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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 8, 2026 has 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Claims 5-8 and 12 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention.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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a web heat shrinkage of the heat-bondable composite fiber at 145°C is 10% to 30%, the web shrinkage is calculated by the following equation (2), web heat shrinkage (%) = (Fiber length of a web sheet in the flow direction before heat treatment – fiber length of a web sheet in the flow direction after heat treatment / fiber length of a web sheet in the flow direction before heat treatment x 100 equation (2).” However, how the web sheet is formed or composed is not specified or clear. It is also unclear if the recited fiber length of a web sheet is the composite fiber, a length of the web, any fiber in the web, or another feature. As it is unclear how to determine the web shrinkage, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claims.
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. 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 the web heat shrinkage, as discussed above it is not clear how the property is measure. Additionally, although the prior art does not disclose web heat shrinkage, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination 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, including 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 three-dimensional apparent crimp and a breaking strength of 0.8 cN/dtex, breaking elongation of 455%, 11.9 crimp peaks/25 mm, and percentage of crimp of 11.4%. The prior art combination also teaches a dry heat shrinkage at 120C overlapping with the claimed range. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 9, Goda ‘165 teaches a nonwoven comprising the conjugate fiber, including airlaid (Goda ‘165, para 0050, 0057, 0059, Table 3).
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 July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to the application of Goda ‘165.
Applicant argues with regards to the application of Goda ‘165, that although para 0057 of Goda ‘165 discloses the percentage of area shrinkage, according to Table 3 of Goda ‘165, the percentage of area shrinkage is 0-5%, which failed to disclose the most preferred range of web shrinkage of the heat-bondable composite fiber described in para 0028 of the instant application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Para 0028 of the instant application teaches “ [t]he web heat shrinkage of the composite fiber of the present invention at 145° C. is not particularly limited, and is preferably 5% to 70%, more preferably 10% to 50%, and still more preferably 10% to 30%. If the web heat shrinkage is 5% or more, this is preferable because the elongation of fibers according to shrinkage is improved, and the shaping followability when a nonwoven fabric is subjected to shaping working is improved. On the other hand, the web heat shrinkage is preferably 70% or less in consideration of thermal dimensional stability when a nonwoven fabric is heated.” Para 0054 provides the details of the test method. Related to the web heat shrinkage, the instant disclosure states “[a] heat-bondable composite fiber was applied to a roller card machine, a web sheet having a basis weight of about 200 g/m2 was collected and cut into a square of about 25 cm, and the length A0 of the fiber in the flow direction was measured. The sample was left in a hot air circulation dryer heated to 145° C. for 5 minutes and heated, the length A1 of the fiber in the flow direction of the sheet after a shrinkage treatment was measured, and the web heat shrinkage was calculated by the following equation. web heat shrinkage % = A0-A1 / A0 × 100.” The methodology only describes a single heat-bondable composite fiber being applied and the generic formation of a web sheet having a basis weight of 200 gsm. Goda ‘165 teaches in para 0057 “[a] web made of 100% of a thermoadhesive conjugate fiber obtained in the foregoing high-speed card-passing test or an airlaid with a basis weight of 25 g/m2 and made of 100% of a thermoadhesive conjugate fiber obtained by an airlaid nonwoven fabric manufacturing method was cut into a size of 30 cm in square and allowed to stand in a hot air dryer (hot air circulation constant temperature dryer: 41-S4, manufactured by Satake Chemical Equipment Mfg., Ltd.) kept at a prescribed temperature for 2 minutes to achieve a heat treatment, thereby thermally adhering the conjugate fibers to each other. A percentage of area shrinkage is determined from a web area A0 prior to the heat shrinkage treatment and a web area A1 after the heat shrinkage treatment at the time of thermal adhesion according to the following expression. Percentage of area shrinkage (%)=[(A0−A1)/A0]×100.” Goda ‘165 teaches the entire web being made of the fibers, not just a single fiber. The basis is weight of Gods ‘165 is 25 gsm vs the instant basis weight of 200 gsm. The methodologies are different. Additionally, the thermal shrinkage in Table 3 does not match that upper range disclosed by Goda ‘165. The examples have negative shrinkages except for the comparative example. It is unclear that the web dry shrinkage would be for a fiber having the dry shrinkage in the 2-5% at 120C range, which is within the totality of the teachings of Goda ‘165. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP 2390389 to Miyauchi teaches a hot melt adhesive fiber having an eccentric sheath-core composite fiber having a polyethylene terephthalate core having a glass transition temperature of 82C and linear low density polyethylene sheath, fineness of 3.2 dtex, elongation of 248%, and crimp number of 14 crimp /2.54cm. Campbell teaches linear low-density polyethylene is known in the art as having a melting point of about 125C as evidenced by Campbell. Lee teaches polyethylene terephthalate is known in the art as having a melting point of about 256C.
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