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 .
Amendments to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 4, in the response filed March 17, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claims 5-8 and 12 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
The dry heat shrinkage at 120°C of claim 1 is interpreted as being heated in a circulating oven at 120°C for 5 minutes as detailed in para 0104 of the published 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, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. 2009/0029165 to Goda ‘165 (Goda ‘165 herewithin).
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, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0243141 to Goda ‘141 (Goda ‘141 herewithin) in view of USPN 5,780,155 to Ishizawa.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 9, Goda ‘141 teaches an airlaid nonwoven fabric (claim 9) comprising a polyester conjugate fiber (heat-bondable composite fiber) comprising a core of fiber forming resin (first component) including polyester (polyester-based resin), such as polyethylene terephthalate, and a sheath of thermoadhesive resin (second component) having a melting point of at least 20°C lower than that of the resin constituting the fiber forming resin (first component), such as a polyolefin (polyolefin-based resin), having a crimp of 8.5 peaks/25 mm or more, a crimp modulus of 70% or more, and a core/sheath structure, including an eccentric core/sheath type cross section (Goda ‘141, abstract, para 0029-0044), reading on the fiber having 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. Goda ‘141 teaches a specific embodiment having a core of polyethylene terephthalate and sheath of polyethylene with fiber strength of 0.7 cN/dtex (claim 3), an elongation of 412%, and a crimp modulus of 89% (Id., Example 5, para 0068-0070). Goda ‘141 teaches latent crimp can be spiral form (Goda ‘141, para 0004), reading on three-dimensional apparent crimp.
It is unclear if the core/sheath structure is eccentric or concurrent in the specific embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the core/sheath fiber, wherein the cross section is eccentric core/sheath type, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known and disclosed predictably suitable cross section taught by Goda ‘141 and within the scope of the invention of Goda ‘141 and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Goda ‘141 based on the totality of the teachings.
Goda ‘141 does not explicitly teach the crimp being three-dimensional apparent crimp.
However, Ishizawa teaches a melt-adhesive (heat-bondable/thermoadhesive) fiber that is a side-by-side or sheath-core type composite fiber, preferably eccentric sheath-core (Ishizawa, abstract, col. 3 lines 4-10). Ishizawa teaches the composite fiber having crimps of helical form crimps (three-dimensional apparent crimp) and teaches that fiber having helical possess higher bulkiness and higher recovery from compression than those of the zig-zag type (Id., col. 2 lines 52-65, col. 3 lines 6-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Goda ‘141, wherein the fiber is eccentric core-sheath crimp structure as taught by Ishizawa, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known core-sheath structures predictably suitable for use in forming crimped core-sheath composite fiber and preferably for forming helically crimps that ensure high bulkiness and recovery.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2009/0029165 to Goda (Goda ‘165 herewithin) in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0243141 to Goda ‘141 (Goda ‘141 herewithin) .
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 9, Goda ‘165 teaches a thermoadhesive conjugate fiber (heat-bondable composite fiber) comprising a fiber forming resin component (first component), such as a polyester especially polyethylene terephthalate (polyester-based resin), and a thermoadhesive resin component (second component), such as a polyolefin resin, having a melting point of at least 20°C lower than that of the fiber forming resin component in a core/sheath type conjugate fiber type, including eccentric core/sheath type (eccentric sheath-core structure), with the fiber forming resin component as a core component and the thermoadhesive resin component as the sheath component (Goda ‘165, abstract, para 0014-0019), reading on the fiber having eccentric 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. Goda ‘165 teaches a specific embodiment wherein the fiber is an eccentric core/sheath type conjugate fiber with a polyethylene terephthalate (polyester) core component having a melting point of 256°C and a high density polyethylene (polyolefin) sheath having a melting point of 131°C having an omega type crimp form (three-dimensional apparent crimp) (Id., para 0059). Goda ‘165 teaches the specific embodiment having a breaking strength of 0.8 cN/dtex (claim 3), breaking elongation of 455%, 11.9 crimp peaks/25 mm, and percentage of crimp of 11.4% (Id., Table 3). Goda ‘165 teaches the dry heat shrinkage at 120°C of from -10.0% to 5.0% so that the shrinkage at the time of thermal adhesion is small, a deviation of an adhesion point is small, and the adhesion point is strong (Goda ‘165, para 0012, 0023, 0048). Goda ‘165 teaches is the shrinkage is too low, self-elongation is revealed, the adhesive point is deviated and the strength of the non-woven fabric is moved to a direction where it is reduced (Id., para 0023).
Regarding the claimed crimp modulus, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose the crimp modulus, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Goda ‘165 teaches an eccentric sheath-core fiber comprising a polyethylene terephthalate polyester core with a polyethylene polyolefin sheath having the claimed difference in melting point and the fiber having the claimed breaking strength, elongation at break, and three dimensional crimp. All the examples, including comparative examples, have a crimp modulus in the claimed ranged. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed dry heat shrinkage range of 2% to 5%, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. 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, vary, and optimize the shrinkage, such as 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 and to ensure thermal adhesion is small, a deviation of an adhesion point is small, and the adhesion point is strong and avoids self-elongation which reduces strength.
In the event that the crimp modulus is not inherent to the fiber of Goda ‘165, Goda ‘141 teaches a polyester based conjugate fiber for use in airlaid nonwoven fabric having a crimp modulus of 70% or more and teaches that by setting up the crimp modulus of elasticity higher, the crimp of the polyester fiber is recovered after passing through a screen (Goda ‘141, para 0037-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Goda ‘165, wherein the fiber has a crimp modulus greater than 70% as taught by Goda ‘141, motivated by the desire of forming conjugate fibers having conventionally known crimp modulus predictably suitable for crimp fibers used in nonwovens, including airlaid nonwoven, and by the desire to ensuring the crimp of the fiber is recovered after passing through a screen during manufacturing.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 85-100%, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. 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, vary, and optimize the crimp modulus, such as 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 and to ensure recovery of the crimp.
Examiner would also like to note that the limitation “heat-bondable composite fiber” is a limitation with regards to the intended use of the fiber. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Goda ‘165 teaches a nonwoven comprising the conjugate fiber, including airlaid (Goda ‘165, para 0050, 0057, 0059, Table 3).
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 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. 2009/0243141 to Goda (Goda ‘141 herewithin) and US Pub. No. 2009/0302241 to Abe.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9-11, 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 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 conjugate fiber being sheath/core or side-by-side conjugate fibers and teaches the fiber can be crimped fibers and have a three-dimensional structures (Id., para 0054, 0047, 0057), reading on three-dimensional apparent crimp and having a sheath-core structure. 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 fiber. 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 9) (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 and is capable of being bondable by heat (heat-bondable composite fiber). 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% (claim 2). At a density of 0.90 g/cm3, a diameter of 22 microns equates to a linear density of about 3.39 dtex and a ratio of elongation at break to fineness of about 126.8% (claim 2).
Miyamura is silent with regards to core/sheath fiber being an eccentric core sheath fiber and is silent with regards to the crimp modulus.
However, Goda ‘141 teaches an airlaid nonwoven fabric comprising a polyester conjugate comprising a core of fiber forming resin (first component) including polyester, such as polyethylene terephthalate, and a sheath of thermoadhesive resin (second component) having a melting point of at least 20°C lower than that of the resin constituting the fiber forming resin (first component), such as a polyolefin (polyolefin-based resin), having a crimp of 8.5 peaks/25 mm or more, a crimp modulus of 70% or more, and a core/sheath structure, including an eccentric core/sheath type cross section (Goda ‘141, abstract, para 0029-0044). Goda ‘141 teaches a specific embodiment having a core of polyethylene terephthalate and sheath of polyethylene with fiber strength of 0.7 cN/dtex (claim 3), an elongation of 412%, and a crimp modulus of 89% (Id., Example 5, para 0068-0070). Goda ‘141 teaches latent crimp can be spiral form (Goda ‘141, para 0004) and teaches the core/sheath type can be eccentric core/sheath type (Id., para 0043-0044). Goda ‘141 also teaches a crimp modulus of 70% or more and teaches that by setting up the crimp modulus of elasticity higher, the crimp of the polyester fiber is recovered after passing through a screen (Id., para 0037-0038).
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 fiber core-sheath structure is eccentric core-sheath structure having a crimp modulus of 70% or greater as taught by Goda ‘141, motivate by the desire of using conventionally known conjugate fibers having conventionally core-sheath structures predictably suitable for crimped fibers used in nonwovens.
Regarding the claimed crimp modulus, although the prior art does not disclose the crimp modulus, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches an eccentric sheath-core fiber comprising a polyethylene terephthalate polyester core with a polyethylene polyolefin sheath having the claimed difference in melting point and the fiber having the claimed elongation at break, elongation/dtex ratio, and three dimensional crimp. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, in the event the crimp modulus is not necessarily present, 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 fiber has a crimp modulus greater than 70% as taught by Goda ‘141, motivated by the desire of forming conjugate fibers having conventionally known crimp modulus predictably suitable for crimp fibers used in nonwovens, including airlaid nonwoven, and by the desire to ensuring the crimp of the fiber is recovered after passing through a screen during manufacturing.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 85-100% crimp modulus, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. 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, vary, and optimize the crimp modulus, such as 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 and to ensure recovery of the crimp.
Miyamura is silent with regards to the dry heat shrinkage of the low-drawn inelastic fiber.
However, Abe 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 (Abe, para 0041). Abe 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 (Abe, 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 the prior art combination, wherein the dry heat shrinkage is set to be greater than 0% and below 3.5% as taught by Abe, 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.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed dry heat shrinkage range of 2% to 5%, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. 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, vary, and optimize the shrinkage, such as 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 and to ensure the fiber does not get loose.
Regarding claim 3 and 11, the prior art combination teaches strength at 100% elongation being 17 mN/tex (0.17 cN/dtex) (Miyamura, Table 1), indicating the breaking strength being greater than 0.17 cN/dtex. Regarding the breaking strength, although the prior art does not disclose the breaking strength, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches an eccentric sheath-core fiber comprising a polyethylene terephthalate polyester core with a polyethylene polyolefin sheath having the claimed difference in melting point and the fiber having the claimed elongation at break, elongation/dtex ratio, and three dimensional crimp. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches the production of a stretch nonwoven fabric and having a maximum elongation percentage of 100% or more in the stretch direction (Miyamura, para 0072-0075). The prior art combination teaches the nonwoven being used in absorbent articles, including a sheet defining an exterior surface, and the basis weight and thickness being adjustable as appropriate to the intended use (Id., para 0075). The prior art combination teaches a basis weight of about 20 to 160 g/m2 and a thickness of about 0.1 to 5 mm (Id.). A basis weight of 160 g/m2 and thickness of 5 mm equates to a specific volume of about 31 cm3/g. Therefore, based on the disclosed basis weight and thickness, the corresponding specific volume overlaps with the claimed range. 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 basis weight and thickness, and therefore the specific volume, such as 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 and based on the intended use.
Claims 2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2009/0029165 to Goda (Goda ‘165 herewithin) optionally in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0243141 to Goda ‘141 (Goda ‘141 herewithin), as applied to claims 1, 3, and 9 above, further in view of WO 2017/208967 to Hyakutake and US Pub. No. 2017/0247823 to Koizumi.
Regarding claims 2 and 10-11, the prior art combination teaches the fineness of the conjugate fiber being from 0.01 to 500 dtex (Goda ‘165) and the specific embodiment being 6.6 dtex with an elongation of 455% (Id., Table 3), corresponding to a ratio of elongation at break to fineness of about 69%/dtex. The prior art is open to smaller fibers, which result in a higher elongation/dtex ratio, such as within the claimed range, and therefore overlaps with the claimed range. 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). Additionally, Goda ‘165 teaches the thermoadhesive fibers being used in fiber structures such as fiber cushion, bed mat, and nonwoven fabric application (Id., para 0004).
Furthermore, Hyakutake teaches a thermo-fusible sheath-core conjugate fiber comprising a first component that is a polyester-based resin as the core component and a second component that is an olefin-based resin having a melting point lower than the melting point of the first component as the sheath component (Hyakutake, abstract). Hyakutake teaches the fiber having a strength of 3.2 cN/dtex or less and elongation of 100% or more (Id., para 0009). Hyakutake teaches the second component completely covering the fiber surface and the fiber having an eccentric sheath-core structure (Id., para 0020). Hyakutake teaches the fiber fineness being preferably 0.9 to 8 dtex (Id., para 0022). Hyakutake teaches the fibers being mechanically crimped then heat treated (Id., para 0033). Hyakutake teaches the specific volume being a measure of bulkiness with 70 cm3/g or more being good and 60 to 69 cm3/g being marginal (Id., para 0044). Hyakutake teaches a specific embodiment having a fineness of 2.6 dtex, elongation of 229% formed into a nonwoven having a specific volume of 71 cm3/g (Id., Table 1, Example 4, para 0047), corresponding to a ratio of elongation to dtex of 88%. Hyakutake teaches the nonwoven being used in various application which bulkiness and flexibility are required including cushioning material, bedding, and absorbent articles (Id., para 0052). Additionally, Koizumi teaches a stretchable nonwoven fabric comprising crimped fibers formed from thermoplastic resins, such as polyolefins and polyester including polyethylene terephthalate, having an eccentric core-clad cross section (eccentric sheath-core), and a fineness preferably 0.5 to 10 dtex having coiled crimps, including spiral or helical spring (Koizumi, abstract, para 0008-0018, 0051-0053, 0059-0065). Koizumi teaches the nonwoven fabric formed using the crimped fiber having a breaking elongation for at least one direction in the plane direction preferably greater than or equal to 90% and that when the breaking elongation falling within this range is advantageous in improving stretchability of the nonwoven fabric and make it possible for improving a following capability when the nonwoven is applied to a site where its motion is large (Id., para 0041). Koizumi teaches nonwoven fabric having a bulk density of about 0.01 to 0.5 g/cm3 to balance between stretchability and flexibility or cushioning characteristics (Id., para 0047), corresponding to a specific volume of about 100 to 2 cm3/g.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Goda ‘165, wherein the fiber size is reduced, such as to 2.6 dtex, and the nonwoven formed using the fiber has a specific volume of 71 cm3/g as taught by Hyakutake with an elongation greater than 90% as taught by Koizumi, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known fiber dimensions and nonwoven properties predictably suitable for use in applications wherein bulkiness and flexibility are required including bedding and cushion applications and by the desire to have excellent bulkiness, balance stretchability and flexibility, and provide following capability based on the intended application. There is a reasonable expectation that the elongation to dtex falls within the claimed range as shown by Hyakutake as achievable with a similar fiber composition and structure.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed elongation range of 90% to 150%, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. 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, vary, and optimize the elongation, such as 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 and based on the desired stretch for the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regards to Goda ‘165, that Goda ‘165 teaches the dry heat shrinkage at 120C of from -10.0% to 5.0% so that shrinkage at the time of thermal adhesion is small, a deviation of an adhesion point is small, and the adhesion point is strong, however, provides teachings being preferably -8.0 to -0.2% and all examples are lower than -0.2% and an overfeed ratio is required and would not have been obvious. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Goda ‘165 clearly teaches a heat shrinkage overlapping within the claimed. The invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As a heat shrinkage of -10.0% to 5.0% is taught by the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve a heat shrinkage within the totality of the claimed range. Goda ‘165 teaches achieving the low dry heat shrinkage within a low drawing ratio of about 0.5 to 1.3 times as a drawing draft (Goda ‘165, para 0024). Goda ‘165 teaches the drawing draft exceeding 1.3 times, the fiber is largely drawn and the dry heat shrinkage exceeds 5% (Id, para 0034), indicating the achievement of the dry shrinkage within the claimed range and the disclosed draw condition. Applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary. Additionally, Applicant has not provided evidence of the claimed dry heat shrinkage being critical. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection detailed above.
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Miyamura and Abe, that Abe teaches no fixed-length heat treatment with an overfeed ratio. Applicant appears to be relying on Goda ‘141 for the dry shrinkage, however, Goda ‘141 is relied upon for the core-sheath structure being eccentric structure and, potentially, the crimp modulus. Applicant has not shown that the combination of Miyamura and Abe would not have resulted in a shrinkage between 0% and 3.5% based on the desired range taught by Abe. As discussed above, Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed range is critical.
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 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