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 Kasireddy et al. (WO 2020/223335).
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 polyethylene terephthalate of 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]. Miyachi teaches the polyester is polyethylene terephthalate which is not biodegradable and therefore possesses the biomass derived carbon content of polyester in the claimed range as admitted by Applicant. 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 carbon content in the composite fiber. However, Kasireddy 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 carbon content in the polyethylene resin in the claimed range and biomass derived carbon content in the composite fiber [para. 8 and examples] in order to achieve low environmental impact, carbon neutrality, a balance of gwp and cost reduction. 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 and biomass derived carbon content in the composite fiber as taught by Kasireddy et al. in Miyauchi et al. in order to achieve low environmental impact, carbon neutrality, a balance of gwp and cost reduction and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/05/2026, concerning Shigaki have been fully considered, but are moot as Shigaki is not used in the present rejection. Applicant argues WO 2020/223335 does not teach the biomass derived content of the polyester. Miyauchi teaches this limitation as set forth above and as admitted by Applicant. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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
Prosecution Insights