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 .
Amendments to claims 15, cancellation of claim 3, and the addition of claims 21-23, in the response filed April 21, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 1, 4-15, and 17-23 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claims 1 and 4-14 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. For example, para 0020 discusses USPN 5,108,820 and USPN 7,413,803, para 0019 discusses USPN 4,818,464 and USPN 4,100,324, and para 0048 discusses WO 2002/036651, USPN 6,992,158, and WO 2000/001745, however, none of these references is cited on an IDS. Additional patent documents are referenced throughout the disclosure that are also not included on an IDS.
Claim Interpretation
The term “substantially straight” in claim 15 has been defined as “the fiber strand throughout its length has an overall bend from 180° of no more than ±10°” (see instant disclosure para 0086).
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.
Claims 15, 17-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 95/13856 to Lassig in view of WO 2005/111282 to Ethiopia, US Pub. No. 2005/0107534 to Datta, and JPH11323715 to Mitsui.
NOTE: The English machine translation of JP 11-323715 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 15, 17-20, and 23, Lassig teaches a filter medium laminate (claim 20) comprising a nonwoven fiber (claim 19) web of conjugate crimped fiber (bicomponent fiber) that have latent crimp that is activated after the conjugate fibers are formed into a web by heat treatment (Lassig, abstract, p. 6 line 6-20, p. 16 lines 3-12), reading on the as-produced bi-component fibers being substantially straight and being curlable by activating that is performed thermally. Lassig teaches the bicomponent fiber having a low melting component polymer and a high melting component fiber having a side-by-side or eccentric sheath-core configuration (claim 18) (Id., p. 7 lines 19-31). Lassig teaches the use of polyolefins, including polypropylene, copolymer of polypropylene, and blends thereof with the high melting component being polypropylene (first component comprising a first polypropylene homopolymer) and the low melting component (second component comprising a blend) containing a thermoplastic elastomer as well as other suitable additive polymer including ethylene-propylene copolymers (propylene-based elastomer) (Id., p. 7 line 32- p. 9 line 8). Lassig teaches the latent crimp resulting from difference in crystallization, melting point, or solidification properties (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the low melting component, wherein the low melting component comprising polypropylene in combination with the ethylene-propylene elastomer as long as the melting point is below the melting point of the polypropylene forming the high melting component, motivated by the desire of using disclose suitable polyolefin and still achieving the disclose melting point difference as disclosed by Lassig.
Lassig teaches the low melting component (second component comprising a blend) containing additives for enhancing abrasion resistance and softness as well as crimpability and/or lowering the bonding temperature, such as a thermoplastic elastomer additive or ethylene-propylene copolymers (propylene-based elastomer) and teaches using amount suitable for the desired properties, such as additive from about 2 wt% to about 50 wt% of the low melting point component (Lassig, p. 7 line 32- p. 9 line 8), reading on a weight ratio of the propylene-based elastomer and second polypropylene homopolymer in the blend of 2:98 to 50:50.
Lassig does not appear to explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the propylene-based thermoplastic elastomer is present in a weight ratio of the propylene-based elastomer and the second polypropylene homopolymer of 40:60 to 90:10 and the propylene-based elastomer having a percent crystallinity of 0.5% to 65% comprising at least 50 wt% propylene-derived units and 5 wt% to 35 wt% of a co-monomer derived units including at least one of ethylene or a C4 to C10 alpha-olefin.
However, Ethiopia teaches a polymeric blend of isotactic polypropylene and reactor grade propylene based elastomer that provides superior abrasion resistance and excellent softness (Ethiopia, abstract, p. 1 lines 5-14). Ethiopia teaches the blend comprising from about 50 to about 95 percent of the isotactic polypropylene homopolymer having a melt flow rate in the range of about 10 to about 70 grams/10 minutes and from about 5 to about 50 percent by weight of the blend of a second polymer that is the reactor grade propylene based elastomer having a comonomer of about 5 to about 15 percent of ethylene (Id., p. 6 lines 24-p. 7 line 4, p. 9 lines 18-27, p. 13 lines 9-31), reading on a propylene-based elastomer comprising at least 50 wt% propylene-derived units and 5 wt% to 15 wt% co-monomer derived units including at least one of ethylene and a weight ratio of the propylene-based elastomer and the second polypropylene homopolymer in the blend being 5:95 to 50:50. Ethiopia teaches the elastomer having a heat of fusion of less than about 90 joules/gm (Id.). Ethiopia teaches the blend being used in bicomponent fibers including side-by-side and sheath-core (Id., p. 25 line 30 p. 26 line 21). Datta teaches the crystallinity of a propylene-based elastomer may be expressed in terms of heat of fusion with 100% crystallinity estimated at 189 J/g (Datta, abstract, para 0019-0020). The propylene-based elastomer of Ethiopia having a heat of fusion of less than 90 J/g equates to a percent crystallinity of less than about 48%. Datta teaches crystallinity of propylene-based elastomer lower limit being 1% (Id., para 0020) and teaches the elastomer comprising at least 60% by weight of propylene-derived units and 5% to 35 wt% of ethylene or C4-C20 alpha-olefin units, including ethylene, 1-butene, 1-pentene, 1-hexene, and/or 1-octene, and (ethylene or C4-C8 alpha olefin) (Id., para 0021, 0025-0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the finer of Lassig, wherein the additive in the low-melting component is the propylene-based elastomer of Ethiopia in an amount of 5 to 50% by weight of the blend as taught by Ethiopia and having a crystallinity of 1 to about 48 wt% as taught by Ethiopia and Datta, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known ethylene-propylene copolymers and elastomers predictably suitable for use in combination with polypropylene to improve properties of fibers and by the desire to impart softness and abrasion resistance.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 40:60 to 90:10, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the amount of the elastomer, and therefore the ratio, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach the second component (blend) having a melt flow rate that is at least 20% greater than or at least 20% less than a melt flow rate of the first component polypropylene (first polypropylene homopolymer). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would appreciate that MFR difference are indicative of different solidification properties.
