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
Claim 2 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim makes it unclear if both the D10 is a required limitation, as it recites “or both”. For purposes of examination, is interpreted the D10 limitation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAmish et al. (US 2014/0070443 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, McAmish teaches a nonwoven fabric (Paragraph 0002) comprising a plurality of fibers (Claim 1 of McAmish), where the fibers comprise a polymeric component and a plurality of calcium carbonate particles dispersed through the polymeric component (Abstract; Paragraph 0045; Claim 1 of McAmish). McAmish teaches the calcium carbonate particles can have a particle size distribution such that D50 is less than or equal to 1 micron. (Paragraph 0038-0040). McAmish teaches the top cut value, D98, of the calcium carbonate particle size distribution is 4 microns or less. (Paragraph 0041). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 3, McAmish teaches the calcium carbonate particles can comprise a fatty acid coating. (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 5, McAmish teaches the calcium carbonate comprises of less than about 40% by weight of the fibers. (Abstract; Paragraph 0029-0031). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 6, McAmish teaches the fibers can be spunbonded or meltblown. (Paragraph 0051).
Regarding Claim 8, McAmish teaches the polymeric component can be polyolefin, polyester, or polyamide. (Paragraph 0034).
Claim 2, 21 and 22 are rejected under McAmish in view of Peng et al. (US 2007/0122614 A1) and Specialty Minerals (NPL).
Regarding Claim 2, McAmish does not specifically teach the D10 of the calcium carbonate particles.
Peng teaches a polymeric fiber (Abstract), where calcium carbonate is used as a filler. (Paragraph 0018). Peng teaches having a smaller particle distribution for the particles ensure the particles remain within the polymeric matrix. (Paragraph 0047). Peng teaches TUFFGARD is a known calcium carbonate additive for fibers with a tight particle distribution (Paragraph 0097). Specialty Minerals teaches TUFFGARD has a D98 of around 1000 nm, a D50 around 350 nm and a D10 of around 60 nm. (Page 2). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use TUFFGARD, which has the claimed particle size distribution, as the calcium carbonate particle in McAmish as taught by Peng for a smaller particle distribution calcium that has better adhesion to the polymeric matrix.
Regarding Claim 21 and 22, McAmish teaches the D98 is 4 microns or less. (Page 0041). Peng teaches D98 is around 1000 nm and D10 is around 60 nm. (Page 2). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAmish in view of Dunn et al. (US 2018/0187019 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, McAmish teaches the stearate coated article as discussed above. McAmish does not specifically teach the weight% of the coating.
Dunn teaches a calcium carbonate particle that is coated with a stearic acid, where the calcium carbonate particle is filler to be added to a polymer composition that is further processed into fibers. (Claim 1 of Dunn; Paragraph 0001, 0016, 0082). Dunn teaches the weight of the coating ranges from 0.05 to 5 weight%. (Paragraph 0015). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Dunn teaches this coating amount allow for a surface coating that ensures the particle will be more easily dispersed and integrated into the polymer component (Paragraph 0002, 0015, 0067-0068), which is desired by McAmish. (Paragraph 0045). Thus, as Dunn teaches the claimed weight range for the calcium carbonate is suitable for ensuring dispersibility, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the claimed coating weight to the particles of McAmish.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAmish in view of Anand (NPL)
Regarding Claim 7, McAmish teaches the fibers can be spunbonded or meltblown. (Paragraph 0051). McAmish teaches the fabric can be used in various products, such as industrial garments, drapes and various personal care articles. (Paragraph 0003) McAmish does not teach the fabric has the spunbond-meltblown-spundbond structure of Structure 2.
Anand teaches its well-known in the art to make spunbond-meltblown-spunbond structures for personal care items and protective clothing. (Page 173). Anand teaches this structure provides the advantage of combining the strength of the spunbond layer with the liquid resistance of the meltblown layer to yield a better resulting product for personal care items. (Paragraph 0173). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the fabric of McAmish turned into a SMS structure for improved properties when used in personal care articles and industrial garments.
Response to Applicant
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112 rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments. However, a new §112 rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues unexpected results over McAmish. This argument is unpersuasive, as Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support these unexpected results. A showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." (MPEP §716.02(b)).
Applicant argues McAmish does not disclose a claimed D50 and D98 range. This argument is found unpersuasive. McAmish teaches the calcium carbonate particles can have a particle size distribution such that D50 is less than or equal to 1 micron. (Paragraph 0038-0040). McAmish teaches the top cut value, D98, of the calcium carbonate particle size distribution is 4 microns or less. (Paragraph 0041). These ranges overlap the claimed range.
Applicant argues McAmish does not contemplate the claimed ranges. This argument is found unpersuasive, as McAmish lists overlapping ranges that are suitable. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would select from the finite list of ranges suggested by McAmish to reach the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights