the weight of the semi-crystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), each semi-amorphous polymer comprising propylene and from 5 to 12 weight % of one or more C2 and or C4 to C10 alpha-olefin comonomers (Abstract).
Mehta does not explicitly disclose wherein the blend (or the fibers) comprise 1 to 10 percent of the polyethylene component.
However, Newkirk teaches that preferred multicomponent fibers may have at least one polymer domain comprising greater than 50 percent by weight polypropylene, 1 to 10 percent polyethylene, and 10 to 40 percent of a third polymer (col. 10, lines 8-12). Suitable additional third polymers include polypropylene copolymers and terpolymers such as the commercially available Catalloy® copolymers available from Montell (col 10, lines 12-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included the polyethylene in the blend (or the fibers) of Mehta in amounts of 1 to 10 percent in order to obtain nonwoven fabrics having desirable combinations of properties, such as soft webs with high extensibility, or in order to provide particularly advantageous extensibility or elongation properties (Newkirk: see cols. 9-10, lines 65-15; and col. 10, lines 29-31; also see col. 7, lines 56-65 and col. 8, lines 16-29).
Regarding claim 12, Mehta teaches non-woven articles formed from one or more of the blends where the blend has a permanent set of greater than 65% ([0156] and [0087]).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Mehta in view of Newkirk remains as applied above to claim 6. Newkirk teaches that at least one polymer domain is formed of a polymer blend, and other of the polymer domains of the fibers can be formed of a single polymer or of a polymer blend (col. 7 lines 43-55). A preferred embodiment is a sheath/core bicomponent fiber in which the sheath is formed of a polymer blend, but that other of the polymer domains can also be formed of a polymer blend (for example, the core and/or both the sheath and core) (same paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Mehta teaches homogeneous polymer blends and articles made therefrom including fibers, nonwovens, fabrics, films, and molded parts ([0002] and [0038]). Therefore, Mehta meets the claimed “monocomponent fibers” limitation. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fibers of Mehta as monocomponent fibers in the absence of a teaching in Mehta of multi-component fibers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fibers of Mehta in view of Newkirk as either monocomponent or multicomponent fibers.
Regarding claim 16, Mehta teaches that the term "nonwoven" or "nonwoven fabric" refers to any material made from the aggregation of fibers fabricated by methods such as, for example, spunbonding, melt blowing, thermobonding, or combinations thereof ([0038]-[0039], [0049] and [0098]).
Regarding claims 17-18, Mehta teaches that the blends can be used in application areas requiring soft films, such as those used in health-care applications and diapers ([0124]).
Regarding claims 29 and 31, in an embodiment, Newkirk teaches a linear low density polyethylene having a density of 0.90-0.945 g/cc and a melt index of greater than 25 g/10 minutes (col. 4, lines 4-8).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mehta (US 2006/0183860 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mehta remains as applied above
Mehta teaches homogeneous polymer blends and articles made therefrom including fibers, nonwovens, fabrics, films, and molded parts ([0002] and [0038]). Therefore, Mehta meets the claimed “monocomponent fibers” limitation.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fibers as monocomponent fibers in the absence of a teaching in Mehta of multi-component fibers.
Claims 8, 10, 12, 14, 16-18, 24, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mehta (US 2006/0183860 A1), as applied to claims 1, 27 and 30 above, further in view of Quantrille (WO 96/16216 A1).
Regarding claims 8, 10 and 24, as applied above, Mehta teaches homogeneous blends comprising 1) from 60 to 99 weight percent of one or more semi-crystalline polymers (based upon the weight of the semicrystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), each semi-crystalline polymer comprising propylene and from 0 to 5 weight % alpha-olefin comonomer, and 2) from 1 to 40 weight% of one or more semi-amorphous polymers (based upon the weight of the semi-crystalline and semi-amorphous polymers), each semi-amorphous polymer comprising propylene and from 5 to 12 weight % of one or more C2 and or C4 to C10 alpha-olefin comonomers (Abstract).
Mehta does not explicitly disclose wherein the blend (or the fibers) comprise 1 to 10 percent of the polyethylene component.
However, Quantrille teaches a composite nonwoven fabric with a superior combination of extensibility, tensile properties and abrasion resistance (Abstract). The composite nonwoven fabric (10) comprises at least one layer containing multipolymer fibers, with a plurality of bonds (B) bonding the fibers together to form a coherent extensible nonwoven web (11) (Abstract). Preferred multipolymer fibers may comprise greater than 50 percent by weight propylene polymer, 1 to 10 percent polyethylene, and 10 to 40 percent of the third polymer (page 11, lines 9-16). Suitable additional third polymers include propylene copolymers and terpolymers such as the commercially available Catalloy™ copolymers available from Montell (page 11, lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included the polyethylene in the blend (or the fibers) of Mehta in amounts of 1 to 10 percent in order to obtain nonwoven fabrics having desirable combinations of properties, such as soft webs with extremely high extensibility (Quantrille: see page 11, lines 8-16).
Regarding claim 12, Mehta teaches non-woven articles formed from one or more of the blends where the blend has a permanent set of greater than 65% ([0156] and [0087]).
Regarding claim 14, Mehta teaches homogeneous polymer blends and articles made therefrom including fibers, nonwovens, fabrics, films, and molded parts ([0002] and [0038]). Therefore, Mehta meets the claimed “monocomponent fibers” limitation. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fibers of Mehta as monocomponent fibers in the absence of a teaching in Mehta of multi-component fibers.
Regarding claim 16, Mehta teaches that the term "nonwoven" or "nonwoven fabric" refers to any material made from the aggregation of fibers fabricated by methods such as, for example, spunbonding, melt blowing, thermobonding, or combinations thereof ([0038]-[0039], [0049] and [0098]).
Regarding claims 17-18, Mehta teaches that the blends can be used in application areas requiring soft films, such as those used in health-care applications and diapers ([0124]).
Regarding claims 29 and 31, in an embodiment, Quantrille teaches that, preferably, LLDPE should have a melt index of greater than 10, and more preferably 15 or greater for spunbonded filaments (pages 13-14, lines 37-2) . Particularly preferred are LLDPE polymers having a density of 0.90 to 0.945 g/cc and a melt index of greater than 25 (page 14, lines 2-5).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mehta (US 2006/0183860 A1) in view of Quantrille (WO 9616216 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Levy (US Patent No. 5,620,779).
Regarding claim 11, Mehta in view of Quantrille remains as applied above, with Mehta teaching wherein a web is passed through compression rolls and then between heated calender rolls, where the raised lands on one roll bond the web at points covering 10% to 40% of its area to form a nonwoven fabric ([0153]).
Mehta in view of Quantrille does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibers have been calendered bonded with rod shapes patterns that extend in the cross direction (CD) of the web, wherein the CD rod patterns have a length that is about 1.5 to 10x the width.
However, Levy teaches a ribbed clothlike nonwoven fabric having a pattern of fused bond areas, including examples of bonding patterns such as that shown in Fig. 14, known as a “wire weave,” with a bond area of about 15% (see Abstract, Examples 1-2 and Figs. 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the fabrics of Mehta in view of Quantrille with a known “wire weave” bonding pattern such as that shown in FIG. 14 of Levy in order to obtain ribbed nonwoven webs with a clothlike feel and look (e.g., similar to woven or knit materials) for use in garments and/or absorbent products such as diapers, wipes and feminine hygiene products (Abstract, cols. 3-4 lines 38-14, col. 6 lines 17-24, Examples 1-2 and Figs. 12-14). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided rod patterns having length to width ratios of greater than 1 in order to obtain wire weave patterns such as those shown in FIG. 14 (see Example 2, particularly column 7, lines 45-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 and 24-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789