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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goda et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0053521)
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Goda et al. teaches staple fibers for air laid nonwoven fabric comprising staple fibers to which a fiber treatment agent containing a hydrophilic oil agent and a silicon containing oil agent is applied in an amount of the weight of the staple fibers in the claimed amount (Goda et al. teaches application of at least 5% by weight and the present application teaches application of 4% by weight yield the claimed adhered amount. [0015, 0046, 0083, Examples]. In the alternative, the amount adhered would have been obvious over the teachings of Goda et al. as Goda et al. teach amounts up to 5% by weight which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the adhered amount A weight ratio of the hydrophilic oil agent and the silicon containing oil agent contained in the fiber treatment agent is within the claimed range [0046]. The moisture content is in the claimed range [0031]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 staple fibers have a fineness of 0.1-2 dtex [0033]. The staple fibers have a length in the claimed range [Abstract, 0027 and Examples].
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 staple fibers are composite fibers having a sheath core structure [0021-0022 and 0036]. Goda et al. teaches crystalline based propylene based polymer is used in combination with a resin containing an olefinic polymer [0014, 0035 and 0039]. Goda et al. teaches a resin containing a melting point lower than that of the core is used as a main component for the sheath [Examples]. Goda et al. teaches the polymers as claimed and that they polymers can be sheath and core, but is silent regarding the polymers being located in a sheath and core of the fiber. However, given, the teachings of Goda et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use crystalline based propylene polymer as the core and a resin containing an olefinic polymer as the sheath in order to affect the fiber properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
The cross-sectional area ratio of the sheath material and the core material is taught in the claimed range [Examples which based upon calculation using Example 1 for example with polyethylene sheath and polyester as core and using their densities yields cross-sectional are in the claimed range]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art after viewing not only the examples which teach cross-sectional area ratio in the claimed range with various polymer configurations, but also Figure 3 which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand although not to scale also exemplifies the cross-sectional area in the claimed range and the claimed cross-sectional area would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the teachings of Goda et al. Applicant provides no evidence that it would have been beyond the ordinary skill in the art to achieve the claimed cross sectional area and moreover the claimed cross-sectional is extremely broad and easily envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Goda et al. teaches a method for producing staple fibers for air laid nonwoven fabric comprising a process including obtaining undrawn fibers by melt spinning, adhering a fiber treatment agent containing a hydrophilic oil agent and a silicon containing oil agent to the fibers in the claimed amount. In the alternative, the amount adhered would have been obvious over the teachings of Goda et al. as Goda et al. teach amounts up to 5% by weight which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the adhered amount A weight ratio of the hydrophilic oil agent and the silicon containing oil agent contained in the fiber treatment agent is within the claimed range [0046]. While Goda et al. do not teach application of the oil to an undrawn fiber. It would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the oil to an undrawn fiber in order to aid in the drawing process. Further, it is noted there is nothing in the specification as filed that teaches applying oil to an undrawn fiber yields anything superior or unexpected. Goda et al. teach forming drawn fibers by subjecting undrawn fibers to a drawing treatment and cutting the fibers to a predetermined length [0044, 0053 and 0117]. A weight ratio of the hydrophilic oil agent and the silicon containing oil agent contained in the fiber treatment agent is within the claimed range [0046]. The moisture content is in the claimed range [0031]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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 drawn fibers after cutting the drawn fibers have a moisture content in the claimed range [0031]. The cross sectional area of the sheath material and the core material is taught in the claimed range [Examples which based upon calculation using Example 1 for example with polyethylene sheath and polyester as core and using their densities yields cross-sectional are in the claimed range]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art after viewing not only the examples which teach cross-sectional area ratio in the claimed range with various polymer configurations, but also Figure 3 which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand although not to scale also exemplifies the cross-sectional area in the claimed range and the claimed cross-sectional area would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the teachings of Goda et al. Applicant provides no evidence that it would have been beyond the ordinary skill in the art to achieve the claimed cross sectional area and moreover the claimed cross-sectional is extremely broad and easily envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art
Regarding claim 10, Goda et al. are silent regarding the claimed pressure for cutting drawn fibers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed pressure for cutting in order to not damage the fiber and also ensure adequate cutting.
Art not Used in Rejection
US Pat. 5,902,754 teaches staple fibers with oiling agents applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Goda is silent regarding the cross sectional area of the core and sheath. The cross sectional area of the sheath material and the core material is taught in the claimed range [Examples which based upon calculation using Example 1 for example with polyethylene sheath and polyester as core and using their densities yields cross-sectional are in the claimed range]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art after viewing not only the examples which teach cross-sectional area ratio in the claimed range with various polymer configurations, but also Figure 3 which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand although not to scale also exemplifies the cross-sectional area in the claimed range and the claimed cross-sectional area would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the teachings of Goda et al. Applicant provides no evidence that it would have been beyond the ordinary skill in the art to achieve the claimed cross sectional area and moreover the claimed cross-sectional is extremely broad and easily envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues Goda is silent regarding the combination of B, C, D, E, F, & G as set forth in the arguments dated 07/29/2024. As set forth by the decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board dated 03/03/2026, absent criticality or unexpected results, that disclosure is sufficient to teach or suggest a fiber fineness within the scope of the claims. The decision also stated the arguments (which were repeated in Applicant’s response dated 04/27/2026), fail to identify reversible error by The Office. The decision also found Goda's disclosures are adequate to teach or suggest the recited limitations including B-H, as recited by the claims. See, e.g., In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness"). And lastly, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found That argument is unpersuasive because even a disclosure of "a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular [combination] less obvious." Merck & Co. V. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be convincing. Applicant is advised to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights