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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 11, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 8 remain in the above identified application.
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 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0169802 to Miyamura, as evidenced by Thermoforming to Ilig and Handbook of Nonwoven Filter Media to Hutten, in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0302241 to Seiji and, optionally, US Pub. No. 2009/0243141 to Goda.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 8, Miyamura teaches low-drawn inelastic fibers that are sheath/core conjugate fiber (composite fiber) having a polyester, such as polyethylene terephthalate or polybutylene terephthalate, as a core (first component containing a polyester-based resin) and low melting polypropylene or polyethylene sheath (second component containing a polyolefin-based resin having a melting point lower than a melting point of the polyester-based resin) have an elongation of 80% to 800% (Miyamura, abstract, para 0054, 0082), reading on the fiber having a concentric sheath-core structure in which the second component occupies an outer periphery of a fiber in a cross section of the fiber orthogonal to a lengthwise direction of the fiber. Miyamura teaches the fibers being thermally-bonded to the fibers of the elastic fiber layer (Id., para 0054), reading on the fiber being heat-bondable composite fibers. Miyamura teaches a specific embodiment having an elongation of 430% and diameter of 22 microns using a polyethylene sheath and polyethylene terephthalate core and formed into a nonwoven fabric (claim 8) (Id., Table 1, para 0119-0132). Miyamura teaches the fibers can have a diameter preferably 10 to 35 microns (Id., para 0082). Polyethylene is known to have a melting point between about 110-135°C as shown by Hutten (Hutten, Table) and density of about 0.90-0.95 g/cm3 and polyethylene terephthalate has a melting point around 255-258°C and a density of about 1.37 g/cm3 as shown by Ilig (Ilig, Table), therefore the delta between melting point is greater than 15°C. At a density of 1.37 g/cm3, a diameter of 22 microns equates to a linear density if about 5.15 dtex and a ratio of elongation at break to fineness of about 83.5%. At a density of 0.90 g/cm3, a diameter of 22 microns equates to a linear density of about 3.39 dtex (claim 2) and a ratio of elongation at break to fineness of about 126.8%. As even a low diameter is within the scope of Miyamura as well as higher elongation, a ratio of elongation at break to fineness at least overlapping with the claimed range is within the scope of Miyamura. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the diameter and/elongation, such as result in a value within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art. As a specific example is very similar to the claimed values, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Miyamura is silent with regards to the dry heat shrinkage of the fiber.
However, Seiji teaches that when the dry shrinkage of a filament is less than 0% and used to form a fabric such as a nonwoven fabric, the filament extends and can get loose in the product and sometimes fall out of the product (Seiji, para 0041). Seiji teaches is the dry shrinkage is high, such as 3.5%, the fiber shrinks in a thermal setting process and result in the product getting wrinkle and deformed (Seiji, para 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Miyamura, wherein the dry heat shrinkage is set to be greater than 0% and below 3.5% as taught by Seiji, motivated by the desire of forming fiber having conventionally known dry heat shrinkages and predictably suitable for use in fabrics such as nonwoven as well as ensure the fiber does not get loose while ensure the product is not deformed.
The prior art combination is silent with regards to the breaking strength.
However, Goda teaches a polyester based fiber having a fineness of not more than 10.0 dtex and concentric core/sheath type conjugate fiber suitable for use as a thermoadhesive conjugate fiber in nonwoven fabric (Goda, abstract, para 0043, 0010, 0021-0023). Goda teaches a specific embodiment comprising a polyethylene terephthalate core with a high density polyethylene sheath in a ratio of 50/50 by weight with a fineness of 6.5 dtex, elongation of 445% and strength of 0.8 cN/dtex; a fineness of 6.5 dtex, 412% elongation, and strength of 0.7 cN/dtex, and 6.5 dtex, 125% elongation and strength of 1.8 cN/dtex (Id., para 0068-0071). This demonstrates that there is a correlation of elongation with strength. The elongation of the prior art combination is within the claimed range. Given the similarity between the elongation and composition of the composite fiber, absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have expected the strength to be within the claimed range. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the breaking strength is as taught by Goda, such as 0.7 or 0.8 cN/dtex, motivated by the desire of forming composite fiber having conventionally known breaking strengths predictably suitable for use in fiber comprising a polyethylene terephthalate core and polyethylene sheath used in a nonwoven fabric.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the heat-bondable composite fiber having a breaking strength of 0.5 to 1.5 cN/dtex as Miyamura is silent on the breaking strength of the fiber. However, even though Miyamura is silent with regards to the breaking strength, the composite fiber of the prior art would necessarily have a breaking strength. As the fiber of the prior art combination Applicant has provided no evidence that the fiber of the prior art combination would not have a breaking strength within the claimed range and relied upon a mere silence as to the specific property, Examiner maintains the rejection detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights