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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 3, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 36, 38, 44, 46-51, 54, 57-60, and 72-73 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “isotropic ratio” in claim 60 is interpreted as the tensile strength in a machine direction divided by the tensile strength in a transverse direction, as discussed on p. 10 lines 5-10 of the originally filed disclosure.
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 36, 44, 46, 48-50, 54, 57-58, and 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0145597 to Dugan in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0064789 to Iwata.
Regarding claims 36, 44, 46, 48-49, 54, 57-58, and 72-73 Dugan teaches nonwoven (fabric/sheet) comprising a fiber, specifically a multicomponent fiber such as having a sheath/core structure (bicomponent fiber) (claim 50) and including continuous filaments (claim 57), formed from a first, high melting polymer component comprising a PLA polymer with an isomeric purity for the L-isomer of at least about 99% (polymeric blend comprising a second polylactic acid) and a second lower melting polymer component comprising a PLA polymer with an isometric purity for the L-isomer of no more than 98.5% (polymeric blend comprising a first polylactic acid) that forms at least a portion of an outer surface (sheath) of the multicomponent binder fiber (Dugan, abstract, para 0008-0009, 0017, 0024, 0040-0041, 0056), indicating the core comprising the first high melting polymer component. Dugan teaches polylactic acid is a biodegradable polymer (Id., para 0004-0005, 0012, 0026-0028, 0037, 0046, 0056, 0064), reading on the fabric being a biodegradable fabric. Dugan teaches an embodiment comprising a core of a first component in the form of a polylactic acid homopolymer having isomeric purity of at least 99%, such as L-isomer, and a sheath comprising a second component having a lower melting point in the form of a second PLA having an isomeric purity of about 98.5% or less (Id., para 0041-0043), reading on the first polylactic acid comprises a greater proportion of D-configuration lactic acid units to L-configuration lactic acid units than in the second polylactic acid and the melting point of the first polylactic acid being lower than the melting point of the second polylactic acid. Dugan teaches a first, high melting polymer component that is a PLA polymer with an isomeric purity for L-isomer of at least about 99% (second polylactic acid) and a second, lower melting polymer comprising a PLA with an isomeric purity for the L-isomer of no more than about 98.5% (first polylactic acid) (Id., para 0017), reading on the first polylactic acid having a lower melting point than the second polylactic acid. Dugan also teaches the first component and second component being a first homogenous blend and a second homogenous blend, respectively (Id., para 0043), reading one or two polymeric blends. Dugan teaches the polymer components of the homogenous blend can including aliphatic polyester, including polybutylene adipate and copolymers containing polybutylene adipate (Id., para 0026). Dugan teaches the homogeneous blend can optionally include other components, including materials added to enhance processibility (Id., para 0037).
Dugan does not explicitly teach a blend comprising polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate.
However, Iwata teaches a biodegradable fiber and nonwoven comprising a first component that is biodegradable and a second component that is biodegradable and comprises an aliphatic polyester polymer or copolymer, including an aliphatic polyester copolymer such as polybutylene terephthalate adipate (Iwata, abstract, para 0013, 0040-0041, 0116, 0128). Iwata teaches a specific embodiment using PBTA as the second component with the polylactic acid as the first component resulting in excellent characteristics for mechanical strength and flexibility (Id., para 0029-0030, 0128, Table 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Dugan, wherein the blend(s) further comprise polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate as taught by Iwata, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known polybutylene adipate copolymers predictably suitable for use in biodegradable fiber formation in combination with polylactic acid and imparting excellent strength and mechanical properties.
The limitation “said fabric being thermoformable and capable of bonding to a solid article” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use 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. MPEP § 2111.02. As the fabric of Dugan is comprise of thermoplastic fibers, the fabric would be capable of being thermoformed and capable of bonding to a solid article.
