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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 10, 2025 has been entered. Claim 10 has been amended. As such, Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to Claims 1-11 and 13-17, in the reply filed on December 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 11 recites the broad recitation “the multilayer construction comprises” as a transitional phrase in lines 1-2, which is an open-ended transitional phrase, but the claim also recites “preferably consists of” immediately thereafter, which is a narrower transitional phrase that excludes other layers/materials from being present in the nonwoven fabric. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Accordingly, Claim 11 is indefinite.
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, 7-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0284739 to Wang et al. (“Wang I”) in view of International Patent Application Publication WO 2012/126973 to Henry (“Henry”), as evidenced by International Patent Application Publication WO 2020/088996 to Wang et al. (“Wang II”).
With regard to Claims 1, 10, and 14, Wang I discloses “a nonwoven fabric (NF) comprising at least one inner layer (M) surrounded by at least one outer layer (S), said inner layer (M) comprising melt blown fibers and said outer layer (S) comprising spunbonded fibers, wherein said melt blown fibers and said spunbonded fibers comprise propylene polymers.” Abstract; see also entire document. Wang I discloses that the nonwoven structures are suitable for use in filtration, sanitary articles, protective clothing, and medical gear. Paragraph [0043]. Wang I discloses that the meltblown fibers comprise a first propylene polymer (PP1), paragraph [0070], and that the PP1 can have a 2,1 regiodefects amount of less than 0.1 mol%, such as no 2,1 regiodefects being detectable. Paragraph [0088]. Wang I discloses that the melting point of PP1 is at least 160° C., more preferably at least 161° C., still more preferably at least 163° C., like in the range of 163° C. to 167° C. Paragraph [0098]. Wang I discloses that the spunbond fibers comprise a second propylene polymer (PP2), paragraph [0199], and that the PP2 has an amount of 2,1-regiodefects of up to 0.4 mol%. Paragraph [0211]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. M.P.E.P. 2144.05(I). Moreover, it is the Office’s position that increasing the amount of 2,1-regiodefects in the PP2 of Wang I to fall within the range of 0.4 to 1.5 mol% would be an obvious modification. Henry is also related to the production of propylene polymer for use in fibers. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Henry teaches that nonwoven fabrics containing polypropylene fibers are suitable for use in personal care articles, medical drapes and gowns, and protective wear. Page 25, lines 17-22. Henry discloses that polypropylene produced using a metallocene-based polymerization catalyst can be used in the in the production of spunbonded fibers, page 1, lines 26-29, and provide finer fibers having improved softness and mechanical properties. Page 2, line 1 – page 3, line 8. Wang II is also related to the production of polymer compositions comprising propylene. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Wang II teaches that propylene polymers produced using a single site metallocene catalyst have an increase in the presence of 2,1 regiodefects, compared to those produced using a Ziegler-Natta catalyst. Page 6, lines 14-21. Wang II further discloses that a suitable amount of 2,1-regiodefects when a metallocene catalyst is used to form polypropylene is in the range of 0.1 to 1.3 mol%. Page 2, lines 8-9. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a metallocene catalyst in the polymerization of the PP2 polymer for the spunbond fabric of Wang I in order to provide improved softness to said fabric, as shown to be known by Henry, and thus resulting in a 2,1-regiodefects content of up to 1.3 mol%, as evidenced by Wang II. Wang I discloses that the melting point of PP2 is in the range of 150° C. to below 164° C., more preferably in the range of 155° C. to below 163° C. Paragraph [0221]. Given the directive by Wang I of the preferred melting temperature ranges of PP1 being 163° C. to 167° C. and the melting temperature of PP2 being 155° C. to below 163° C., it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide PP1 with a melting point at least 5° C. higher than the melting point of PP2, such as at the low-point of the ranges or the mid-point of the ranges, because “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). With regard to Claim 2, Wang I discloses that the meltblown layer have a basis weight of 0.5 to 40 gsm, preferably 0.6 to 10 gsm, paragraph [0052], and the spunbond layer have a basis weight of 1 to 40 gsm. Paragraph [0237]. With regard to Claim 3, Wang I discloses that PP1 can be a propylene homopolymer, paragraphs [0074] and [0075], and that PP2 can be a propylene homopolymer. Paragraph [0200]. With regard to Claim 4, Wang I discloses that PP1 can have a melt flow rate of 800 g/10 min. and a molecular weight distribution of 4. Table 2. With regard to Claim 5, Wang I discloses that PP2 can have a melt flow rate of 27 g/10 min. and a molecular weight distribution of 4.4. Table 2. With regard to Claims 7 and 8, Wang I discloses that PP1 and PP2 are visbroken. Paragraphs [0026] and [0027]. With regard to Claim 9, Wang I discloses that PP1 is produced in the presence of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst comprising a transition metal of Group 4 to 6 of IUPAC, a Group 2 metal compound, and an internal donor, with optional co-catalyst and external donor. Paragraph [0117]. Moreover, Wang I renders obvious the use of non-phthalic compounds. Paragraph [0246]. With regard to Claim 11, Wang I discloses using an SMS fabric construction. Paragraph [0047]. With regard to Claim 13, Wang I discloses that “[t]he nonwoven fabric (NF) is obtained in a sequential process comprising the steps [0054] a) producing the first spunbonded layer (S1) by depositing spunbonded fibers (SBF) through a spinneret, [0055] b) optionally producing at least one further spunbonded layer (S) by depositing spunbonded fibers (SBF) on the first spunbonded layer (S1) obtained in step a) through at least one further spinneret, thereby obtaining a multilayered structure comprising two or more, like two or three spunbonded layers (S) in sequence, [0056] c) producing the first melt blown layer (M1) by depositing melt blown fibers (MBF) on the first spunbonded layer (S1) obtained in step a) or on the outermost spunbonded layer (S) obtained in step b) through an extruder, thereby obtaining a multilayered structure comprising one or more, like one, two or three spunbonded layer(s) (S) and a melt blown layer (M) in sequence, [0057] d) optionally producing at least one further melt blown layer (M) by depositing melt blown fibers (MBF) on the first melt blown layer (M1) obtained in step c) through at least one further extruder, thereby obtaining a multilayered structure comprising one or more, like one, two or three spunbonded layer(s) (S) and two or more, like two or three melt blown layer(s) (M) in sequence, [0058] e) producing the second spunbonded layer (S2) by depositing spunbonded fibers (SBF) through a spinneret on the first melt blown layer (M1) obtained in step c) or on the outermost melt blown layer (M) obtained in step d), thereby obtaining a multilayered structure comprising one or more, like one, two or three spunbonded layer(s) (S), one or more, like one, two or three melt blown layer(s) (M), and one spunbonded layer (S) in sequence, and [0059] f) optionally producing at least one further spunbonded layer (S) by depositing spunbonded fibers (SBF) on the second spunbonded layer (S2) obtained in step e) through at least one further spinneret, thereby obtaining a multilayered structure comprising one or more, like one, two or three spunbonded layer(s) (S), one or more, like one, two or three melt blown layer(s) (M), and two or more, like one, two or three spunbonded layer(s) (S) in sequence.” Paragraph [0059]. With regard to Claims 15 and 16, Wang I discloses using a visbreaking ratio in the range of 5 to 25 for PP1 and PP2. Paragraphs [0080] and [0208].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang I in view of Henry, as evidenced by Wang II, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0270434 to Van Houcke et al. (“Van Houcke”).
With regard to Claim 6, the combination of Wang I with Henry does not disclose a xylene cold soluble content of 0.1 to 2.0% by weight. Van Houcke is also related to polypropylene compositions for use in melt spun and spunbonding fiber manufacture. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Van Houcke discloses that xylene soluble content in polypropylene is a result effective variable with higher content providing better processing but with the negative effect on stiffness. Paragraph [0003]. Van Houcke teaches the content should range of 0% to 10%, with preferable ranges including 1.5% to 10% by weight, with the person having ordinary skill in the art being able to choose the number, depending on the application. Paragraph [0025]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a xylene cold soluble content of 0.1 to 2.0% by weight in the PP2 disclosed by the combination of Wang I with Henry in order to optimize the processing properties of the propylene composition, as shown to be well known and understood by the person having ordinary skill in the art by Van Houcke, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang I in view of Henry, as evidenced by Wang II, as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0165425 to Gahleitner et al. (“Gahleitner”).
With regard to Claim 17, the combination of Wang I with Henry does not disclose the metallocene complex of the general formula (V). Gahleitner is also related to propylene-based polymer compositions. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Gahleitner teaches that a suitable metallocene catalyst for forming polypropylene comprises an silica support, paragraph [0147], an aluminoxane co-catalyst, paragraph [0145], and a metallocene complex according to formula (V), paragraphs [0107] to [0141]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the metallocene catalyst in accordance with the limitation of Claim 17 in the polymerization of the polypropylene taught by the combination of Wang I with Henry, in order to provide a polymer with improved shrinkage properties, as shown to be known by Gahleitner, paragraph [0266], and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789