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 § 103
Claims 1, 3-6, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ethiopia et al. (US 2007/0173162 A1) in view of Novarino (US 2020/0263335 A1) and Autran et al. (US 2017/0000659 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ethiopia teaches an elastomeric bicomponent fiber for use in diapers and sanitary objects (Abstract; Paragraph 0003, 0102) comprising a core (Paragraph 0102) comprising a propylene/ethylene copolymer elastomer and a slip additive, a fatty acid amide, (Paragraph 0071, 0097). Ethiopia teaches the propylene/ethylene copolymer has a density of at least 0.850 g/cm3 (Paragraph 0072), which overlaps the claimed range, and comprises an ethylene comonomer, where the ethylene comonomer content of the propylene/ethylene copolymer is 5 to 15 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range. (Paragraph 0030). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Ethiopia teaches at least one sheath is free of a secondary amide. (Paragraph 0097)
Ethiopia does not specifically teach the fatty acid amide is a secondary amide or the wt% of the fatty acid amide in the core. Ethiopia does teach the slip additive is a fatty acid amide, such as erucamide. (Paragraph 0097).
Novarino teaches a bicomponent fiber (Paragraph 0043), where the core can be a propylene/ethylene elastomer (Paragraph 0034) and secondary or primary fatty acid amide slip additive (Paragraph 0038) in the amount of 0.1 to 5 wt%. (Paragraph 0038), which overlaps the claimed range. Novarino teaches primary and secondary amid fatty acids are functional equivalents. Novarino teaches slip additives help with softness of the fabric. (Paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add a secondary or primary slip additive in the claimed range to the propylene/ethylene elastomer of Ethiopia to improves softness.
Ethiopia does not teach the sheath comprises less than 50 wt% of the total weight of the elastomeric bicomponent fiber or the secondary amide is present in the fiber in the claimed range.
Autran teaches bicomponent fibers of an ethylene sheath and a propylene elastomer core, where the sheath is 1 to 9 wt% and the core is 90 to 99 wt%. (Paragraph 0083-0084). These ranges overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Autran teaches this weight range for the core and sheath allow the bicomponent fiber to operate as elastic strands for use in diapers. (Paragraph 0081-0084). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the weight percent of the core and sheath of Ethiopia be in the claimed range as taught by Autran to ensure the elastomeric bicomponent are suitable as elastic strands in diaper construction.
Given that Autran teaches the core comprises 90 to 99 wt% and Novarino teaches the secondary amide can be present from 0.1 to 5 wt%, this creates a range for the secondary amide within the entire bicomponent fiber that overlaps the claimed range.
Ethiopia, Novarino and Autran do not teach the resulting bicomponent fiber has the claimed cup crush bending stiffness and burst peak load. Ethiopia, Novarino and Autran teach the composition for the core and sheath and teach the secondary amide and secondary amide concentration in the fiber and in the core, as discussed above. Thus, as Ethiopia, Novarino and Autran teaches the same composition and structure as the claimed invention, it would be reasonable to one with ordinary skill in the art that the fiber of Ethiopia, Novarino and Autran to inherently have the same physical properties, including the cup crush bending stiffness and burst peak load. “Where…the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. (MPEP §2112).
Regarding Claim 3-4, Ethiopia teaches the sheath can comprise non-elastomeric polyethylene homopolymer. (Paragraph 0102).
Regarding Claims 5-6, Novarino teaches a bicomponent fiber (Paragraph 0043), where the core can be a propylene/ethylene elastomer (Paragraph 0034) and secondary or primary fatty acid amide slip additive (Paragraph 0038) in the amount of 0.1 to 5 wt%. (Paragraph 0038), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 11, Ethiopia teaches the core contains a second elastomer. (Paragraph 0098).
Regarding Claim 13, Autran teaches bicomponent fibers of an ethylene sheath and a propylene elastomer core, where the sheath is 1 to 9 wt% and the core is 90 to 99 wt%. (Paragraph 0083-0084). These ranges overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ethiopia, Novarino and Autran, in further view of Peng et al. (US 2009/0111347 A1)
Regarding Claims 8-9, Novarino does not specifically teach the claimed secondary amides recited in Claims 8-9.
Peng teaches both primary amides, such as erucamide, secondary amides with the claimed formula recited in Claim 8-9 to be used in propylene-based bicomponent fibers, especially for the core component (Paragraph 0081-0084, 0103-0104). Peng teaches these claimed secondary amides are suitable in improving the softness of the fiber. (Paragraph 0107). Thus, as Peng teaches the claimed secondary amides are suitable for improving softness, which is desired by Novarino, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed secondary amides taught by Peng as the secondary amides in the core of Ethiopia and Novarino.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ethiopia, Novarino and Autran, in further view of Tallury et al. (US 2022/0049389 A1)
Regarding Claim 12, Ethiopia teaches pigments can be added to the propylene-based elastomer (Paragraph 0097). Ethiopia does not specifically teach the wt% of the pigment.
Tallury teaches a bicomponent sheath-core (Claim 18 of Tallury) comprising a propylene-based elastomer. (Abstract) Tallury teaches additives, including pigment can be added to the propylene-based elastomer. (Paragraph 0054-0056). Tallury teaches amount of additive can be from 1 to 5 wt% of the polymer. (Paragraph 0056). This overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 wt%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to add pigment to the propylene elastomer, the core, to the claimed range to add color to the core fiber component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
New grounds of rejection have been made due to Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights