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 .
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I claims 1-9 and 15 are acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 10-14 are withdrawn from consideration at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 is a use claim and is not directed to any of the four statutory including a process, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 and 15 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 1 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the percent of the PET and/or coPET low melt staple fibers is percent by weight or by volume. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to both interpretations of weight percent and volume percent. Claims 2, 4 and 5 are rendered indefinite because the claims depend upon indefinite claim 1.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the percent of PET and/or coPET in the PSF is percent by weight or volume. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to both interpretations of weight percent and volume percent.
Claim 7 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the at least 0.75% of OET and/or coPET is percent by weight or percent by volume. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to both interpretations of percent by weight and percent by volume.
Claim 15 does not clearly define how the use of the nonwoven is performed, not just what it achieves. Claim 15 does not provide for specific steps, function or structure involved in the use of the nonwoven.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Eggleston, U.S. Patent Number 3,587,220.
Regarding claim 6, Eggleston discloses in column 3, line 54-56 25 precent by weight of polyethylene terephthalate staple fibers having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.45. Inherently, intrinsic viscosity is dimensionless. Claim 6 is a product-by-process claim. Claim 6 is directed to a product [polyester staple fibers]. Claim 6 depends upon claim 1 which is a method claim. The combination of claims 1 and 6 is a product-by-process claim. "Even 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The manner in which the polyester staple fiber is manufactured does not make it a different product from the prior art if the claimed polyester staple fiber has the same structural limitations as the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Eggleston discloses in column 3, line 54-56 25 precent by weight of polyethylene terephthalate [polyester] staple fibers having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.45. Inherently, intrinsic viscosity is dimensionless. Claim 7 is directed to a product. Claim 7 is a product-by-process claim. "Even 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The manner in which the polyester staple fiber is manufactured does not make it a different product from the prior art if the claimed polyester staple fiber has the same structural limitations as the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Eggleston discloses in column 3, line 54-56 25 precent by weight of polyethylene terephthalate staple fibers having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.45. Inherently, intrinsic viscosity is dimensionless.
Claims 7, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Trinkaus et al., U.S. Patent Number 2012/0066852.
Regarding claim 9, Trinkaus discloses a wipe [hygiene article] comprising a fibrous sheet exhibiting an opacity of from 45 to 65%. Paragraphs 0050-0051 discloses that the fibrous sheet can include nonwoven materials. Paragraph 0027 discloses polyester fibers. The manner in which the opacity is obtained in a product claim is given minimal weight. Paragraph 0011 discloses 20% to 90% by weight of fibers having a denier of up to 1.2 dpf. Paragraph 0013 discloses that the fibers having denier of up to 1.2 dpf are low denier fibers. Paragraph 0027 discloses low denier fibers can include polyester.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrell et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2019/0153643 in view of Shiga, WO 2006/062075.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5, Ferrell discloses a nonwoven recyclable fabric [abstract and 0002]. Paragraph 0015 discloses a nonwoven recyclable fabric formed into a sheet. Paragraph 0030 discloses recyclable polyester fibers produced via melt extrusion from a first polyester polymer sourced from a plurality of polyester fiber products blended with other polyester fibers from a different source wherein the ratio of 25:75 to about 99:1 to form a nonwoven recyclable fabric. Paragraph 0037 discloses that a plurality of used nonwoven fabrics by melt extrusion process to produce recycled polyester flakes or pellets and forming a web to produce a nonwoven recyclable fabric from recycled polyester fibers. Paragraph 0084 discloses a blend of a first polyester polymer and a second polyester polymer wherein the first polyester fiber is obtained from a plurality of polyester fiber products which have been melted down and flaked or pelletized [0086].
Ferrell is silent to the second polyester resin being PET flakes. Paragraph 0037 of Ferrell discloses that a plurality of used nonwoven fabrics by melt extrusion process to produce recycled polyester flakes or pellets and forming a web to produce a nonwoven recyclable fabric from recycled polyester fibers. Shiga discloses in Example 1 80 parts by weight of PET bottle reclaim flakes and 20 parts by weight polyester resin pellets blended to produce a sheet with extrusion molding [0070 and 0082]. Paragraph 0015 of Shiga discloses that the method improves fluid of the composition and dimensional stability. Ferrell and Shiga are analogous art in that both references disclose a sheet from recycled first and second polyester polymers having a ratio of the first and second polyester resin polymer in the range of 25:75 to about 99:1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would utilize the composition of Shiga containing 80 parts by weight of PET bottle reclaim flakes and 20 parts by weight polyester resin pellets blended together as the first and second polyester polymers of Ferrell to obtain a sheet having enhanced dimensional stability.
The combination of Ferrell and Shia teaches the claimed invention but fails to teach that the polyester-based nonwoven comprises 5 to 50 of PET/coPET low melt staple fibers. It is reasonable to presume that the polyester-based nonwoven comprises 5 to 50 of PET/coPET low melt staple fibers is inherent to the combination of Ferrell and Shiga. Said presumption is based upon the combination of the disclosure of Ferrell and Shiga wherein Ferrell discloses a nonwoven recyclable fabric [abstract and 0002]. Paragraph 0015 discloses a nonwoven recyclable fabric formed into a sheet. Paragraph 0030 discloses recyclable polyester fibers produced via melt extrusion from a first polyester polymer sourced from a plurality of polyester fiber products blended with other polyester fibers from a different source wherein the ratio of 25:75 to about 99:1 to form a nonwoven recyclable fabric. Paragraph 0037 discloses that a plurality of used nonwoven fabrics by melt extrusion process to produce recycled polyester flakes or pellets and forming a web to produce a nonwoven recyclable fabric from recycled polyester fibers. Paragraph 0084 discloses a blend of a first polyester polymer and a second polyester polymer wherein the first polyester fiber is obtained from a plurality of polyester fiber products which have been melted down and flaked or pelletized [0086] and Shiga discloses in Example 1 80 parts by weight of PET bottle reclaim flakes and 20 parts by weight polyester resin pellets blended to produce a sheet with extrusion molding [0070 and 0082]. Paragraph 0015 of Shiga discloses that the method improves fluid of the composition and dimensional stability. Ferrell and Shiga are analogous art in that both references disclose a sheet from recycled first and second polyester polymers having a ratio of the first and second polyester resin polymer in the range of 25:75 to about 99:1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would utilize the composition of Shiga containing 80 parts by weight of PET bottle reclaim flakes and 20 parts by weight polyester resin pellets blended together as the first and second polyester polymers of Ferrell to obtain a sheet having enhanced dimensional stability. Burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Ferrell and Shia teaches the claimed invention but fails to teach that the polyester staple fiber contain between 0.5 and 50% of PET and/or coPET. It is reasonable to presume that the polyester staple fiber contain between 0.5 and 50% of PET and/or coPET is inherent to the combination of Ferrell and Shiga. Said presumption is based upon the combination of the disclosure of Ferrell and Shiga wherein Ferrell discloses a nonwoven recyclable fabric [abstract and 0002]. Paragraph 0015 discloses a nonwoven recyclable fabric formed into a sheet. Paragraph 0030 discloses recyclable polyester fibers produced via melt extrusion from a first polyester polymer sourced from a plurality of polyester fiber products blended with other polyester fibers from a different source wherein the ratio of 25:75 to about 99:1 to form a nonwoven recyclable fabric. Paragraph 0037 discloses that a plurality of used nonwoven fabrics by melt extrusion process to produce recycled polyester flakes or pellets and forming a web to produce a nonwoven recyclable fabric from recycled polyester fibers. Paragraph 0084 discloses a blend of a first polyester polymer and a second polyester polymer wherein the first polyester fiber is obtained from a plurality of polyester fiber products which have been melted down and flaked or pelletized [0086] and Shiga discloses in Example 1 80 parts by weight of PET bottle reclaim flakes and 20 parts by weight polyester resin pellets blended to produce a sheet with extrusion molding [0070 and 0082]. Paragraph 0015 of Shiga discloses that the method improves fluid of the composition and dimensional stability. Ferrell and Shiga are analogous art in that both references disclose a sheet from recycled first and second polyester polymers having a ratio of the first and second polyester resin polymer in the range of 25:75 to about 99:1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would utilize the composition of Shiga containing 80 parts by weight of PET bottle reclaim flakes and 20 parts by weight polyester resin pellets blended together as the first and second polyester polymers of Ferrell to obtain a sheet having enhanced dimensional stability. Burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786