Claims 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 1-9 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015064557 to Taninaka et al. (hereinafter “Taninaka”) in view of JP 2017132076 to Masutani (hereinafter “Masutani”) as evidenced by KR 20150040673 (hereinafter “KR’673”) and WO 2014077402 to Ozawa et al. (hereinafter “Ozawa”).
As to claims 1, 3, and 5, Taninaka discloses a mesh structure having excellent durability against repeated compression, and comprising a three-dimensional, random-loop joining structure wherein the mesh structure has a density of 0.01 to 0.2 g/cc. The mesh structure is made of polyester thermoplastic elastomer fiber wherein the fiber has a diameter of 0.48 mm in the inner layer portion and of 0.53 mm in the surface layer portion (example 1-1). The mesh structure has a thickness of 10 to 300 mm, particularly of 45 nm (example 1-1). The mesh structure has a 70oC compressive strength residual strain of 9.7% (example 1-1) within the claimed range, and a 25% compression hardness of 204 N/φ200 mm or 51 N/φ50mm (example 1-1) within the claimed range.
Taninaka does not explicitly disclose a biodegradable mesh structure comprising a polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) linear fiber having a weight average molecular weight of 35,000 or more and 150,000 or less, and a crystalline melting enthalpy of 16 J/g or more.
Masutani, however, discloses a molded article comprising a linear fiber formed of poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) and PBAT with a mixing weight ratio of 9:1 to 1:9 with a diameter of 1.75 to 3.0 mm (abstract). The PLLA/PBAT linear fiber with a mixing ratio of 1:1 has a melting point ranging from 119.9 to 174.4oC, and a crystalline melting enthalpy of 23.2 J/g (table 1). The linear fiber is thus a biodegradable material because both PLLA and PBAT polymers are biodegradable.
Masutani states that the PBAT (1) is commercially available under the trade name of ENPOL 7070 from Samson Fine Chemicals (Description of Embodiments). KR’673 is relied upon as evidence showing that the PBAT (1) has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 170,000 (examples 1-5).
Alternatively, the PBAT (2) is commercially available under the trade name of ECOFLEX from BASF (Description of Embodiments). Ozawa is relied upon as evidence showing that the PBAT (2) has a Mw of 74,000 (example 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a biodegradable linear fiber disclosed in Masutani for the mesh structure disclosed in Taninaka, motivated by the desire to provide a mesh structure that is biodegradable while exhibiting great quality and beautiful glossiness.
As to claim 2, Taninaka discloses that the elastic mesh structure comprises a three-dimensional, random-loop joining structure (description).
As to claim 4, Taninaka discloses that the mesh structure is suitable as a cushioning material (description).
As to claim 6, Taninaka discloses that the melting point of the linear fiber is from 50 to 130oC (description). The melting temperature of the linear fiber overlaps the claimed range. In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in a melting point will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a melting point is critical or provides unexpected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a linear fiber having a melting temperature in the range instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to obtain a mesh structure having increased contact strength, thereby improving its durability against repeated compression.
As to claims 7 and 8, Taninaka discloses that the mesh structure has a hollow cross-section shape with a hollow rate of 26% (examples 3-3).
As to claim 9, Taninaka discloses that the mesh structure has a 70oC compressive strength residual strain of 9.7% (example 1-1) within the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
The rejection over Wakui in view of Masutani as evidenced by KR’673 and Ozawa has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. None of the cited references disclose or suggest a mesh structure comprising a 70oC compressive strength residual strain of 30% or less, and a 25% compression hardness of from 5.0 to 100 N/φ50 mm.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Taninaka et al. (WO 2015064557).
Conclusion
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights