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 § 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 1-13 and 15-20 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 1-13 and 15-20, claims 1 and 20 recite that the fiber can withstand temperatures up to 100C without sticking. It is unclear what the scope of withstanding temperatures up to 100ºC without sticking necessarily entails. For example, it is unclear if the fibers withstanding any temperature up to 100ºC is within the scope of claim, or if the fibers are required to comprise a property at 100ºC.
Additionally, it is unclear what the scope of “without sticking” necessarily entails, as the claim does not require the fiber to stick to, nor necessarily not stick to, any particular structure.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the polymer fibre characterized in that the fibres are spun, integrated into yarns, integrated into tows, producing a spun tow, and then stretched. It is unclear what structure is required by the claim. For example, the claim recites that the fibers are spun, integrated into yarns, and integrated into tows. However, the claim further recites producing a spun tow. The claim already recites spinning fibers. Therefore, it is unclear if the recitation of “producing a spun tow” is directed to producing a separate spun tow, or of the claim is referencing the spun fibers, integrated into yarns, and integrated into tows. If the latter, it is unclear how the tow is spun, as the fibers are spun and the tow only appears to be formed by integrating the fibers into tows, which does not require a separate spinning process.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites that the fibres are stretched after spinning in the form of a tow. It is unclear if the claims are requiring the polymer fibers are in the form of a tow, or if the claims are requiring the polymer fibers to be stretched in the form of a tow, but remain polymer fibers.
Additionally, claim 20 recites that the biopolymer A is an aliphatic polyester, and biopolymer B is an aliphatic polyester, “said aliphatic polyester being polybutylene succinate or polybutylene or said aliphatic polyester being polybutylene succinate and polybutylene.” Each of biopolymer A and biopolymer B are aliphatic polyesters. Therefore, it is unclear which aliphatic polyester or both are referenced in the claimed limitations.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 6,177,193 to Tsai in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0121860 to Dahringer.
Regarding claims 1-13 and 15-20, Tsai teaches biodegradable hydrophilic binder fibers produced by co-spinning a high-melting aliphatic polyester core material with a highly wettable aliphatic polyester blend sheath material, wherein the blend comprises an unreacted mixture of an aliphatic polyester polymer, such as a polybutylene succinate polymer or a polybutylene succinate-co-adipate polymer (Tsai, Abstract, column 4 lines 25-65, claims 2 and 3). Tsai teaches that the aliphatic polyester polymers exhibit weight average molecular weights that are beneficially between about 10,000 to about 2,000,000, suitably between about 100,000 to about 300,000 (Id., column 5 lines 28-50), and a melt flow rate that is beneficially between about 1 gram per 10 minutes to about 200 grams per 10 minutes (Id., column 6 lines 5-14). Tsai teaches that the high-melting aliphatic polyester core material includes polylactide having a melt temperature around 175ºC, and having a melting temperature of the core material at least 20ºC higher than the sheath material (Id., column 13 lines 1-22). Tsai teaches the high-melting aliphatic polyester core material with a highly wettable aliphatic polyester blend are biodegradable (Id., column 4 lines 55-65, column 13 lines 1-22). Note that although Tsai does not appear to teach ASTM D5338-15, since Tsai teaches substantially similar biopolymers as claimed, the biopolymers of Tsai appear to be biologically degradable as claimed.
Regarding the claimed properties, including the fibre withstanding temperatures up to 100ºC, as set forth above, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is required by the claims. However, Tsai appears to teach substantially similar components A and B as claimed.
Additionally, in the event it is shown that any of the properties are dependent on the polylactide of component A, Dahringer teaches a polymer fiber with improved dispersibility and suitable for producing aqueous suspensions which are used in the formation of textile fabrics (Dahringer, Abstract). Dahringer teaches that the polymer fiber may be a bicomponent fiber, wherein the melting point of thermoplastic polymer in the core is preferably at least 10ºC higher than the melting point of the thermoplastic polymer in the cladding (Id., paragraphs 0039-0040). Dahringer teaches that the synthetic polymers which form the dispersion medium are particularly preferably synthetic biopolymers (Id., paragraph 0012), in particular polylactic acids (Id., paragraphs 0021-0022). Dahringer teaches that polylactic acids used according to the invention having a number average molecular weight (Mn) of min. 500 g/mol and preferably max 1,000,000 g/mol (Id., paragraph 0027), a weight average molecular weight (Mw) preferably in the range from 750 g/mol to 5,000,000 g/mol (Id., paragraph 0028), a polydispersity in the range from 1.5 to 5 (Id.), and an inherent viscosity measured in chloroform at 25ºC, 0.1% polymer concentration, in the range of 0.5 dl/g to 8.0 dl/g (Id., paragraphs 0029-0030). Dahringer teaches that the thermoplastic polymers have a glass transition higher than 20ºC, and a melting point in particular in the range of 175ºC to 195ºC (Id., paragraphs 0031-0032). Dahringer teaches dispersing silicone in the cladding (Id., paragraph 0039). Dahringer teaches that the fibers can be stretched into tows to produces textile surfaces by means of wet laying methods (Id., paragraphs 0069-0079). Dahringer teaches that the fibers having improved dispersibility and good pumpability (Id., paragraph 0078), in addition to improved haptics and improved softness (Id., paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the biodegradable fiber of Tsai, wherein the polylactic acid polymer comprises the polylactic acid of Dahringer, for use in aqueous suspensions, as taught and suggested by Dahringer, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional bicomponent fiber having improved properties including dispersibility and haptics, such that the fibers are suitable for producing aqueous suspensions which are used in the formation of textile fabrics.
Additionally, regarding the claimed stretching, Dahringer teaches similar fibres which are formed into tows and stretched at a stretching ratio preferably from 1.25 to 4 (Dahringer, paragraphs 0069-0070). Similar to Applicants’ specification, the stretching can be executed as a single-stage or two-stage stretching process for example USPN 3,816,486 (Id., paragraph 0071). Dahringer teaches that the fibres can be crimped or textured by steam-assisted fibre crimping at a temperature in the range of 50º to 100ºC (Id., paragraph 0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the biodegradable fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the fibers are formed into a tow and stretched, as taught by Dahringer, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional bicomponent fiber formed into a structure which can be stored, and crimped or textured, based on the desired application.
Additionally, the claimed limitations directed to stretching after spinning, the temperature during stretching and stretching in exposure to steam, the limitations appear to be taught by the prior art combination. Alternatively, the limitations, including the remaining process limitations, are interpreted as product by process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicants to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicants intend to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicants should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Additionally, the prior art combination teaches substantially similar components A and B as claimed, including substantially similar structures and compositions. Therefore, the claimed properties and property relationships appear to naturally flow from the invention of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 3-5, the prior art combination teaches an exemplary poly(lactic) acid polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 187,000, a number average molecular weight of 118,000, and a polydispersity of 1.58 (Tsai, column 19 lines 58-60, Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed inherent viscosity. However, since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar poly(lactic) acid as claimed, including overlapping molecular weights and polydispersity, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed property is inherent to or naturally flows from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed glass transition temperature relationships. However, the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar poly(lactic) acid as claimed, including overlapping molecular weights and polydispersity, having a melt temperature around 175ºC. Additionally, the prior art combination teaches exemplary polybutylene succinate polymer having a melting temperature of 95ºC (Tsai, column 19 lines 61-65, Table 1). Based on the prior art combination teaching a substantially similar structure and substantially similar compositions as claimed, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed glass transition temperature relationships are inherent to or naturally flow from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art combination teaches similar fibres which are formed into tows and stretched at a stretching ratio preferably from 1.25 to 4 (Dahringer, paragraphs 0069-0070). Similar to Applicants’ specification, the stretching can be executed as a single-stage or two-stage stretching process for example USPN 3,816,486 (Id., paragraph 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the biodegradable fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the fibers are formed into a tow and stretched, as taught by Dahringer, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional bicomponent fiber formed into a structure which can be stored, and crimped or textured, based on the desired application.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the prior art combination teaches that the aliphatic polyester polymers exhibit weight average molecular weights that are beneficially between about 10,000 to about 2,000,000. Additionally, the prior art combination teaches various viscosities @ 1000s-1 at 150ºC and 160ºC (Tsai, Table 3). Although the prior art combination does not appear to teach the specific melt viscosity at the claimed temperature, since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar polybutylene succinate as claimed, including overlapping molecular weights and melt flow rates, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed property is inherent to or naturally flows from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art combination teaches biodisintegradable nonwoven materials using the binder fibers, including in the form of a fibrous nonwoven web (Tsai, column 17 lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 20, Tsai does not appear to teach the claimed yarn count. However, Dahringer teaches that the individual titre of the polymer fibers is between 0.3 and 30 dtex, and between 0.3 and 3 dtex (Dahringer, paragraph 0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the biodegradable fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the fibers comprise a titre, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Dahringer, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional bicomponent fiber having properties suitable for the formation of bicomponent fibers.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed March 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the fiber material comprising component B “comprises a biopolymer B” without requiring additives like multicarboxylic acids or wetting agents. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require the absence of additives or wetting agents. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Applicants argue that neither reference discloses a quantitative thermal shrink rate, and that there is no suggestion to optimize for this specific low-shrink property. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the prior art combination teaches substantially similar components A and B as claimed, including substantially similar structures and compositions. Therefore, the claimed properties and property relationships appear to naturally flow from the invention of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Applicants have not proven otherwise.
Note that although Applicants argue that silicone as a disperse phase could alter thermal behavior unpredictably, Applicants do not provide evidence of such a conclusion, including even if true, that such a composition would necessarily comprise properties outside the scope of the claimed ranges.
Applicants argue that Tsai references a modified ASTM D5338.92 for overall fiber biodegradability but does not specify compliance for each biopolymer individually. Additionally, Applicants argue that Dahringer mentions no biodegradability standard, noting PLA as a biopolymer but including non-biodegradable examples.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants’ specification recites that the term “synthetic biopolymers” for the present invention refers to a material which comprises biogenic raw materials, including a thermoplastic polymer based on lactic acids. Tsai teaches biodegradable hydrophilic binder fibers produced by co-spinning a high-melting aliphatic polyester core material with a highly wettable aliphatic polyester blend sheath material, wherein the blend comprises an unreacted mixture of an aliphatic polyester polymer, such as a polybutylene succinate polymer or a polybutylene succinate-co-adipate polymer. Dahringer teaches that the synthetic polymers are synthetic biopolymers, and uses substantially the same definition of “synthetic biopolymer” as set forth in Applicants’ specification. Applicants have not established that the polymers of the prior art combination are not biopolymers as claimed.
Applicants argue that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Tsai and Dahringer, as adding Dahringer’s silicone to Tsai’s sheath would create a complex blend potentially disrupting Tsai’s unreacted mixture and hydrophilicity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Tsai teaches that a silicone surfactant may be added to the highly wettable aliphatic polyester blend.
Applicants argue that Tsai teaches away by requiring sheath additives for hydrophilicity and reduced tackiness, while Applicants’ claims achieve thermal properties with biopolymers A and B differing in structure, without mandating such additives. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tsai teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed. Additionally, the claims are not limited to necessarily excluding additives. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Applicants argue that removing Tsai’s additives would render it unsuitable for its intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees, in that neither the rejection above nor the claimed invention requires the absence of additives. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Applicants argue that neither Tsai nor Dahringer suggests optimizing for the claimed thermal performance without their additives, teaching away from the pure biopolymer approach that enables the invention’s properties. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites component A comprising a biopolymer A and component B comprising a biopolymer B, wherein the biopolymer A is an aliphatic polyester and biopolymer B is an aliphatic polyester, wherein the biopolymer B and the biopolymer A differ regarding their chemical structure. The claims do not require either a pure biopolymer nor exclude additional components. Without either of the aforementioned qualifiers, the prior art references cannot teach away from the claimed invention.
Additionally, Applicants’ specification teaches at page 9 that the biopolymers contain common additives such as anti-oxidants, wherein it has been proven in this regard “that the group of anti-oxidants are unavoidable for the manufacturing and post-processing of the fibers.” Therefore, Applicants’ specification does not align with Applicants’ arguments that the biopolymers are “pure.”
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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786