Regarding claim 44, the prior art combination teaches the blend comprising a first PLA polymer (second polylactic acid, , comprises up to about 1% D-configuration lactic acid units based on the total number of lactic acid in the polylactic acid, claim 44) having an isometric purity from the L-isomer of at least about 99% by weight of the first PLA polymer and a second PLA polymer (first polylactic acid) having an isomeric purity for the L-isomer of no greater than 98.5% by weight of the second PLA polymer (Dugan, para 0009), reading on the first polylactic acid (a) comprising a greater proportion of D-configuration lactic acid units to L-configuration lactic acid units than in the second polylactic acid (b). overlap first polylactic acid comprises up to about 5% D-configured lactic acid units
Regarding claim 46, the weight of the first PLA polymer to the second PLA polymer in the homogeneous blend being about 50:50 to about 99:1 (Dugan, para 0032-0035), reading on one polymeric blend comprising 1 to 50% of the first polylactic acid (a) and about 50 to 99% of the second polylactic acid (b) based on the total weight of the blend. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of about 5 to 30% of the first polylactic acid (a) and about 63 to 88% of the second polylactic acid (b) based on the total weight of the blend, 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 percent, 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.
Regarding claim 54, the prior art combination teaches the heat setting temperature being 90°C below the softening or melting point of the binder component (Dugan, para 0061). The limitation “wherein the fabric is thermoformable at a temperature in the range of about 75°C to 125°C” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use 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. MPEP § 2111.02. As the fibers are capable of being heat set at 90°C, the fabric formed from these fiber would be capable of being thermoformable within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 58, the prior art combination teaches the filament having a fineness of about 0.5 to about 100 denier (Dugan, para 0052) and teaches a specific embodiment containing a blend having a size of 3.7 denier per filament (Id., para 0058-0061).
Claims 38 and 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0145597 to Dugan in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0064789 to Iwata, as applied to claims 36, 44, 46, 48-50, 54, 57-58, and 72-73 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2006/0273495 to Topolkaraev.
Regarding claims 38 and 59-60, the prior art combination is silent with regards to the crystallinity and the isotropic properties.
However, Topolkaraev teaches a nonwoven (fabric) formed from polylactic acid (PLA) fibers (claim 41) formed from a BIOMER L9000 polylactic acid polymer material mixed with a lower molecular weight BIOMER 1000 polylactic acid polymer material as a plasticizing additive to reduce the melt viscosity, reading on filaments of a polymer blend (Topolkaraev, abstract, para 0163-0174, Fig. 6). Topolkaraev teaches the polylactic acid polymers being biodegradable (Id., para 0066), reading on a biodegradable fabric. Topolkaraev teaches a specific embodiment having a percent crystallinity of 34.8% (claim 38) and fiber size of 15.17 micron (claim 59) (Id., Fig. 6, para 0161-0174). Topolkaraev teaches including additives (Id., para 0066, 0144, 0163). Topolkaraev teaches an embodiment using a core-sheath spin pack having a crystallinity of 36.8% (Id., para 0183-0185), reading on a bicomponent fiber. Topolkaraev teaches effect of cold-quenching and cold-draw on the crystallinity as well as other process parameters (Id., para 0066, 0083, 0165-0171, 0053, 0045). Topolkaraev also teaches the fiber crystallinity being related to fiber shrinkage (Id., para 0066, 0083).
It would have been 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 crystallinity is as taught by Topolkaraev, such as 34.8% or 36.8%, motivated by the desire of forming biodegradable polylactic acid containing fibers having conventionally known crystallinity and to predictably influence the shrinking properties of the fiber.
Regarding claim 60, the prior art combination teaches nonwoven fabric comprising fibers of polylactic acid having a uniform or more isotropic strength properties having a desirable ratio of 0.7:1 to 1:1 CD:MD tensile strength ratio (Topolkaraev, para 0143-0145), reading on an isotropic ratio of about 1 to about 1.4.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0145597 to Dugan in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0064789 to Iwata, as applied to claims 36, 44, 46, 48-50, 54, 57-58, and 72-73 above, further in view of USPN 6,274,238 to DeLucia.
NOTE: English Machine translation is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 47, the prior art combination teaches the fiber can be monocomponent fiber comprising the polymer blend (Dugan, para 0047-0049).
The prior art combination does not explicitly the fiber being a bicomponent filament wherein there is one polymeric blend and both component comprise the same polymeric blend.
However, DeLucia teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising a single polymer conjugate fiber, wherein the component composition of the fiber contain one thermoplastic polymer, including semicrystalline thermoplastic polymers, crystalline thermoplastic polymers, and blends thereof (DeLucia, abstract). DeLucia teaches the nonwoven fabric produced from the single polymer conjugate fibers provides highly improved physical strength over nonwoven fabrics of monocomponent fibers of the same polymeric composition (Id., col. 3 lines 46-67). DeLucia teaches the use of polyester and the fiber being a sheath-core conjugate fiber (bicomponent fiber) (Id., col. 4 lines 1-53).
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 is a single polymer conjugate fiber of DeLucia, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known fiber configuration predictably suitable for thermoplastic material and having a sheath-core configuration and by the desire to allow a single polymer to be used with improved physical strength of monocomponent fibers.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2017/0145597 to Dugan in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0064789 to Iwata, as applied to claims 36, 44, 46, 48-50, 54, 57-58, and 72-73 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0057309 to Liu.
Regarding claim 51, the prior art combination teaches the fiber being a multicomponent fiber, such as having a sheath/core structure, formed from a first, high melting polymer component comprising a PLA polymer with an isomeric purity for the L-isomer of at least about 99% and a second lower melting polymer component comprising a PLA polymer with an isometric purity for the L-isomer of no more than 98.5% (that forms at least a portion of an outer surface (sheath) of the multicomponent binder fiber (Dugan, para 0017, 0024, 0040-0041, 0056), indicating the core comprising the first high melting polymer component.
The prior art combination does not explicitly teaches the filaments having a core comprising about 60 to about 90% of the filament on a weight basis.
However, Liu teaches a heat adhesive biodegradable bicomponent fiber having a sheath and core component having a weight ratio of the low melting component comprising polylactic acid constituting the sheath of the fiber to the high melting component, including polylactic acid, constituting the core of the fiber in a range of 10:90 to 90:10, typically 30:70 to 70:30 (Liu, abstract, para 0009-0011, 0016). Liu teaches the weight ratio of the sheath to the core influences the properties of the resultant nonwoven (Id., para 0048-0050). Liu teaches the thermal bonding strength and elongation of the nonwoven increases with the increase of the sheath portion content and that the shrinkage and hand feeling of the nonwoven is from soft to hard with the weight ratio of the sheath portion increased (Id., para 0050). Therefore, Liu establishes that the weight ratio of the core and sheath is a result effective variable with regards to the strength and elongation as well as hand and feel.
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 core of the fiber is in the range disclosed by Liu, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known amounts of core in core-sheath fiber containing polylactic acid and based on the desired properties of the resultant fabric. 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, Liu establishes that the weight ratio of the core and sheath is a result effective variable with regards to the strength and elongation as well as hand and feel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust and vary the weight ratio of the core in the fiber based on the desired strength, elongation, and hand and feel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot based upon the current grounds of rejection. Examiner will address arguments that may still pertain to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that Dugan fails to suggest or motivated a person of skill in the art to modify the polylactic acid blends to further include polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate (PBAT) since Dugan teaches including a aliphatic polyester but by virtue of comprising aromatic terephthalate groups in the maintain polymer chain, it is not an aliphatic polyester. However, Dugan teaches “[e]xamples of aliphatic polyesters which may be useful in the present invention include, without limitation, fiber forming polymers formed from …(2) the self condensation of hydroxy carboxylic acids other than polylactic acid, such as polyhydroxy butyrate, polyethylene adipate, polybutylene adipate, polyhexane adipate, and copolymers containing them” (Dugan, para 0026). PBAT is a copolymer of polybutylene adipate. As further support, Iwata explicitly teaches “[e]xamples of the aliphatic polyester copolymer include polyethylene succinate, polybutylene succinate, polyethylene terephthalate adipate, polyethylene terephthalate glutarate, polybutylene succinate adipate, polybutylene terephthalate adipate, polybutylene terephthalate glutarate and polycaprolactone” (Iwata, para 0041). Therefore, the use of polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate as a predictably suitable biodegradable polybutylene adipate copolymer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date based on the combined teachings of the prior art and would not destroy the invention of Dugan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2013/0147087 to Huang teaches a extruded article formed from a mixture of a first material of polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate with a second material that comprising a composition of polybutylene succinate and polylactic acid.
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