DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on June 4, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently claims 24 and 54 are amended, claims 1-23, 37-39, 49-54 and 56 are cancelled, and claims 60-61 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 24-36, 40-48, 51-55, and 57-59 pending for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 24-36, 40-48, and 51-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2006-291389)1,2 in view of Longdon (US 2020/0032437).
With respect to claims 24, 34-36, and 40-43, Takano discloses a biodegradable nonwoven fabric made of biodegradable long fibers containing 0.1 to 5.0 wt% of an aliphatic bisamide and/or an alkyl-substituted aliphatic monoamide (paragraph [0010]). Polylactic acid (aliphatic polyester) is preferred as the biodegradable resin due to its thermal stability and strength (paragraph [0014]). The aliphatic bisamide used includes ethylene bisstearamide (amide of general formula (iii) wherein R1, R2, and R3 are aliphatic hydrocarbon chains) (paragraph [0020]). The long fibers are preferably partially heat-bonded and integrated (bonding impressions or bonding points) (paragraph [0023]).
Example 1 uses a polylactic acid resin (aliphatic polyester) and 0.5 wt% of ethylene bisstearamide (amide of general formula (iii)) (paragraph [0042]). This resin was extruded to produce a spunbond nonwoven (paragraph [0042]), therefore the long fibers comprise 99.5 wt% aliphatic polyesters and the first component makes up 100% of the fiber surface.
Takano is silent as to the inclusion of a polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) in an amount not exceeding 5 wt% of the total amount of the first component.
Longdon teaches fabrics which are formed from polymeric blends which are biodegradeable and/or compostable, which have properties suitable for thermoforming and which are capable of bonding to a solid article (paragraph [0022]). The blend may comprise 98%-2% polylactic acid (paragraphs [0070]-[0071]). The blend may further comprise polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate present in a level up to about 10 wt% based on the total weight of the blend (paragraph [0093]).
The PBAT range of Longdon substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 24. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Longdon, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Takano and Longdon teach biodegradable fabrics formed from blends comprising polylactic acid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate in levels up to 10 wt% because it is known in the biodegradable fabric art as a suitable additive and would yield the predictable results of a biodegradable fabric with bonding capabilities. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claims 25-29, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above. As can be seen below, R1 and R2 of ethylene bis(stearamide) are aliphatic carbon chains having a length of 17 carbons.
PNG
media_image1.png
264
1446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 30, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above. As can be seen above, R1, R2, and R3 of ethylene bis(stearamide) are straight line aliphatic chains.
With respect to claim 31, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above. Takano further teaches the aliphatic bisamide may be saturated (paragraph [0020]).
With respect to claims 32-33, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above. As can be seen above, R1 and R2 of ethylene bis(stearamide) are straight line aliphatic chains having a length of 17 carbons. Takano further teaches the aliphatic bisamide may be saturated (paragraph [0020]).
With respect to claim 44, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above. Takano further teaches a core-sheath fiber may be employed where the aliphatic bisamide is present on the fiber surface in the sheath (first component makes up 100% of the fiber surface) (paragraph [0018]).
With respect to claim 45, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above. Takano further teaches the fiber may be in a side-by-side configuration (paragraph [0013]). The presence of the aliphatic bisamide on the fibers surface reduces the frictional resistance of the fibers surface, thereby reducing the friction between the fibers, thereby improving the flexibility of the nonwoven of the fabric and, when heat treatment is performed, improves the releasability from a heated roll or the like, thereby stabilizing the operability (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of the PLA/bisamide covering the surface of the side-by-side fiber to include the claimed range in claim 24. One would have been motivated to provide a side-by-side fiber that provides the desired friction between adjacent fibers in the nonwoven fabric while also providing improved releasability from a heated roll or the like during heat treatments. It has been held that, 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claims 46-48, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above. Example 1 of Takano uses only polylactic acid (PLA) and ethylene bisstearamide (EBA) in a monofilament (paragraph [0042]). Therefore the fibers of Example 1 of Takano use 99.5 wt% polymeric constituents.
With respect to claims 51-53, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above. Example 1 of Takano uses a polylactic acid resin (aliphatic polyester) and 0.5 wt% of ethylene bisstearamide (amide of general formula (iii) wherein R3 is an aliphatic chain of 2 carbons) (paragraph [0042]).
Claim(s) 57-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2006-291389)3,4 in view of Longdon (US 2020/0032437) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Reichmann (US 2004/0166758)2.
With respect to claims 57-59, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above.
Takano in view of Longdon is silent as to the first component comprising a mixture of aliphatic polyesters with differing clause of heat of cold crystallization.
Reichmann teaches a nonwoven web prepared from a polymer blend containing a biodegradable aliphatic polyester and a second polymer (paragraph [0002]). Reichmann further teaches that the tear strength of a nonwoven fabric produced from a mixture of a crystalline polylactide and a second polylactide which has a lower melting point as compared to the crystalline polylactide is vastly improved over the tear strength of a nonwoven from the crystalline polylactide alone (paragraph [0032]).
Since both Takano in view of Longdon and Reichmann teach biodegradable polylactic acid nonwovens, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polylactic acid fibers of Takano in view of Longdon to include a mixture of crystalline polylactic acid and lower melting point polylactic acid in order to increase the tear strength of the nonwoven.
It is noted that the instant specification at page 10, lines 1-5 describes aliphatic polyesters with a high portion of amorphous content have a lower melting temperature than their crystalline constituents. The background of the instant specification also describes at page 1, lines 11-16 that Patent No. US 7994078, which is the patent of PGPub US 2004/0166758, describes a combination of crystalline and amorphous polymers. Therefore, the mixture of crystalline PLA and lower melting point PLA described by Reichmann is interpreted as a mixture of two PLA polymers with differing values of heat of cold crystallization.
Claim(s) 54-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2006-291389)5,6 in view of Longdon (US 2020/0032437) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kikutani (US 2019/0003082)2.
With respect to claims 54-55, Takano in view of Longdon teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above. Takano further teaches the presence of an aliphatic bisamide and/or alkyl-substituted aliphatic monoamide on the fibers surface reduces the frictional resistance of the fiber surface (paragraph [0017]).
Takano in view of Longdon is silent as to the additive corresponding to the general formula (i), wherein R1 is a saturated aliphatic hydrocarbon chain having a length of 10 to 30 carbons, specifically behenamide.
Kikutani teaches a biodegradable aliphatic polyester fiber and a method for producing the same (paragraph [0001]). The fiber includes a lubricant to make the fibers obtained have lubricity, especially external lubricity (paragraph [0056]). The lubricant may be behenic amid or stearic acid (paragraph [0056]) such as ethylenebisstearic acid amide (paragraph [0058]).
Since both Takano in view of Longdon and Kikutani teach biodegradable aliphatic polyester fibers comprising ethylene bisstearamide lubricants it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the amide additive of Takano to be behenamide because both behenamide and ethylene bisstearamide are known in the art as suitable lubricants for aliphatic polyester fibers and the substitution would yield the predictable result of a fiber with external lubricity. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Response – Drawings
The objections to the drawings have been overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the specification in the response received on June 4, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 49, 54, and 56 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed June 4, 2026.
The rejections of claims 37-38 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 have been overcome by the cancellation of the claims in the response filed June 4, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §102
The rejections of:
claim(s) 24-38, 40-44, 46-48, and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano (JP 2006-291389) and
claim(s) 45 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2006-291389)
have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed June 4, 2026
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's arguments are all with respect to Takano (JP 2006-291389) not teaching the new claim amendments, specifically the newly added structural feature wherein the first component comprises polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT) in an amount not exceeding 5 wt.% of the total amount of the first component in claim 24. The newly added reference Longdon (US 2020/0032437) is used in combination with Takano to address the newly added limitations. The Applicant's arguments are therefore moot as they do not address the combination of references used in the rejections of the amended claims presented above.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Machine translation used as reference
2 Previously presented
3 Machine translation used as reference
4 Previously presented
5 Machine translation used as reference
6 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights