DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 are withdrawn due to a previous restriction requirement.
Claim(s) 1, 4-12, 14, and 16-21, 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, 4-12 and 17-21 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, 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 low-reactivity organic peroxide [abstract] with a range of half-life times of 1 hour in a range of 120.3-185.0 °C [0056, Table 2] 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 does not particularly teach an embodiment where a first and second peroxide are included wherein the second peroxide has a half-life time of 145-180°C that is higher than the first peroxide’s half life time of 120-145°C.
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 by selecting a peroxide from each end of the half-life ranges taught by Quental (120.3-185.0°C), thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
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].
Regarding Claim 4, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, comprising Trigonox 311 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 6, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, comprising Trigonox 101 (first peroxide with lower half life [table2]) at concentrations of 591-985.1 ppm [Table 3] reading on 100 to 2000ppm and Trigonox 101 (second peroxide with higher half-life [table2]) at concentrations of 686-1144.7 ppm [Table 3] reading on 100 to 8000 ppm wherein it is further specified that the low reactivity peroxide (second peroxide) may vary from 50 to 5000 ppm [0030].
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 20, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, wherein Quental discloses the peroxides have half-life times of 1 hour in a range of 120.3-185.0 °C [0056, Table 1] thereby reading on a half-life range of 125-140°C.
Regarding Claim 21, Quental in view of DeNicola teaches the melt blown web according to claim 1, wherein Quental discloses the peroxides have half-life times of 1 hour in a range of 120.3-185.0 °C [0056, Table 1] thereby reading on a half-life range of 155-170°C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states there is an unexpected technical advantage of melt mixing at temperatures above the one-hour half-life temperatures of both peroxides that cause a MFI increase as shown in examples 1-3 in table 1.
In response, it is noted that there is improved increased MFI in inventive examples 1-3 that has a mixing temperature between 214-226°C. However this data is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. For example, the language of claim 1 is drawn to a temperature between 180-240°C which is a much narrower range. Furthermore, there are no examples that use a temperature lower than 214°C. As such, there is no evidence that the ranges below 214°C within the instantly claimed range would have the same unexpected results, and there is no evidence that ranges below the instantly claimed range would not have the same unexpected results.
Applicant states DeNicola teaches away from the melt mixing temperature on page 5 stating if a temperature in excess of about 120°C is used, a product with little or no branching will be obtained.
In response, it is noted that DeNicola’s teaching of using a low enough temperature to favor recombination of the polymer fragments and to obtain a product with little or no branching (i.e., essentially linear) is not considered problematic or detrimental to a person of ordinary skill in the art, especially considering Quental as a primary reference does not mention linearity or branching and therefore does not have a preference of the linearity or branching taught by BeNicola. Moreover, Quental teaches the same mixing temperature ranges and nearly identical peroxide half-life ranges of 120.3-185.0 °C [Table 2] as instant application, wherein DeNicola provides the motivation of using both a low and high decomposition temperature peroxide to provide a reduction in molecular weight [page 7, lines 31-33]. A reduction of molecular weight would have been advantageous to Quental as molecular weight is indirectly dependent on viscosity, and reducing viscosity using organic peroxides is a goal of Quental [0024].
Applicant states that one skilled in the art would find no guidance in Quental on what mixing temperatures would be suitable for such a dual-peroxide approach.
In response, it is noted that Quental teaches the temperature range of 220-290°C causes the low-reactivity organic peroxide to react, promoting a reduction in the viscosity until attaining a suitable viscosity for the melt blown process, generating final product with superior quality [0046].
Applicant states neither Quental or DeNicola, alone or in combination, teach or suggest a melt-blown web as presently claimed.
In response, attention is drawn to the updated rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Applicant is reminded that the recitations "obtained by a) melt mixing”, “temperatures between 180°C and 240°C" and “b) processing the composition obtained by a step a) by a melt blown process at a temperature between 240°C and 300°C, to provide melt blown fibers” of claim 1 are considered a product-by-process claim. Case law has held that the process does not determine patentability, because the claim is drawn to the product (melt-blown fibers). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2019046159 is made of record as it teach compositions comprising dual peroxide systems with similar half life ranges.
Conclusion
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