DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/1/2026.
Claim(s) 6 were cancelled.
Claim(s) 22 have been added.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-12, 14, and 16-22 are now pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 4-5, 7-12 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160311944 to Quental et al. in view of EP0384431 to DeNicola et al. (as found on the IDS dated 6/8/2023).
Regarding Claim 1 and 20-21, Quental teaches a melt blown process to produce fibers that are spunbond [abstract] reading on melt blown web comprising melt blow fibers; wherein the propylene polymer and the organic peroxides are mixed/extruded in in the 1st extrusion [0032] and the 1st extrusion is preferably at a temperature between 210 and 240°C [0034] reading on the claimed melt mixed temperature ranges of 180 – 240°C; comprising at least one organic peroxide [abstract] wherein the melt blow process is at temperatures of 220-290°C [Quental, 0046] reading on the melt blown process at temperatures between 245°C and 280°C. Quental teaches examples that comprise 591.0-985.1 ppm of Trigonox 101 [Table 3] that is the same commercially available product used in instant specification with a T1/21 of 134°C [Instant specification, 0082] (reading on 100-2000ppm of first peroxide wherein T1/21 is 120-145°C of claims 1 and 20) and examples that comprise 686.8-1144.7 ppm of Trigonox 311 [Quental, Table 3] that is the same commercially available product used in instant specification with a T1/22 of 166°C [Instant specification, 0084] (reading on 1000-8000 ppm of second peroxide wherein T1/22 is 145-180° of claims 1 and 21).
Quental does not particularly teach an embodiment where a first and second peroxide are used together.
However, DeNicola teaches a propylene polymer composition [title] suitable for melt blown fibers [page 8, lines 10-13] wherein two or more peroxide activators can be used having varying decomposition temperatures [page 6, lines 53-55]. Quental and DeNicola are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene melt blown fibers.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use DeNicola’s concept of a dual peroxide system to select two of Quental’s peroxides with different half-life temperatures in the same composition.
The motivation to modify Quental with DeNicola is that the use of both a low and high decomposition temperature peroxide provides a reduction in molecular weight without sacrificing the preformed long chain branches [page 7, lines 31-33].
Though the prior art range is not identical to the claimed range, it does overlap. It has been held that, 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 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, comprising Trigonox 301 [Quental, Table 3] which is 3,3,5,7,7-pentamethyl-1,2,4-trioxepane [0051] which has a 0.1 hour half-life at a temperature of 185°C according to instant specification [page12, lines 34-36]
Regarding Claim 5, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, comprising organic peroxides such as 2,5-Dimethyl-2,5-di(tert-butylperoxy)hexane and 3,6,9-Triethyl-3,6,9-trimethyl-1,4,6 triperoxonane [Quental, 0051].
Regarding Claim 7, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, wherein the propylene polymer is a homopolymer, random copolymer, or heterophasic copolymer [0026].
Regarding Claims 8-11, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, wherein the propylene polymer presents MFRI of 0.3 to 200 g/10min [claim 3].
Quental in view of DeNicola does not particularly teach MFIA , MFIB , MFIC , or MFIC – MFIB.
Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the references. However, Quental in view of DeNicola, when modified in the manner proposed above, teaches a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties - i.e. MFIA , MFIB , MFIC , or MFIC – MFIB. - would be expected to be achieved in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. See In Re Spada, 911, F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties in a product prepared from all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process.
Regarding Claim 12, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, wherein the resin obtained may be granulated/pelletized [0032].
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, wherein the propylene polymer and the organic peroxides are mixed/extruded in in the 1st extrusion [0032] and the 1st extrusion is preferably at a temperature between 210 and 240°C [0034] reading on the claimed melt mixed temperature ranges of 200-220°C of claim 17 and 210 – 230°C of claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, wherein the melt blow process is at temperatures of 220-290°C [Quental, 0046] reading on the melt blown process at temperatures between 245°C and 280°C.
Regarding Claim 22, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches a melt blown process to produce fibers that are spunbond [abstract] reading on melt blown web comprising melt blow fibers; wherein the propylene polymer and the organic peroxides are mixed/extruded in in the 1st extrusion [0032] and the 1st extrusion is preferably at a temperature between 210 and 240°C [0034] reading on the claimed melt mixed temperature ranges of 180 – 240°C; comprising at least one organic peroxide [abstract] wherein the melt blow process is at temperatures of 220-290°C [Quental, 0046] reading on the melt blown process at temperatures between 245°C and 280°C. Quental teaches examples that comprise 591.0-985.1 ppm of Trigonox 101 [Table 3] that is the same commercially available product used in instant specification with a T1/21 of 134°C [Instant specification, 0082] (reading on 100-2000ppm of first peroxide) and examples that comprise 686.8-1144.7 ppm of Trigonox 311 [Quental, Table 3] that is the same commercially available product used in instant specification with a T1/22 of 166°C [Instant specification, 0084] (reading on 1000-8000 ppm of second peroxide)
Quental does not particularly teach an embodiment where a first and second peroxide are used together.
However, DeNicola teaches a propylene polymer composition [title] suitable for melt blown fibers [page 8, lines 10-13] wherein two or more peroxide activators can be used having varying decomposition temperatures [page 6, lines 53-55]. Quental and DeNicola are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polypropylene melt blown fibers.
Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use DeNicola’s concept of a dual peroxide system to select two of Quental’s peroxides with different half-life temperatures in the same composition.
The motivation to modify Quental with DeNicola is that the use of both a low and high decomposition temperature peroxide provides a reduction in molecular weight without sacrificing the preformed long chain branches [page 7, lines 31-33].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states neither Quental or DeNicola teach 100-2000 ppm of a first peroxide and 1000 to 8000 ppm of a second peroxide.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 wherein Quental in view of DeNicola teach both peroxides within the claimed amounts.
Applicant states the Examples of the application as filed established beneficial results associated with the claimed amounts of the first peroxide and the second peroxide.
In response, it is noted that there is improved hydrostatic head in all inventive examples and low air permeability of example 3 as compared to comparative examples. However this data is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. For example, the language of claim 1 is drawn to a melt blown web comprising any first peroxide and second peroxide with the specified T1/21 and T1/22 temperatures, wherein inventive examples specifically comprise only Trigonox 101 and Trigonox 301. As such there is no evidence that all peroxides with T1/21 and T1/22 values of 120-145°C and 145-180°C would have the same results. Furthermore, all peroxides in inventive and comparative examples are within the claimed ranges as set forth in claim 1. As such there is no evidence that the peroxides would have the same results when outside of the claimed ranges.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING whose telephone number is (703)756-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/DEVIN MITCHELL DARLING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights