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 .
Amendments to claims 1-2 and the cancellation of claims 3 and 8, in the response filed February 10, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the limitation “bi-component melt-blown fibers of which each strand of fiber has an outer surface formed by two resin where a melting point of one of the two resins is lower than a melting point of another one of the two resins.” There is no explicit support for this limitation. The originally filed disclosure appears to have support for a low-melting-point resin being present on at least partially present on the surface. However, there is no teach of two different resin with one resin having a lower melting point than the other resin and being at least partially present on the outer surface. There is no teach of two different melting point resins. Therefore, the amendment introduces new matter.
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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109594194A to Zheng in view of USPN 5,350,620 to Sundet, WO 2020-246472 to Hashimoto, and “Molecular weight determination of polyethylene terephthalate” to Farah.
NOTE: US Pub. No. 2021/0301437 to Zheng is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping of CN 10959194 and US Pub. No. 2022/0243372 to Hashimoto is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping of WO 2020-246472.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-6, Zheng teaches a wipe (composite wiping nonwoven fabric) comprising upper and lower layers of melt-blow fibers (two outer layers both formed by melt-blown fibers) to prevent interior fiber substances from falling out and a wood pulp fiber web (water absorbent fibers; natural fibers, wood pulp fibers, claims 5-6) in the middle (middle fiber layer in between the two outer layers formed by water absorbent fibers) with the melt-blown fiber webs being interwoven in the wood pulp fiber web (fiber interlacing and intertwining area exist between one of the two outer layers and the middle fiber layer as well as between another one of the two outer layer and the middle fiber layer respectively) (Zheng, abstract, para 0010-0011, 0022-0027), reading on a composite wiping non-woven fabric with a layered structure. Zheng teaches the melt-blown fibers being polyester (Id., para 0010), reading on the outer layers being formed by melt-blown polyester fiber webs composed of melt-blown polyester fibers. Zheng teaches the weight percentage of the wood pulp fiber web (middle fiber layer) in the wipe being 65 to 80 weight % (Id., para 0011, 0025). Zheng teaches the meltblown fiber having a diameter of less than 10 microns (Id., para 0014).
Zheng is silent with regards to the meltblown polyester fibers length, specifically being 25 mm to 50 mm, and a fiber length-to-diameter ratio of 3800 to 8000.
However, Sundet teaches meltblown fiber formed of polymeric material, such as polyesters, having a diameter from 0.1 micrometer to 50 micrometers with an average length to diameter ratio exceeding 5000:1 (Sundet, abstract, col. 3 lines 20-35). Sundet teaches the meltblown fiber entangling with other staple fibers
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the wipe of Zheng, wherein the meltblown fibers have a length-to-diameter of greater than 5000:1 as taught by Sundet, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known meltblown fiber predictably suitable for use with polyester and within the predictably suitable fiber diameter range. At 10 micrometer diameter, the fiber length at 5000 length to diameter ratio would be 50 mm.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 25 to 50 mm length and the claimed fiber-to-length ratio of 3800 to 8000, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case 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 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the fiber-to-diameter ratio, and therefore the length, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art. Examiner would like to note that the instant disclosure teaches a desirability for longer fibers with small diameter to result in denser arrangement and prevention of fiber shedding or fiber dusting (see para 0015 of the published application). The upper limit of the fiber-to-diameter ratio does not appear to be critical.
The prior art combination is silent with regards to the resin forming the melt-blown polyester fibers having a molecular structure that contains ester bonds with a content of ester bonds in a single molecule being 70 to 100 and an intrinsic viscosity of 0.5 to 0.68 dL/g.
However, Hashimoto teaches a meltblown nonwoven fabric of polybutylene terephthalate fibers (claim 4) having an intrinsic viscosity of the meltblown nonwoven fabric of 0.45 or more and 0.60 dl/g or less (Hashimoto, abstract). Hashimoto teaches the meltblown nonwoven fabric being used with at least one other layer, such as dry pulp nonwoven fabric (Id., para 0052-0057). Hashimoto teaches the meltblown nonwoven fabric use not being particularly limited and include sheets, towels, hygiene produces and pet sheets (Id., para 0062-0063). Hashimoto teaches the resin forming the meltblown nonwoven fabric having an intrinsic viscosity being 0.45 dl/g or more and 0.90 dl/g or less from the viewpoint of suppressing the occurrence of resin particles, more preferably 0.53 dl/g to 0.70 dl/g (Id., para 0071), reading on the meltblown polyester fibers being formed from a resin having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.53 to 0.70 dL/g. Hashimoto teaches a specific embodiment using polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.63 dl/g to form the meltblown fibers (Id., Table 1, para 0115), reading on the melt-blown polyester fiber being formed from a resin having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.63 dL/g. Hashimoto teaches the use of PBT as a main component results in a strong resistance to certain chemical compared to polypropylene (Id., para 0044). Hashimoto teaches the nonwoven having excellent shape stability without a special heat setting process (Id., para 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form the wipe of the prior art combination, wherein the meltblown polyester is the polybutylene terephthalate of Hashimoto, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known polyesters predictably suitable for forming meltblown fabrics used in conjunction with other layers such as pulp nonwoven, and by the desire to suppress occurrences of resin particles and form a nonwoven having excellent shape stability.
Regarding the claimed content of ester bonds in a single molecule, the prior art combination teaches the polybutylene terephthalate having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.63 dL/g but is silent with regards to the content of ester bonds. In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose ester content, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Specifically, polybutylene terephthalate having an intrinsic viscosity of 0.63 dL/g. Additionally, as shown by Farah, molecular weight is related to intrinsic viscosity (Farah, p. 143-145). The molecular would be related to the number of ester bonds. There are no teaching of specialized reactions or polymer beyond the use of polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate to achieve the claimed ester bond content in the instant application. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art combination teaches fiber being polyester fibers and does not teach the fibers being multicomponent or conjugate (Zheng, para 0010, 0024, all; Hashimoto, para 0112-0015), reading on single-component fibers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Sundet, Hashimoto, and Farah, as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-6, further in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0228337 to Knowlson and US Pub. No. 2014/0038487 to Polosa.
NOTE: US Pub. No. 2021/0301437 to Zheng is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping of CN 10959194 and US Pub. No. 2022/0243372 to Hashimoto is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping of WO 2020-246472.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination does not teach intermediate layer of fibers (water absorbent fiber) having a weight percentage of viscose fiber greater than or equal to 15 %.
However, Knowlson teaches a nonwoven used for a wipe having no less than 50% of natural cellulose fibers (Knowlson, abstract). Knowlson teaches a specific embodiment comprising a mixture of wood pulp fiber and viscose that results in a higher strength and low linting property (Id., para 0009, 0013-0014, 0034). Additionally, Polosa teaches cellulose-based material such as pulp and viscose have absorbent properties and are used in wipe applications (Polosa, para 0003-0004, 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the wipe of the prior art combination, wherein the intermediate layer of pulp further comprises viscose, such as 50% by weight, as taught by Knowlson, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known absorbent fibers predictably suitable for use in wipe applications as taught by Knowlson and Polosa and by the desire to result in high strength and low linting property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2017/0114483 to Boscolo teaches a meltblown spinning unit forming fibers having a length between 4 mm and 30 mm.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights