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
Claims 13-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of making the fiber, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/31/2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 and 2, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al (US 20020190423) in view of Morin (US7074483).
As to claim 12, Morin ‘423 teaches the filament is 10 dpf which is approximately 40 micron and too large. Morin is silent with respect to the tensile strength, tensile toughness and elongation at break.
Morin ‘483 is directed to a melt-spun multifilament polyolefin yarn formation processes and yarns formed therefrom (Title). Disclosed is a method of forming multifilament polyolefin yarns and yarns formed according to the disclosed method. The yarns can be polypropylene yarns and can exhibit any of a high modulus, high tenacity, and a unique crystalline structure for multifilament polyolefin yarns (ABST).
The invention is directed to yarn that can be formed according to the disclosed processes. For instance, the yarn can include multiple filaments that can each describe a denier of less than about 300, in one embodiment each filament can have a denier of between about 0.5 and about 100. The yarn can have a high modulus, for instance greater than 40 g/d, modulus greater than 100 g/d, or greater than 150 g/d in some embodiments. The yarn can also have a high tenacity, for example greater than about 5 g/d in some embodiments, and greater than about 7 g/d in other embodiments. The disclosed yarns can also be fairly resistant to stretching, for example, the yarn can exhibit an elongation of less than about 10% (col. 2, lines 8-21). 0.5 denier is equivalent to about 9 micron for a polypropylene fiber based on a density of polypropylene of 0.91.
Morin ‘483 teaches the polypropylene can contain a nucleating agent. For example, the nucleating agent can be a dibenzylidene sorbitol nucleating agent as is generally known in the art. Generally, the nucleating agent can be present in the melt in an amount less than about 1% by weight of the extruded composition, though this is not a requirement of the invention (col. 1, lines 40-46).
Morin ‘483 teaches antioxidants can be added (col. 5, lines 15-21).
Morin ‘483 teaches the multifilament yarns possess a unique crystalline structure and have about 80% crystallinity (col. 10, lines 5-18) which is equated with semi-crystalline.
Morin ‘483 teaches elongation, tensile strength and tensile toughness as shown in Table 2 however does not measure or express the elongation as elongation at break and the tensile strength in GPa and tensile toughness in 100 MJ/m3.
As to claim 12, as Morin ‘423 and Morin ‘483 are made from the same composition and polypropylene, it is reasonable to presume that the tensile strength and toughness and elongation at break are inherent to the prior art. 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 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 2, Morin is directed to improved polypropylene fibers exhibiting greatly reduced heat- and moisture-shrink problems are provided. Such fibers require the presence of certain compounds that quickly and effectively provide rigidity to the polypropylene fiber after heat-setting. These compounds include any structure that nucleates polymer crystals within the target polypropylene after exposure to sufficient heat to melt the initial pelletized polymer and upon allowing such a melt to cool. The compounds must nucleate polymer crystals at a higher temperature than the target polypropylene without the nucleating agent during cooling. The "rigidifying" nucleator compounds provide nucleation sites for polypropylene crystal growth. After drawing the nucleated composition into fiber form, the fiber is then exposed to sufficient heat to grow the crystalline network, thus holding the fiber in a desired position (ABST).
Morin teaches the nucleating agent and additional additive such as antioxidants [0020], [0028].
As to claims 2, Morin teaches a polypropylene and the polypropylene has crystal growth to grow a crystalline network [0001] which is equated with semi-crystalline thermoplastic polymer.
As to claims 6 and 7, Morin teaches the nucleating agent is a sorbitol based agent such as 1,3:2,4-bis(3,4-dimethylbenzylidene) sorbitol [0008]. The preferred "rigidifying" compounds include dibenzylidene sorbitol based compounds, as well as less preferred compounds, such as sodium benzoate, certain sodium and lithium phosphate salts (such as sodium 2,2'-methylene-bis-(4,6-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphate, otherwise known as NA-11). Specific methods of manufacture of such fibers, as well as fabric articles made therefrom, are also encompassed within this invention (ABST).
As to claims 8-10, Morin teaches the use of a standard polymer stabilization package consisting of 500 ppm of Irganox 1010 and 1000 ppm Irgafos 168 that are both antioxidants [0028]. Based on Applicant’s disclosure Irganox 1010 is a phenolic antioxidant of pentaerythritol tetrakis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyhydrocinnamate and Irgafos 168 is a phosphite selected from tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphite. The ratio is 1:2 as claimed.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al (US 20020190423) in view of Morin (US7074483) and in further view of Press (US3337651).
As to claims 3 and 4, Morin differs and does not teach the molecular weight of the isotactic polypropylene nor the melt flow rate of the polypropylene is 1500. Morin teaches the polypropylene has a melt flow index between 2 to 50 [0007]. Morin teaches an examples with a fiber grade polypropylene resin (melt flow 19) with a nucleator additive and standard polymer stabilization package of Irganox 1010 and Irgafox 168 [0028].
Morin teaches a MFR which overlaps the claimed range for the isotactic polypropylene.
Press is directed to a modification of stereoregular polyolefins with polymer compositions (Title). Press teaches the stereoregular polyolefins are isotactic and syndiotactic polyolefins and are made from catalysts with a high degree of crystallinity (col. 3, lines 5-10). Press teaches commercial isotactic polypropylene has a molecular weight of 350,000 and a melt flow index of 3.
Press teaches the molecular weight of isotactic polypropylene is substantially same as claimed and therefore meets the claimed limitation and would have been obvious over the claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a commercial available isotactic polypropylene with the claimed molecular weight and melt flow rate motivated to produce a crystalline polymer for fiber production.
As to claim 5, Morin ‘423 differs and does not teach the molecular weight nor the melt flow rate of the polypropylene. Press provides evidence that commercial isotactic polypropylene has the molecular weight of claim 3 and melt flow rate of claim 4. Claim 5 recites a blend of 10:0 which is 100% of the isotactic polypropylene and does not require a polypropylene with a melt flow index of 1500.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce an isotactic fiber with the claimed molecular weight and MFR motivated to produce a polypropylene fiber from a commercial grade polypropylene.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al (US 20020190423) in view of Morin (US7074483) and in view of Datta et al (US 20090053959) and Press (US3337651).
As to claim 3-5, Morin ‘423 and Morin ‘483 differs and do not teach a polypropylene a blend of polypropylene polymers.
With regard to claim 4, Morin teaches the polypropylene has a melt flow index between 2 to 50 [0007]. Morin teaches an examples with a fiber grade polypropylene resin (melt flow 19) with a nucleator additive and standard polymer stabilization package of Irganox 1010 and Irgafos 168 [0028].
Morin teaches a MFR which overlaps the claimed range of claim 4 for the isotactic polypropylene.
Datta is directed to a nonwoven fabric having a first component of from 5% to 99% by weight based on the total weight of the composition wherein the first component is selected from the group consisting of homopolymers of propylene and random copolymers of propylene and a second component having from 95% to 1% by weight based on the total weight of the composition of a propylene polymer (ABST).
Datta teaches the first polymer (FPC) comprises a crystallizable copolymer of polypropylene and ethylene with optional amounts of alpha olefins. The FPC polymers are generally crystalline, and one invention relates to a low molecular weight propylene alpha olefin [0019], [0024]. The FPC can be a polypropylene with a melt flow rate of [0065] In one embodiment, the FPC has a MFR@230.degree. C. of from a low of 250, or 300, or 400, or 500, or 600, or 750, or 1000, or 1300, or 1600, or 2000 to a high of 7500, or 6500, or 5500, or 4500, or 3000 or 2500 where all of the above MFRs are shown in g/10 min.
Datta teaches the FPC has a melt flow rate of 250-7500 which overlaps the claimed range of 1500 [0065].
Datta teaches that blends a highly isotactic polypropylene of high molecular weight with a copolymer of low molecular weight there is a tendency for the two materials to separate partially due to the solubility difference and partially due to the exclusion of the less crystalline copolymer. Datta teaches that what we reasoned in our blend cases is that there would be some benefit to the properties of tensile, toughness, and softness if we could distribute some of the FPC into the high molecular weight isotactic blend polymer which in an embodiment is the second polymer component. The flexibility would be engendered to the main high molecular weight poly propylene, and some of the structure integrity of the low molecular with polymer additive would be preserved by allowing on average higher uninterrupted defect free runs of polypropylene.
Datta teaches the invention is to generate a soft first polymer component suitable for blending with the second polymer component which contains a lower amount of ethylene to attain a lower heat of fusion than previously known for these low molecular weight or high MFR polymers. The first polymer is by design highly isotactic in that a predominant amount of the propylene residues are in the isotactic orientation. They are thus crystallizable in contact with the SPC. We believe that the lower amount of comonomer in the FPC leads to improved redistribution of the first polymer component into the SPC due to improved miscibility. The improved miscibility of the first and the SPC arises from a limited amount of comonomer in the first polymer component [0104].
The SPC is predominately isotactic polypropylene sequences [0024]. The SPC is described in [0109]-[0118].
The SPC can be commonly available isotactic polypropylene compositions. The choice of the SPC can be used as a means of adjusting the final MFR of the blend [0115]-[0116]. A commercially available isotactic polypropylene used for fiber production inherently has a molecular weight of 350,000 and a MFR of 3 as evidenced by Press.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a blend of polypropylene and isotactic polypropylene motivated to produce a fine filament with benefit to the properties of tensile, toughness, and softness.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al (US 20020190423) in view of Morin (US7074483) and in further view Raetzsch et al (US 6218011).
As to claim 11, Morin ‘423 teaches the sorbitol nucleating agent is employed in amounts of 100 ppm up to 5000 ppm; 500-4000 ppm; 1000-3500 ppm; [0008]. The antioxidants are employed at 500 ppm + 1000 ppm.
4000 ppm is equivalent to 0.4% and antioxidants at 1500 ppm is 0.15%.
Morin presents a range near 994.5:4:1.5 which is substantially the same as claimed.
Morin does not disclose the composition in weight ratio.
Raetzsch is directed to polypropylene fibers with high strength and high elongation (ABST). Raetzsch teaches the polyolefins can have 0.01-2.5% by weight of stabilizers and 0.05 to 1% of nucleating agents. The stabilizers can be phenolic antioxidants in about of 0.01 to 0.6%(col. 7, lines 54-67). Raetzsch teaches it is known to use nucleating agents and antioxidants that overlap the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed nucleating agents and antioxidants motivated to produce a high strength and high elongation polypropylene fiber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to Morin ‘423 and Autran and Raetsch have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 12 over Morin ‘423, Autran and Raetsch of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection is presented over Morin ‘423 and Morin ‘483 as Morin ‘483 teaches the nucleating agent, an anti-oxidant and a fine filament that is 0.5 denier (equivalent to about 9 micron). Applicant’s arguments that Autran and Raetsch do not teach a multifilament yarn are persuasive.
The 35 USC 102 rejection over Morin ‘423 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to recite the multifilament yarn and dependency on claim 12. New grounds of rejections under 35 USC 103 are presented that include Morin ‘423 and Morin ‘483 as well as dependent claims rejections including Press, Datta and Raetsch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Montaletti et al (US 20160046787)
Fujishita et al (US 4560734)
Lin et al (US 20060008643)
Mehta et al (US 20060178483)
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 A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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 STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights