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 .
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
It is unclear how the first polymeric material can comprise a third polymer that is recycled-polyester terephthalate and/or how this is different from the claimed “first recycled polyester” that is identified as the first polymer component. rPET is a recycled polyester. It is interpreted that Claim 4 is further defining the polyester as PET.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites the origin of the polyester material which does not further limit the structure of the material. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0304514).
Claims 1, 9 and 11: Clark et al. teach a nonwoven fabric, comprising:(i) a plurality of continuous matrix fibers comprising a first polymeric material including a first polymer component, wherein the first polymer component comprises polyester [0007, the fibers are spun and the material is a spunbonded material wherein spunbond fibers are continuous and not cut; there is no indication of cutting the fibers meaning the fibers are continuous], wherein the first polymeric material has a first melting point [0007]; and(ii) a plurality of binder fibers having an irregular cross-section randomly dispersed throughout the plurality of matrix fibers, the plurality of binder fibers comprising a second polymeric material including a second polymer component [0007, 0008, 0009], wherein the second polymeric material has a second melting point that is less than the first melting point [0007-0009]. The binder fibers have an irregular cross-section as is understood in view of the instant disclosure which results from heating of the binder fibers such that the sheath melts and forms an irregular shape [0019-0021]. This heating causes the flow of the sheath polymer having the lower melting point before re-solidifying.
Clark et al. do not specifically teach that the polyester is a recycled polyester,
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to substitute recycled polyester for the standard polyester in order to reduce cost of production and also be a more environmentally friendly product. See “Polyester is a Synthetic, Non-Renewable Fiber, With Some Surprising Redeemable Qualities,” NRDC (2011). JETIR (2018) also teaches that recycled PET is a perfect substitute for virgin PET in textile materials (2018 JETIR December 2018, Volume 5, Issue 12). For these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventio, would have found it obvious to use specifically recycled polyester as Clark et al.’s polyester material.
Claim 2: the ratio of matrix fibers to binder fibers is from about 80:10 to about 95:5 [0010].
Claim 3: Clark et al. describe the matrix fibers as monocomponent fibers in that there is only one component [0007].
Claim 4: the polyester is PET [0007].
Claim 5: Clark et al. do not teach the shape or aspect ratio of the fibers. They do teach that the spinneret holes for the matrix fibers have a diameter [0012]. Diameter is the width of a circle which indicates a circular cross section; a circle has an aspect ratio of 1.0.
Claim 7: Clark et al. teaches that the diameter (cross-section) is from 25-37 microns [0015]. The claimed dpf is not critical to the invention. Clark et al. teach the size of the fibers in terms of dtex [0015] and not dpf. It is well-known that dtex and dpf are two common ways to categorize relative fiber thickness and/or weight. While not interchangeable, they are both recognized as routinely optimized result effective variables that affect the thickness, weight, and stiffness of fibers. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 8: “post-consumer waste” does not further limit the structure of the material; the origin of the material does not change the structure.
Claim 9: the binder fibers are a monocomponent fiber [0008].
Claim 10: the second polymer component is PET [0008].
Claim 21: Claim 21 is considered a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
It is noted that Clark et al. teach the same step of mixing a matrix fiber with a binder fiber and melting the fiber to melt and form bonding points [0017, 0020]. As such, the process is the same even though it is not limiting to the material itself.
Claim 22: Clark et al. teach that the material is PET [0007]. They do not require any additional material meaning that PET is 100% of the first polymer component.
Claims 23 and 24: the melting point of the first polymer is from 240C-260C and the melting point of the binder fiber (second polymer melting point) is 185-240C [0007-0009] which includes the range 5-25C less than the first polymer melting point.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. as and further in view of Das et al. (Fibers and Polymers, 2014, Vol. 15, No. 7, pages 1456-1461).
Claim 6: Clark et al. do not teach different fiber shapes of the matrix fiber.
Das et al. teach that the shape of a fiber is routinely optimized to control various types of properties such as filtration efficiency and pressure drop across the filter, therein optimizing filter performance (page 1456, col. 1, para. 1). The claimed shape of the fiber is not critical to the invention. It was within the routine skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of the fiber to be ribbon-shaped or multi-lobal to fine tweak and adjust properties/characteristics of the filter media.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. as and further in view of Sherwood (Binders for Nonwoven Fabrics, Vol. 51, No. 8, August 1959, Pages 907-910).
Claim 25: Clark et al. teach that the binder fiber is a copolymer material [0008]. They do not teach a monocomponent fiber.
However, it is well-known in the art that binder fibers can be made of a variety of materials including monocomponent polyesters as is taught by Sherwood (page 908, col. 1). Sherwood et al. teach that essentially any material can be used as a binder fiber so as long as that material melts at a lower temperature than the remainder of the web (page 908, col. 1). Polyesters include PET as a common material. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found monocomponent PET to be an obvious alternative to the copolymer PET disclosed by Sherwood as the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 26 and 27: With respect to the melting temperature, it is clear from Sherwood that the melting temperature of the thermoplastic binder fiber is a result effective variable that is optimized based on the fiber web composition. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 21-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights