Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/285,655

HEAT-FUSIBLE COMPOSITE FIBER AND NON-WOVEN FABRIC USING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 05, 2023
Priority
Apr 07, 2021 — JP 2021-065043 +1 more
Examiner
MCKINNON, LASHAWNDA T
Art Unit
1789
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Es Indorama Ventures Denmark Aps
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allowance Rate
396 granted / 743 resolved
-11.7% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
819
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
92.3%
+52.3% vs TC avg
§102
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§112
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 743 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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, 3-5, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyauchi et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0385890) in view of Shigaki et al. (JP 2010065342). Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 9-10, Miyauchi et al. teach an absorbent article (diaper) [0046]. comprising a nonwoven fabric comprising a heat fusible composite fiber comprising a first component configured from a polyester resin [Abstract] and a second component configured from a polyethylene resin having a lower melting point than that of the first component [Abstract and 0024]. The polyester resin is polyethylene terephthalate [0023] and the polyethylene is high density polyethylene [0024]. Miyauchi et al. teaches polyethylene terephthalate with crystallinity of 18% or more [0015] which reads on the claimed heat of fusion of the polyester resub in the heat fusible composite fiber is in the claimed range. The fineness is of the heat fusible composite fiber is in the claimed range [0033]. The heat fusible composite fiber is a sheath-core type heat fusible composite fiber with the first component as a core component and a second component as a sheath component [0062]. Miyauchi et al. is silent regarding biomass derived polyethylene, fossil resource derived polyethylene and a mixing ratio (weight ratio) of the two and biomass derived content in the polyethylene resin, heat fusible composite fiber, and polyester. However, Shigaki et al. teach biomass derived polyethylene, fossil resource derived polyethylene and a mixing ratio (weight ratio) of biomass derived polyethylene and fossil resource derived polyethylene in the claimed range and the biomass derived content in the polyethylene resin, heat fusible composite fiber and the polyester in the claimed range [examples] in order to achieve low environmental impact and carbon neutrality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the biomass derived polyethylene, fossil resource derived polyethylene and a mixing ratio (weight ratio) of biomass derived polyethylene and fossil resource derived polyethylene in the claimed range as taught by Shigaki et al. in Miyauchi et al. in order to achieve low environmental impact and carbon neutrality and arrive at the claimed invention. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Miyauchi in view of Shigaki. Art Not Used but Relevant PG Pub. 2013/0022784 teaches a nonwoven with sheath core fiber with polyester and polyethylene. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST. 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. /Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Aug 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Oct 15, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Jan 29, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 12, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 12, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 05, 2026
Response Filed
May 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637789
POLYETHYLENE YARN OF HIGH TENACITY HAVING HIGH DIMENSIONAL STABILITY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
4y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630946
FLAME-RETARDANT AND WINDPROOF WADDING AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
3y 5m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630948
FOAMABLE YARNS, TEXTILES AND ARTICLES INCORPORATING FOAMABLE YARNS, AND THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12624480
SHOE UPPER INCLUDING THREE-DIMENSIONAL PATTERN
2y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12617886
LIQUID COMPOSITION COMPRISING A WAX COMPOUND, ITS PROCESS OF POLYMERIZATION, USE AND MATERIAL OR COMPOSITION OBTAINED FOLLOWING POLYMERIZATION OF COMPOSITION
4y 7m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+30.8%)
3y 5m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 743 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month