However, Mitsui teaches a spunbond nonwoven fabric formed of eccentric sheath-core type conjugate continuous fiber made up of a core consisting of a propylene-based polymer having a specific MFR (MFRA) and the sheath consisting of a second propylene-based polymer with its MFR (MFRB) satisfying the relationship MFRA/MFRB≥1.2 or MFRA/MFRB≤0.8 (Mitsui, abstract), reading on the second component (blend) being about 17.7% less than the first component or 25% greater than the first component and substantially overlapping with the claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Mitsui teaches the propylene polymer B includes propylene/alpha-olefin copolymers and propylene polymer A including propylene homopolymer (Id., p. 2). Mitsui teaches that by satisfying the relationship, it is possible to obtain an eccentric core-sheath type composite fiber having more excellent crimpability and prepare a nonwoven fabric having excellent bulkiness (Id.). Mitsui teaches the use of hot air through method and a wet jet method to form the crimped nonwoven (Id., p. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the conjugate fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the polymers of core and polymers of the sheath satisfy the relationship of Mitsui, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known melt flow rate relationship for eccentric core-sheath fiber producing crimp and by the desire to impart excellent crimpability to the fiber and excellent bulkiness to a nonwoven formed of the fibers, resulting from a solidification property difference.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art combination teaches the bicomponent fiber having from about 20% to about 80% of the low melting polymer and from about 80% to about 20% of the high melting point (Lassig, p. 9 lines 3-13), reading on a weight ratio of the first component and the second component in the bi-component fiber of 20:80 to 80:20.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art combination teaches the blend being the propylene-based elastomer, the polypropylene homopolymer, and up to about 5 percent by weight of a third polymer, specifically a homogenous ethylene/alpha-olefin plastomer or elastomer (Ethiopia, abstract, p. 25 lines 11-19), reading on the blend consisting of the propylene-based elastomer, the second polypropylene homopolymer, and up to 5 wt% additives, substantially overlapping with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% additives, by weight of the blend. . It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 95/13856 to Lassig in view of WO 2005/111282 to Ethiopia, US Pub. No. 2005/0107534 to Datta, and JPH11323715 to Mitsui, as applied to claims 15, 17-20, and 23, further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0106978 to Cheng.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art combination does not teach the fiber further comprising a catalyst deactivator selected from the group consisting of calcium stearate, hydrotalcite, and calcium oxide.
However, Cheng teaches a nonwoven comprising a composition made from a first polymer component of a homopolymer of propylene and a second component including propylene copolymers (Cheng, abstract). Cheng teaches fibers formed from the composition including additive such as catalyst deactivators including calcium stearate, hydrotalcite, and calcium oxide (Id., para 0128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the fiber further comprises the catalyst deactivator of Cheng, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known material predictably suitable in the formation of fibers formed from polypropylene, including blends of polypropylene homopolymers and propylene copolymers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 95/13856 to Lassig in view of WO 2005/111282 to Ethiopia, US Pub. No. 2005/0107534 to Datta, and JPH11323715 to Mitsui, as applied to claims 15, 17-20, and 23, further in view of WO 2018/017169 to Ferry.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art combination is silent with regards to the triad tacticity of the propylene-based elastomer being 50% to 60%, as determined by 13C NMR.
However, Ferry teaches a propylene fiber comprising a propylene-based elastomer having a triad tacticity as measured by 13C NMR of 50 to 99%, heat of fusion less than 80 J/g, crystallinity from 0.5 to 40%, and at least 50 wt% propylene-derived units blended with a primary polypropylene that is a propylene homopolymer (Ferry, abstract, para 0036, 0033-0034,0038, 0018-0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the propylene-base elastomer has a triad tacticity of 50 to 90% as taught by Ferry, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known triad tacticity of propylene-based elastomer having a heat of fusion less than 90 J/g predictably suitable for use in propylene fiber formed from a blend with a polypropylene homopolymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive based on the current grounds of rejection necessitated by Amendment.
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Lassig, that Lassig only teaches the low melting polymer component being about 5 to about 20% by weight of a thermoplastic elastomer and therefore is outside the claimed. While Lassig teaches the low melting polymer component may contain about 5 to about 20% by weight of a thermoplastic elastomer, exemplified as a styrene copolymer, the invention is not limited to only containing this range of thermoplastic elastomer. Other suitable additive polymers include ethylene-propylene copolymers. Lassig teaches using a suitable amount to produce the desired properties (Lassig, p. 9 lines 3-4). Ethiopia teaches it is known to use a propylene-based elastomer in an amount of 5 to 50% by weight with propylene homopolymer to impart softness and abrasion resistance, an objective of the additive blended in the low melting component.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789