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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1-14 and 19 have been amended and claims 16-17 are canceled. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 16-17 render the anticipation rejections made over the cited prior art of Rhim, US 5342335 moot. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is found sufficient to overcome the obviousness type rejections made over the Rhim, US 5342335. Specifically, Rhim does not teach the claimed solid Polyvinyl alcohol. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following new ground of rejections are set forth herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-15 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhim, US 5342335 in view of Cattaneo, US 4469837.
The patent issued to Rhim teach a non-woven comprising fibers made form a combination of polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) and a plasticizer (title and abstract). Rhim teach in the background that traditional melt-blowing non-woven processes are used to form non-woven webs (column 2, 50-60). Said (PVOH) has a molecular weight ranging from 30,000-186,000 with a hydrolysis ranging from 71-99 % (column 3, 60-65). Said fibers have diameters ranging from 10-30 microns (column 6, 1-5 and column 19, table 1-4). Said plasticizer can comprise polyethylene glycol (PEG 400) or glycerin (column 9, 20-30 and column 17, 30-35). Said fibers are blown from a die and attenuated by a flow of heated air to form attenuated molten fibers, the attenuated fibers being deposited on a moving collector and allowed to solidify to form a nonwoven fiber web (column 9, 1-column 11, 55). With regard to claims 4-6, Rhim teach a couple of examples wherein the molecular weight of the PVOH is less than 20,000 (see table 1-1). With regard to the claimed air temperature of claim 12, Rhim teach air temperatures ranging from 260-370⁰C (column 17, 40-55). With regard to the claimed air pressure and melt flow values, Rhim does not teach the claimed air pressure and melt flow values. The Examiner is of the position that absent unexpected results a person of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognize that the based on the desired filament type, filament size, extrusion rate, apparatus and/or desired end use of the formed non-woven the claimed air pressure and melt flow values/rates can be varied. It has been held that the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable that might be characterized as routine experimentation is not patentable. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Rhim teach forming disposable articles and wipes (column 6, 30-45).
Rhim does not teach the claimed solid PVOH.
The patent issued to Cattaneo teach a polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) composition that is in dry powder or particulate form (title, abstract and column 2, 45-55). Cattaneo teach that the dry powder or particulate is blended with polyhydric alcohols (plasticizers) having a powder consistency (column 2, 45-55). Cattaneo specifically teach that these polyhydric alcohols (glycols, glycerols) can be added to adjust the final melting temperature range to 160-230⁰C (column 3, 10-25). The Examiner is of the position that the polyhydric alcohols of Cattaneo act as the claimed plasticizer in the same way as the polyethylene glycol (PEG 400) or glycerin of Rhim does. Cattaneo teach that the PVOH composition is extruded (melt extruded)/blown to form tubes and filaments (column 3, 30-40). It is also noted that Cattaneo also teach a degree of hydrolysis or at least 88 % and as high as 98% as claimed (see examples). Example 2 exemplifies blown bodies and a multi-layer. The Examiner is of the position that both cited references are analogous since they both are concerned with using plasticized polyvinyl alcohol with similar molecular weight ranges, degree of hydrolysis and melting points to form filaments, non-wovens and laminates via the claimed extrusion and blowing equipment and methods. As such, it is further the position of the Examiner that based on the combined teachings a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that aqueous (liquid) PVOH can be replaced with solid (powder/particulate) PVOH to form similar extruded/blown products (e.g., filaments/non-wovens/laminates). The modification involves the mere substitution of one material (aqueous) with another material known (solid) for its suitability as PVOH composition used in the formation of filaments and fabrics and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
5. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights