DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment submitted on January 2, 2026, has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 10 – 16 have been added. Therefore, the pending claims are 1 – 16. Claims 4 and 5 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 6 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (2002/0034635) in view of Okaya (2012/0121882) and Babb et al. (2002/0091199).
Terada et al. is drawn to a polyethylene bicomponent fiber comprising a low melting component, polyethylene (a), a linear low density polyethylene with a density of 0.850 to 0.930 g/cc (which would correspond to the applicant’s second polyethylene composition) and a high melting polyethylene component with a density of 0.940g/cc or more (which corresponds to the applicant’s first polyethylene composition) (abstract). The low melting component has a molecular weight distribution (MW/MN) of less than 3.0 (paragraph 15). Preferably, the higher melting polyethylene has a density of 0.945 g/cc to 0.965 g/cc (claim 4). Thus, the difference in density between the two components is preferably at least 0.015 g/cc. The fiber can have an eccentric sheath core composite fiber structure (paragraph 91). The lower melting component has a melting temperature of 70ºC to 125ºC (paragraph 35). The higher melting component has a melting point in the range of 125ºC to 135ºC (claim 5). Further, the two components have a melting point difference of 5ºC or more (paragraph 86). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose polymers that have a crystallization temperature different of at least 5ºC since the melting temperatures should have a different of at least 5ºC.
Terada et al. fails to teach the ratio of weight average molecular weight to number average molecular weight. Babb et al. is drawn to desirable polyolefin composition. Babb et al. discloses that preferred polyethylene compositions have a density of greater than 0.945 g/cc and a molecular weight distribution of less than about 3.0 (paragraph 9). Babb et al. discloses that preferred polymers of this invention include are prepared from ethylene in combination with another alpha olefin monomer (paragraph 16). Preferred alpha comonomers include 1-hexene (paragraph 17 and 64). These polymers advantageously have a combination of good processability as indicated by higher melt strength at a constant low shear viscosity e.g. 0.1 rad/sec measured by DMS, and higher toughness, tensile and/or elongation than a high density polyethylene of broader molecular weight distribution (paragraph 9). Thus, it would have been obvious to use a high density polyethylene made from a ethylene and 1-hexene, with a molecular weight distribution of less than 3.0 as taught by Babb et al. in the bicomponent of Terada et al. since Babb et al. discloses that the lower molecular weight distribution produces good processability, higher toughness and tensile and/or elongation than broader molecular weight distributions.
Further, it is noted that the examples 1 - 4 of Terada et al. teach using a single polymer composition as the sheath and separate single polymer composition as the core component. Thus, the core and sheath comprise 100% of the polymer composition.
While Terada et al. teaches that the bicomponent fiber can have an eccentric sheath core structure (paragraph 91), Terada et al. fails to teach having different centroids in the different regions. Okaya is drawn to an eccentric sheath core fiber structure. Okaya teaches that the by arranging the centroid position of the first component so as not to overlap the centroid position of the fiber on the cross-section of the fiber crimping occurs (abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to create an eccentric sheath core polyethylene bicomponent fiber wherein the different polymer compositions have different densities and the melting temperatures are different and the sheath core components are arranged so that the centroid of at least one of the first or second region doesn’t overlap with the centroid of the fiber to create a crimped fiber. Therefore, claims 1 – 3 and 6 are rejected.
Terada et al. discloses that the fibers can be used to make a spunbond fabric (paragraph 42). Thus, claim 9 is rejected.
Although the limitations of fiber curvature and Raman measured % crystallinity are not explicitly taught by Terada et al., Okaya, or Babb et al. it is reasonable to presume that said limitations would be met by the combination of the two references. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. polyethylene bicomponent with similar different in density and melting point between the two polymer) and in the similar production steps (i.e. using the different polyethylene components to produce an eccentric sheath core fiber with at least one of the first centroid and the second centroid not overlapping the fiber centroid) used to produce the curly bicomponent fiber. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of curvature in the bicomponent fiber by moving the location of the centroid for the first and second regions. Further, Terada et al. discloses that controlling the crystallinity of the fiber can impact the rigidity of the fiber (paragraph 94). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the level of crystallinity in the fiber to help produce a fiber with a desirable rigidity while still being soft as desired (paragraph 60). Thus, claims 7 and 8 are rejected.
As set forth above, Babb et al. discloses that the polyolefin composition has a density of greater than 0.945 g/cc and a molecular weight distribution of less than about 3.0 (paragraph 9). Thus, claim 10 is rejected.
Terada et al. discloses that the high melting component makes up the core portion of the fiber and the low melting component makes up the sheath region of the bicomponent fiber (paragraph 101). Thus, claim 11 is rejected.
Additionally, Terada et al. discloses that the low melting component has a molecular weight distribution (MW/MN) of less than 3.0 (paragraph 15). Thus, the combination of Terada et la. And Babb et al. produce a combination with both regions comprising a polymer composition with a molecular weight distribution of less than 3.0. Thus, claims 12 – 16 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach using a ethylene/hexene copolymer. However, Babb et al. which is relied on to teach how to produce polyethylene polymer compositions with the claimed molecular weight distribution, discloses that the polyethylene composition preferably includes a comonomer comprising an alpha olefin such as 1-hexene (paragraphs 17 and 64). Thus, it would be obvious to use polyethylene compositions comprising a copolymer made from ethylene monomers and 1-hexene monomers to produce the polyethylene polymer composition with the claimed molecular weight distribution. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Additionally, the features of the newly added claims are also taught by the prior art references for the reasons set forth above. Therefore, the pending claims are rejected.
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 Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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.
jlj
March 9, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789