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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0214767 in view of Bieser et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0081817.
Mehta discloses a polypropylene homopolymer having a melting temperature of 150-170 degrees C, (paragraph 0051), 15-100 2,1 and 3,1 regio defects per 10,000 propylene units, (see paragraph 0054), a MFR of 10-200 G/10min and a molecular weight distribution of 1-5, (see paragraph 0057). The polymer has a density of 0.3 g/mL or more. See paragraph 0063. The polymer has a crystallization temperature as claimed. See tables 1c, 2a and 2b. Thus, Mehta teaches a molecular weight distribution of 2.7-4.0 as recited in the claims as amended 2/11/26, because it teaches a range of 1-5. See paragraph 0057. Further Mehta teaches Tm of 150-170 degrees C. (see paragraph 0051). Therefore, Mehta teaches the limitations as set forth in the amendment of 2/11/26.
Mehta differs from the claimed invention because it does not clearly disclose forming the polypropylene into nonwovens although it does teach forming fibers and fabrics in paragraph 0116, and it does not teach a blend of two polypropylenes and does not teach the claimed method.
However, Bieser discloses fibers and nonwovens formed from the fibers. The fibers comprise polypropylene. See abstract. The polypropylene can have a Mw/Mn of at least 3 and up to 7. See paragraph 0011 and claim 20. The fibers can be formed into nonwoven fabrics by conventional processes such as spunbonding and meltblowing. See paragraph 0031. The polypropylene can be a homopolymer or a copolymer. See paragraph 0041. The polypropylene can have a melt temperature of at least 135 and most preferably at least 147 degrees C. See paragraph 0070. The nonwovens can be formed by forming the polymer composition and extruding the composition into fibers which are then formed into nonwovens by known methods such as spunbonding and meltblowing. The nonwovens can be used in hygiene or sanitary products, in construction and agricultural applications, for medical drapes and gowns, protective wear, lab coats, masks, filters, etc. See paragraph 0088-0089. Looking at table 2 of the specification, Bieser discloses polypropylenes having MFI of 22.7, 20.5 and 24.0 dg/min, NMR 2,1 insertions at 0.8 or 0.9 percent and Melt temperatures of 150, 151, 152 degrees C. The fibers can include one or more of the polypropylenes as shown in table 2. See paragraph 0088.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the polypropylene of Mehta into nonwovens and fibers as taught by Bieser, and to have formed the nonwovens into various articles as taught by Bieser, as well as forming a bend of two polypropylenes, in view of the teaching of Bieser of the suitability of polypropylene for forming fibers and nonwovens. Further, Bieser teaches the claimed method of forming polypropylene into fibers and nonwovens and then forming them into various articles as claimed.
With regard to claims 17-20, since Mehta teaches the claimed composition and teaches employing it to form fabrics generally and Bieser teaches employing similar polypropylene compositions to form nonwovens, it is reasonable to expect that once the composition of Mehta was formed into a nonwoven, it would have the claimed properties, or in the alternative, since nonwoven fabric strength is generally related to fiber alignment, fiber composition, basis weight and density, it would have been obvious to have selected the structure and alignment of the fibers, the basis weight and the density of the fabric in order to provide a fabric having the desired properties of tensile strength.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of Bieser as set forth above, and further in view of Perrot et al, WO 2018/211079.
Neither Mehta nor Bieser teach the claimed xylene cold soluble fraction.
However, Perrot teaches suitable amounts of xylene solubles for a polypropylene composition are 0.8 wt% or less. Note that the xylene cold soluble fraction measures the percentage of soluble species in polypropylene homopolymers and copolymers and is crucial for controlling the polymerization process and determining the physical properties of final products, such as film and fiber. The concentration of the soluble fraction obtained with a specific solvent relates closely to the performance characteristics of the product in certain applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the composition so that it had a xylene soluble fraction as taught by Perrot in order to control the final properties of the fibers formed from the composition.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to Mehta, Applicant argues that Mehta does not teach the claimed molecular weight distribution or melt temperature. However, as set forth above, Mehta teaches Tm of 150-170 degrees C and molecular weight distribution of 1-5. Therefore, the claimed ranges are encompassed by the disclosure of Mehta. While Applicant argues that the examples do not teach these features, the disclosure of Mehta is not limited to the examples, but includes the entire disclosure which teaches the claimed Tm and molecular weight distribution.
With regard to Bieser, Applicant argues that the combination with Bieser does not teach the claimed Tm and molecular weight distribution. However, Mehta already teaches this features. Further, Mehta teaches forming the polypropylene into fibers and fabrics. Bieser is relied on to establish that it was well known in the art to form polypropylene into nonwoven fabrics and for the teaching of using more than one polypropylenes.
Further, with regard to the melting point, Mehta discloses the claimed melting point, while Bieser teaches melting points of “at least” 147 C, which encompasses greater values.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights