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 claims 36, 40, 44, 46-50, cancellation of claims 41, 43, 45, and addition of claims 72-73, in the response filed October 16, 2025, have been entered. Amendments to claim 73, in the response filed November 13, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 36, 38, 40, 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, “wherein the one or two polymeric blends collectively comprise 3 to about 12% polybutylene succinate, based on the total weight of the polymeric blend” (claim 40). The originally filed disclosure states “[p]olybutylenesuccinate may be present at an amount of about 3 to about 12%, such as about 5 to about 11%, such as about 5 to about 10%, such as about 6 to about 8%, optionally about 7%, based on the total weight of the blend” (para 0088, 0102 of the published application). Therefore, the amount is based on the blend not collectively, multiple blends. The disclosure goes on to state “[p] olybutylenesuccinate may be used in the core-sheath filaments discussed above, particularly with the above-described core-sheath filaments having a sheath comprising a polymeric blend having a greater proportion of D-configuration polylactic acid molecules than the blend comprising the core. It will be appreciated that if there is, for example, 5% polybutylenesuccinate in the blend, then the blend may comprise one or more further components listed under option (b) above at an amount sufficient to bring the total amount of polybutylenesuccinate and said further components to within the ranges for (b) noted above. By way of example, if (b) is present at an amount of 20% and there is 5% polybutylenesuccinate present in the blend, then there must be 15% of one or more further components listed under option (b) above present in the blend.” These portion reference an individual blend and not collectively two blends. Therefore, the full scope of the amendment is not supported in the originally filed disclosure and the introduces new matter.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or modify this limitation to align with the originally filed disclosure.
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 40 and 49-50 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 40 recites the limitation “wherein the one or two polymeric blends collectively comprise 3 to about 12% polybutylene succinate, based on the total weight of the polymeric blend.” It is unclear if the total weight of the polymeric blend refers to the one or two polymeric blends, the one polymeric blend or the second polymeric blend.
Claim 49 recites the limitations “said second polylactic acid (b)” in lines 3-4 and “said first polylactic acid (a)” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. Claim 36, upon which claim 49 depends, does not claim polylactic acid nor a first polylactic acid and a second polylactic acid. Claim 43 claims a first polylactic acid and a second polylactic acid. It is unclear if claim 49 is intended to be dependent on claim 43 or intends to claim the fabric comprising filaments having a bi-component filament, wherein one component comprises a polymeric blend comprising a second polylactic acid (b) and wherein the other component comprises polymeric blend comprising a first polylactic acid (a). For the purpose of prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 49 as encompassing the latter.
Similarly, claim 50 recite the limitations “said second polylactic acid (b)” in line 3 and “said first polylactic acid (a)” in lines 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. Claim 36, upon which claim 49 depends, does not claim polylactic acid nor a first polylactic acid and a second polylactic acid. Claim 43 claims a first polylactic acid and a second polylactic acid. It is unclear if claim 50 is intended to be dependent on claim 43 or intends to claim the fabric comprising filaments having a core and sheath configuration, wherein the core comprises a polymeric blend comprising a second polylactic acid (b) and wherein the sheath comprises a polymeric blend comprising a first polylactic acid (a). For the purpose of prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 49 as encompassing the latter.
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, 40, 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 WO 2010/098514 to Kwak
NOTE: English Machine translation is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 36, 40, 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 (b)) 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 (a)) 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 (b)) 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 (a)) (Dugan, para 0017), reading on the first polylactic acid (a) having a lower melting point than the second polylactic acid (b). 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 polymer formed from with succinic acid (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 polybutylenesuccinate, polybutylene succinate-co-adipate and/or polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate.
However, Kwak teaches a biodegradable fiber comprising mixing together 50 to 92% by weight polylactic acid resin, 7 to 45% by weight polybutylene succinate-based resin including polybutylene succinate, or polybutylene succinate-co-adipate, and 1 to 5wt% inorganic matter (Kwak, abstract, p. 3). Kwak teaches the biodegradable fiber has excellent melt extrusion spinning property during spinning as well as improved dyeing properties as compared to general polylactic acid resin fibers and reduced shrinkage phenomenon (Id., p. 3-4). Kwak teaches the polylactic acid resin refers to the entire polymer composite of lactic acid as monomer with isomer D-lactide, L-Lactide content and arrangement (copolymerization (Id., p. 4). Kwak teaches a specific embodiment using 88% by weight PLA, 7% by weight PBS (claim 40) (Id., p. 6).
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 succinate as taught by Kwak, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known material predictably suitable for use in biodegradable fiber formation in combination with polylactic acid and to have excellent spinning properties, improve dyeing properties and reduce shrinking phenomenon.
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 WO 2010/098514 to Kwak, as applied to claims 36, 40, 44, 46, 48-50, 54, 57-58, and 72-73 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2006/0273495 to Topolkaraev.
NOTE: English Machine translation is being used for prior art mapping.
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 WO 2010/098514 to Kwak, as applied to claims 36, 40, 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 WO 2010/098514 to Kwak, as applied to claims 36, 40, 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 October 16, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot based upon the current grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 5,910,545 to Tsai teaches a thermoplastic composition comprising an unreacted mixture of polylactic acid polymer; a polybutylene succinate polymer or a polybutylene succinate adipate polymer, or mixture thereof; and a wetting agent used in the formation of a multicomponent fiber.
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