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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by USPUB 2018/0291532 issued to Terada et al.
Terada teaches making a biodegradable polylactic acid resin short or long fiber obtained by melt-spinning a mixture containing 100 parts by weight of a poly-L-lactic acid (A) having an L-lactic acid purity of 99 mol percent or more, 3 to 10 parts by weight of a plasticizer (B), and 0.3 to 1.0 parts by weight of a lubricant (C), wherein the following conditions (a) and (b) are satisfied: (a) the stretch recovery rate is 5 percent or less; and (b) the degree of crystallinity measured by a differential scanning calorimeter is 50 to 70 percent. [abstract, ¶¶ 0004, 0011-0013, 0015, 0026, 0113].
At ¶ 0026, the instant reference teaches that any of the polylactic acid resin fiber embodiments are preferably dyed using natural dyes.
At ¶ 0085, the references teaches that the natural dyes that can be used for the dyeing of the polylactic acid resin fiber according to the present embodiment include madder, safflower, Lithospermum erythrorhizon, indigo, Miscanthus tinctorius, Amur cork, turmeric, Rhus chinensis, harlequin glory bower, nettles, Artemisia, persimmon tannin, etc. Other usable dyes that are of animal origin include Tyrian purple, sepia, cochineal, lac dye, etc.
At ¶ 0029, the instant reference teaches that the range is below 100 ppm in the masterbatch.
At ¶ 0085, the instant reference discloses the use of indigo dye.
At ¶ 0012, the instant reference discloses that the polylactic acid resin fiber is obtained by melt-spinning. Applicant’s claims include product-by-process limitations such as fiber is dyed in a spinning process by adding a masterbatch that is produced by adding the natural dye into a polylactic acid . "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by USPUB 2020/0080260 issued to Fuser et al.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4 and 6, Fuser et al disclose the dyeing of textile materials [abstract and ¶ 0001]. At ¶ 0033, the instant reference discloses that the fiber for the textile can include polylactic acid [intrinsically biodegradable]. At ¶ 0023+, they disclose that the dye can include indigo having a particle size in the range of 0.05 microns up to about 1.5 microns. Applicant’s claims include product-by-process limitations of “spinning,” "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. Applicant’s claims are not specific to the length of the fibers.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN113637189A issued to Yonggang et al.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3 and 6 the instant reference teaches a preparation method of the polylactic acid plant dye masterbatch wherein: the plant dyes include curcumin, emodin, quercetin, madder pigment, indigo pigment and water hyacinth pigment in the dispersant. One or several, the dispersant includes sodium lignosulfonate, the resin includes spinning grade polylactic acid, and the surfactant includes tea saponin. The amount of the dye can be 1-5% owf [Abstract, ¶ 19 under the heading Summary of Invention].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023020338 issued to Junling et al (publication date of 02/23/23) in view of USPUB 2018/0291532 issued to Terada et al.
Regarding method claims 7-12, Junling et al teach method for a polylactic acid plant dye color master batch. The method comprises: using a plant dye as a coloring agent, and first, dyeing a low-molecular-weight polylactic acid by using the coloring property of the plant dye for the low-molecular-weight polylactic acid, so as to obtain a colored low-molecular-weight polylactic acid; and then performing melt-blending using a twin screw extruder on the colored low-molecular-weight polylactic acid, a polylactic acid carrier, and a dispersing agent so as to improve the compatibility of the plant dye and the polylactic acid carrier. The obtained plant dye color master batch is deep in color and good in color uniformity, a fabric obtained after using the plant dye color master batch for spinning is good in color fastness to hot pressing, and the problems of poor stability and non-uniform dispersion when the plant dye is directly used are avoided. [abstract and example 6].
As a preferred version of the preparation method of the polylactic acid plant dye masterbatch of the present invention, wherein: the plant dyes include curcumin, emodin, quercetin, madder pigment, indigo pigment and water hyacinth pigment One or several, the dispersant includes sodium lignosulfonate, the resin includes spinning grade polylactic acid, and the surfactant includes tea saponin and in the working examples the content of the dye is 1-8% owf which overlaps with Applicant’s 5-15%.
WO 2023020338A1 teaches the method of manufacturing a biodegradable polylactic acid high-strength long fiber, the method comprising: a first step of compounding a masterbatch by dispersing natural dye into in polylactic acid (PLA); a second step of spinning a fiber from the master batch in a high-speed melt spinning device; but does not expressively suggest that the third step of heat stretching the spun fiber in a multi-stage stretching device.
This is remedied by Terada et al. who teaches the use of heat stretching and its criticality the spun fiber in a multi-stage stretching device. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have looked to industry of PLA fiber making and know that heat stretching or (hot-drawing) of Poly(lactic acid) (PLA) fibers in a multi-stage device is essential to overcome the inherent limitations of as-spun PLA, specifically its low crystallinity, low tensile strength, and poor thermal stability. Because PLA tends to crystallize slowly, as-spun fibers are largely amorphous and brittle. This converses by Terada et al. One would have been motivated to apply
the multi-stage heat stretching process to include a stretching ratio of 1.5 to 3 times, a speed of 2,000 ~ 5,000 mpm/min, and a temperature 60 to 150 °C and an annealing process at a temperature of 90 to 140 °C after the heat stretching as it helps to orient and crystallize the molecular structure, turning as-spun, weak PLA filaments into high-strength, dimensionally stable, and heat-resistant fibers suitable for textile applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti R Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-3:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp