DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 24-59 in the reply filed on February 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 1-23, 39, and 50 are cancelled, claims 24 and 51 are amended, and claims 60-61 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 24-38, 40-49, and 51-59 pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the PCT international search report by the European Patent Office have been considered, but will not be listed on any patent resulting from this application because they were not provided on a separate list in compliance with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1). In order to have the references printed on such resulting patent, a separate listing, preferably on a PTO/SB/08 form, must be filed within the set period for reply to this Office action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1" and "5" have both been used to designate spinneret (see e.g., page 19 of the specification as filed at lines 24 and 30).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 49, 54, and 56 are rejected 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 49 depends from claim 24 and recites the limitation “wherein the first component comprises a mixture of aliphatic polyesters with differing values of heat of cold crystallization”. Claim 24 recites the limitation “the first component comprising polylactic acid (PLA) or combinations of at least two types of PLA with differing values of hear of cold crystallization”. The limitation of claim 49 is indefinite because it refers to aliphatic polyesters for the first component rather than the PLA previously recited in claim 24. It is therefore unclear whether claim 49 is broader than claim 24, or is limiting claim 24 to the selection of a combination of at least two types of PLA with differing values of heat of cold crystallization. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as limiting the first component to a combination of at least two types of PLA with differing values of heat of cold crystallization pending further clarification from Applicant.
Claim 54 depends from claim 50 which has been cancelled. Therefore the dependency of claim 54 is unclear. Claim 54 will be interpreted as depending from claim 24 pending further clarification from Applicant.
Claim 56 depends from claim 24 and recites the limitation “wherein the first component is made up by a mixture of PLA and another aliphatic polyester. Claim 24 recites the limitation “the first component comprising polylactic acid (PLA) or combinations of at least two types of PLA with differing values of hear of cold crystallization. The limitation of claim 56 is therefore indefinite because it includes a broader recitation of an aliphatic polyester which was not previously recited as an option in claim 24. It is therefore unclear whether claim 56 is broader than claim 24.
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.
Claims 37-38 are 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.
Claims 37 and 38 fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 24. Claim 24 claims an additive in the first component in an amount of at least 0.1 wt. % and not more than 1 %, however claims 37 and 38 claim additive amounts up to 10% and 5%, respectively.
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 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.
Claim(s) 24-38, 40-44, 46-48, and 51-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano (JP 2006-291389)1.
With respect to claims 24, 34-38, 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.
With respect to claims 25-29, Takano discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses all the limitations of claim 24 above. Takano further discloses the aliphatic bisamide may be saturated (paragraph [0020]).
With respect to claims 32-33, Takano discloses 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 discloses the aliphatic bisamide may be saturated (paragraph [0020]).
With respect to claim 44, Takano discloses all the limitations of claim 24 above. Takano further discloses 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 claims 46-48, Takano discloses 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 discloses 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 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) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2006-291389)2 as applied to claim 24 above.
With respect to claim 45, Takano discloses 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).
Claim(s) 49 and 56-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2006-291389)3 as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Reichmann (US 2004/0166758).
With respect to claims 49 and 56-59, Takano discloses all the limitations of claim 24 above.
Takano 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 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 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)4 as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kikutani (US 2019/0003082).
With respect to claims 54-55, Takano discloses 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 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 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).
Conclusion
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 Machine translation used as reference
3 Machine translation used as reference
4 Machine translation used as reference