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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on August 26, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner has not demonstrated or provided prior art references demonstrating that the process of having temperature at a position 30 cm below the nozzle outside the claimed range would result in the claimed product or the process as claimed can form a materially different product. This is not found persuasive because the claimed process does not require a specific delta H. No delta H nor associated properties are recited as part of the claimed process. Therefore, the process as claimed can make a materially different product. Additionally, delta H is indicative of the crystalline structure of the polyester fiber and is influenced by heat treatment as well as shear forces. The starting polyester material has not been defined nor the process conditions including flow rate, nozzle temperature, and spinnerette dimensions, all of which will influence the crystalline structure. Subsequent heat treatment, annealing, and drawing can be performed on the polyester fiber to achieve the desired delta H as claimed as shown by USPN 5,753,736 to Bhat and EP 1885923 to Topolkaraev.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 18 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites the limitation “having a delta H of 30 J/g or less which is calculated by the following equation (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
126
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, claim 1, upon which claim 12 depends, already recites this limitation. Therefore claim 12 fails to further limitation the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2011-84837 to Unitika.
NOTE: Applicant provide English Translation is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Unitika teaches a nonwoven fabric comprising a polyester copolymer fiber capable of serving as a thermal adhesive sheet (Unitika, abstract, claim 5), reading on a polyester binder fiber. Unitika teaches a specific embodiment forming a yarn containing a copolyester based on terephthalate acid having a single yarn fineness of 8.4 dtex with a heat of fusion (melting endothermic amount) of 42.6 J/g (claim 14) and a heat of crystallization (crystallization exothermic amount) of 36.2 J/g as measured by DSC. (Id., para 0056-0060, 0054), reading on delta H of 6.4 J/g.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1885923 to Topolkaraev.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Topolkaraev teaches a fiber and nonwoven with improved properties from fiber material that exhibit poor crystallization kinetics, including polylactic acid (Topolkaraev, abstract, para 0001, 0050). Topolkaraev teaches an embodiment having a cold crystallization enthalpy of 20.75 J/g and a melt peak enthalpy of 50.29 J/g (claim 14) (Id., Fig. 3, Table 1), reading on a delta H according to equation 1 of 29.54 J/g. Regarding the “polyester binder fiber” preamble recited in claims 1 and 14, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Since the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, and since a polyester binder fiber does not impute a specific structure absent from the prior art, the invention of Topolkaraev appears to be capable of the claimed intended use recited as the material is capable of being heat above softening and/or melting point and serving to binder material together or to function as a mechanical entanglement to bind materials together.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 2-7, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2011-84837 to Unitika, remaining as applied to claims 1 and 14.
NOTE: Applicant provide English Translation is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-15, Unitika teaches a specific embodiment forming a yarn containing a copolyester, based on the reacted product of a terephthalate acid and glycol component with 0.5% by mass of calcium montanite (Unitika, para 0056-0060, 0054), reading on the polyester binder fiber containing a polyethylene terephthalate (claim 6) with a resin content of the polyester binder fiber comprising the polyethylene terephthalate at a portion of 95% by mass or more (claim 7) and a polyester-based resin at a proportion of 99.95% by mass or more (claim 11). Unitika teaches the specific embodiment having a single yarn fineness of 8.4 dtex (claim 9) with a heat of fusion (melting endothermic amount) of 42.6 J/g (claim 14-15), a heat of crystallization (crystallization exothermic amount) of 36.2 J/g as measured by DSC, and melting temperature of 136.9°C, and cooling crystallization temperature of 106.5°C (claim 5) (Id).
Regarding the claimed ratio between a crystalline fraction (a1) and a total amount of a constrained amorphous component fraction (a2) and an amorphous component fraction (a3) in the range of from 98.0:2.0 to 50.0:50.0 as measured according to the claimed methodology calculated by fitting a free induction decay signals of a spin-spin relaxation time T2 at 140C obtained by pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance (claim 2) and relaxation time for the constrained amorphous component and amorphous component (claim 3, 13), 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 this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Unitika teaches a polyester fiber formed of a polyethylene terephthalate polyester in the claimed amount as claimed having the claimed delta H, heat of fusion, and crystallization temperature. The instant disclosure does not show an example having the claimed delta H with the ratio outside the claimed range of the ratio. The instant disclosure does not show an example having the claimed delta H with the total relaxation time outside the claimed range. The relaxation time appears related to the crystallinity and is too high if the crystallinity is too great. As the delta H and heat of fusion is within the claimed range, the relaxation time appears to also be within the claimed range. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 2-3, 9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over EP 1885923 to Topolkaraev, remaining as applied to claims 1 and 14.
Regarding claims 2-3, 9, 11-13 and 15, Topolkaraev teaches a fiber and nonwoven with improved properties from fiber material that exbibit poor crystallization kinetics, including polylactic acid (Topolkaraev, abstract, para 0001, 0050). Topolkaraev teaches an embodiment formed using polylactic acid and having a cold crystallization enthalpy of 20.75 J/g and a melt peak enthalpy of 50.29 J/g (claim 14, 15) (Id., Fig. 3, Table 1, para 0159-0170), reading on the resin content of the polyester binder fiber comprising a polyester-based resin at a proportion of 99.95% by mass or more (claim 11). Topolkaraev teaches the fiber size being 17.2 microns (Id., Fig. 3) and using a density of 1.25 g/cm3 for calculation (Id., para 0114). At a density of 1.25 g/cm3, the linear density of the fiber is about 2.6 denier (claim 9).
Regarding the claimed ratio between a crystalline fraction (a1) and a total amount of a constrained amorphous component fraction (a2) and an amorphous component fraction (a3) in the range of from 98.0:2.0 to 50.0:50.0 as measured according to the claimed methodology calculated by fitting a free induction decay signals of a spin-spin relaxation time T2 at 140C obtained by pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance (claim 2) and relaxation time for the constrained amorphous component and amorphous component (claim 3, 13), 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 this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Topolkaraev teaches a polyester fiber formed of a polyester in the claimed amount as claimed having the claimed delta H and heat of fusion. The instant disclosure does not show an example having the claimed delta H with the ratio outside the claimed range of the ratio. The instant disclosure does not show an example having the claimed delta H with the total relaxation time outside the claimed range. The relaxation time appears related to the crystallinity and is too high if the crystallinity is too great. As the delta H and heat of fusion is within the claimed range, the relaxation time appears to also be within the claimed range. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-84837 to Unitika, remaining as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-15, in view of EP 1885923 to Topolkaraev and Solid-State NMR Studies on Semicrystalline Polymers to Chen.
NOTE: Applicant provide English Translation of JP 2011-84837 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-15, in the event that the claimed ratio between a crystalline fraction (a1) and a total amount of a constrained amorphous component fraction (a2) and an amorphous component fraction (a3) in the range of from 98.0:2.0 to 50.0:50.0 as measured according to the claimed methodology calculated by fitting a free induction decay signals of a spin-spin relaxation time T2 at 140C obtained by pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance is not inherent to the fiber of Unitika, Unitika teaches when the fiber has sufficient crystallinity, the nonwoven formed of the fiber has good dimensional stabilities and mechanical properties and good stability to heat (Unitika, p.8-9).
Topolkaraev teaches a fiber and nonwoven with improved properties from fiber material that exbibit poor crystallization kinetics, including polylactic acid and polyethylene terephthalate (Topolkaraev, abstract, para 0001, 0050, 0057-0058). Topolkaraev teaches a total crystallinity value and an enthalpy of recrystallization value can be features that help characterize the crystalline structure of the polymer fiber (Id., para 0108). Topolkaraev teaches a lower level of recrystallization and a greater level of the overall crystallinity of the fiber material can provide greater dimensional stability and lower heat shrinkage in the produced fibers and nonwoven fabrics (Id.). Topolkaraev teaches that if the crystallinity value is too low, fibers can exhibit excessive thermal shrinkage and low tenacity and if the crystallinity value is too high, fibers can have low elongation at break or may be too brittle and stiff (Id., para 0121). Therefore, Topolkaraev establishes that crystallinity is a result effective variable. As crystallinity increases, the dimensional stability and tenacity of the fiber increases while the elongation decreases and the fiber may become stiff. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the crystallinity, such as within the claimed ratio as measured according to the claimed methodology, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, Chen teaches the use of solid-state NMR techniques to characterize the phase structure, chain conformation, intermolecular interaction as well as chain dynamics of semicrystalline polymers and teaches that the crystallinity determined by 1H T2 measurements is apparently higher than that determined by WAXD and DSC, due to the fact that some small and imperfect crystals might be omitted by the latter two models (Chen, abstract, p. 271-272). Chen teaches that different techniques discriminate the crystalline phase from the amorphous one on the basis of different characteristics, such as the enthalpy of melting (DSC), long-range periodicity (WAXD), bond vibration (Vibration spectroscopy), the specific volume (density analysis) and conformation (13C solid-state high-resolution NMR), leading to different values of crystallinity (Id., p. 270). There is a reasonable expectation of success as the DSC disclosed in Unitika would not fully measure the crystals that would be picked up by claimed pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy methodology.
Regarding the claimed relaxation time for the constrained amorphous component and amorphous component (claim 3), although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to be flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a polyester fiber formed of a polyethylene terephthalate polyester in the claimed amount as claimed having the claimed delta H, heat of fusion, and crystallization temperature. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The instant disclosure does not show an example having the claimed delta H with the total relaxation time outside the claimed range. The relaxation time appears related to the crystallinity and too high if the crystallinity is too great. As the delta H and heat of fusion is within the claimed range, the relaxation time appears to also be within the claimed range. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable EP 1885923 to Topolkaraev, as applied to claims 1-3, 9, and 11-15 above, in view of Solid-State NMR Studies on Semicrystalline Polymers to Chen.
Regarding claims 2-3, 9, 11-13 and 15, in the event that the claimed ratio between a crystalline fraction (a1) and a total amount of a constrained amorphous component fraction (a2) and an amorphous component fraction (a3) in the range of from 98.0:2.0 to 50.0:50.0 as measured according to the claimed methodology calculated by fitting a free induction decay signals of a spin-spin relaxation time T2 at 140C obtained by pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance is not inherent to the fiber of Topolkaraev, Topolkaraev teaches the values of the crystallization rate can be affected by various factors, such as molecular weight of the polymer, the addition of nucleating agents, and the use of plasticizing additives to improve molecular mobility (Id., para 0061-0064).
Topolkaraev teaches a total crystallinity value and an enthalpy of recrystallization value can be features that help characterize the crystalline structure of the polymer fiber (Id., para 0108). Topolkaraev teaches a lower level of recrystallization and a greater level of the overall crystallinity of the fiber material can provide greater dimensional stability and lower heat shrinkage in the produced fibers and nonwoven fabrics (Id.). Topolkaraev teaches crystallinity being at least a minimum of 30% as determined by DSC analysis (Id., para 0120). Topolkaraev teaches that if the crystallinity value is too low, fibers can exhibit excessive thermal shrinkage and low tenacity and if the crystallinity value is too high, fibers can have low elongation at break or may be too brittle and stiff (Id., para 0121). Therefore, Topolkaraev establishes that crystallinity is a result effective variable. As crystallinity increases, the dimensional stability and tenacity of the fiber increases while the elongation decreases and the fiber may become stiff. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the crystallinity, such as within the claimed ratio as measured according to the claimed methodology, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, Chen teaches the use of solid-state NMR techniques to characterize the phase structure, chain conformation, intermolecular interaction as well as chain dynamics of semicrystalline polymers and teaches that the crystallinity determined by 1H T2 measurements is apparently higher than that determined by WAXD and DSC, due to the fact that some small and imperfect crystals might be omitted by the latter two models (Chen, abstract, p. 271-272). Chen teaches that different techniques discriminate the crystalline phase from the amorphous one on the basis of different characteristics, such as the enthalpy of melting (DSC), long-range periodicity (WAXD), bond vibration (Vibration spectroscopy), the specific volume (density analysis) and conformation (13C solid-state high-resolution NMR), leading to different values of crystallinity (Id., p. 270). There is a reasonable expectation of success as the DSC disclosed in Topolkaraev would not fully measure the crystals that would be picked up by claimed pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy methodology.
Regarding the claimed relaxation time for the constrained amorphous component and amorphous component (claim 3, 13), although the prior art does not disclose this feature, the claimed properties are deemed to be flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a polyester fiber formed of a polyester or specifically polyethylene terephthalate in the claimed amount as claimed having the claimed delta H and heat of fusion. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The instant disclosure does not show an example having the claimed delta H with the total relaxation time outside the claimed range. The relaxation time appears related to the crystallinity and too high if the crystallinity is too great. As the delta H and heat of fusion is within the claimed range, the relaxation time appears to also be within the claimed range. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches a fiber draw being optional (Topolkaraev, para 0141), reading on an undrawn fiber.
Regarding claims 6-7, the prior art combination teaches the examples of polymers with slow crystallization rate including polyethylene terephthalate (claim 6) as well as polylactic acid (Id., para 0057-0058). Topolkaraev teaches PLA material having a prime-temperature of about 105°C and being anneal-quenched with air or other gas at an anneal-quench temperature which is at least a minimum of about 70°C, optionally at least about 95°C (Id., para 0065, 0138-0139). Topolkaraev teaches the prime-temperature for PET being between 170°C and 180°C (Id., para 0065) and the anneal-quench being not more than 30°C lower than the prime-temperature (Id., para 0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Topolkaraev, wherein the polyester used is polyethylene terephthalate, motivated by the desire of using predictably suitable slow crystallization polymer disclosed by Topolkaraev and by the desire of practicing the invention of Topolkaraev based on the totality of the teachings of Topolkaraev.
Claims 8, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-84837 to Unitika in view of EP 1885923 to Topolkaraev and Solid-State NMR Studies on Semicrystalline Polymers to Chen, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-15 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0140306 to Endo.
NOTE: Applicant provide English Translation of JP 2011-84837 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 16, Unitika is silent with regards to the intrinsic viscosity (claim 8), does not teach the fiber having a length of 0.5 to 50 mm (claim 10), and the use in a fiber structure with subject fiber being bonded via the polyester binder fibers (claim 16).
However, Endo teaches a nonwoven (fiber structure) comprising heat-resistant thermoplastic fibers (subject fibers) and a polyester-based binder fiber to bind other fibers (Endo, para 0022). Endo teaches the polyester-based binder fibers having a crystallinity of 50% or less (Id., para 0026, 0068) and teaches measuring the crystallinity using X-ray Diffraction (Id., para 0108-0109). Endo teaches from the view point of heat-resistance, the degree of crystallinity of the polyester-based fiber being 5% or greater (Id., para 0068). Endo teaches the intrinsic viscosity of the polyester-based polymer being in the range of 0.4 and 1.5, preferably between 0.6 and 1.3 from the viewpoints of mechanical properties, processability and cost efficiency of the obtained fibers (Id., para 0066). Endo teaches the single fiber fineness being 0.1 to 50 dtex, preferably 0.5 to 20 dtex (Id., para 0069). Endo teaches the polyester-based binder fiber having a length of 1 to 40 mm (Id., para 0070). Endo teaches the nonwoven (fiber structure) containing the heat-resistant thermoplastic fiber and reinforcing fiber (subject fibers) and the polyester-based binder fibers that bind the fibers (Id., abstract, para 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the polyester fiber of Unitika, wherein the polyester has an intrinsic viscosity is between 0.6 and 1.3, the fiber has length of 1 to 40 mm, and the polyester fiber is used with other fibers to bind these fibers as taught by Endo, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known intrinsic viscosity and fiber length predictably suitable for use with polyester used in nonwoven and for binding as well as conventionally known nonwoven using polyester binder fibers as well as to ensure mechanical properties, processability, and cost efficiency. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of the intrinsic viscosity being 0.4 to 1.1 dL/g, 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 intrinsic viscosity, 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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-84837 to Unitika in view of EP 1885923 to Topolkaraev and Solid-State NMR Studies on Semicrystalline Polymers to Chen, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-15 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0309456 to Uehata.
NOTE: Applicant provide English Translation of JP 2011-84837 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 16-17, Unitika teaches a polyester having a low melting point.
Unitika does not explicitly teach a fiber structure comprising the polyester binder fiber and subject fibers, wherein the subject fibers are bonded via the polyester binder fibers (claim 16) and the subject fibers comprising polyester fibers without crystallization temperature (claim 17).
However, Uehata teaches a polyester binder fiber having a low crystallization temperature in the range of 100°C or higher and 250°C or lower used in a fiber structure, such as a wetlaid nonwoven fabric or paper, comprising the polyester binder fiber and polyester subject fibers that do not show any crystallization temperature (Uehata, abstract, para 0015). Uehata teaches the crystallization temperature being controlled by changing chip viscosity, single fiber fineness, and/or temperature conditions for spinning as well as the addition amount of the amorphous polyether imide (Uehata, para 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the polyester binder fiber of Unitika in a nonwoven structure as taught by Uehata, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known nonwoven fiber structure predictably suitable for using a polyester binder fiber having a crystallization of 106.5°C.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 5,753,736 to Bhat teaches a three-phase model for PET was proposed including a crystalline phase, an amorphous phase and an oriented amorphous phase known as “rigid amorphous” phase (Id., col. 8 lines 61-64). Bhat teaches the rigid amorphous phase not only had molecules aligned in the fiber direction but also correlated with crystal orientation and this intermediate phase is thought to be influential in crystal growth and amount and structure is dependent on the mechanical and thermal history of the fiber (Id., col. 9 lines 2-9). Bhat teaches the percentage of crystalline and rigid amorphous material present in the fibers determine the shrinkage values at temperatures above glass transition (Id., col. 9 lines 54-60). US Pub. No. 2012/0088424 to Eric teaches the amorphous-characterized, or binding, phase has a softening role during web-bonding, calendaring, shaping or other like operation and the crystallite-characterized phase also has an important tole, namely to reinforce the basic fiber structure of the fiber as it generally can remain unmelted during a bonding or like operation due to its higher melting/softening point.
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
