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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-11, in the reply filed on November 6, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed February 19, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. For example, no English translation or explanation of relevance has been provided for JP 58157529 and Japan Office Action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: - Para 0029 of publish application using the acronym “EXT” without providing a definition.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-11 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 8 recites the limitation “[a] meltblown nonwoven fabric comprising 0.3 to 3.0 mol% of isophthalic acid (IPA).” It is unclear the basis for the molar percent. Typically, molar ratio are used to reference reactant and forming larger polymers. It is unclear if the claim contains the isophthalic acid in acid form or allows for its presence as a reactant in a larger molecule, such as copolymerized. The originally filed disclosure discusses the molecular percent in relation to a melt of the crystallized polyester flake that is used to form the nonwoven fibers (see para 0007-0008, 0031-0032, 0039 of the published application). For the purpose of prior art application and compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 8 as encompassing the IPA being present as an acid additive or as a copolymerized unit and based on the polymer used to form the nonwoven
Claims 9-11 are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claims.
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.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,451,437 to Insley in view of KR 930003220 to Han.
NOTE: The English Machine translation of KR 930003220 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 8-11, Insley teaches a conformable nonwoven web containing microfibers formed by a melt-blowing process having a basis weight in the range of about 100 to 400 g/m2 formed of polyester such as polyethylene terephthalate (Insley, abstract, col. 2 line 54- col. 4 line 37), reading on a meltblown nonwoven fabric. Insley teaches the nonwoven containing microfibers that have an average fiber diameter of about 5 to 8 micrometers (claim 10) (Id., col. 3 lines 6-22).
Insley does not explicitly teach the nonwoven formed of polyester fibers, such as polyethylene terephthalate, comprising 0.3 to 3.0 mol% of isophthalic acid.
However, Han teaches a basic dyeable polyester comprising an amount of isophthalic in the fiber of 1.0-2.0 mol% (Han, abstract, p. 3). Han teaches if less than 1.0 mol%, the dyeability is poor and if exceed 2.0%, the fiber manufacturing process and tensile strength become poor (Id., p. 3). Han teaches the copolymerized resin being formed from dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene glycol (Id., p. 3), reading on a copolymerized polyethylene terephthalate (polyester).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the nonwoven of Insley, wherein the nonwoven web of polyester fiber has an amount of isophthalic in the fiber of 1.0-2.0 mol% as taught by Han, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known polyethylene terephthalate based polyester predictably suitable for use in forming fibers and by the desire to impart dyability without negatively impacting the process or tensile strength.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “wherein the meltblown nonwoven fabric is manufactured by spinning a polyester flake melt” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. Insley teaches the molten polymer being formed through a die to form the fibers (Insley, col. 4 lines 13-29). As the polymer is molten, whether the polyester was flake form prior to melting would not necessarily result in a structure distinction, absent evidence to the contrary. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches the nonwoven web having a flexural rigidity low enough to enable the sleeve to be conformable, generally less than about 40 gram-centimeters (Insley, col. 4 lines 6-13). The prior art combination teaches the tubular body formed using the nonwoven web having a tensile strength greater than 2 N/cm, preferably 3 to 20 N/cm (Id., col. 6 line 57-col. 7 line 6).
The prior art combination is silent with regards to the rigidity being 1.3 to 1.5 MPa when measured according to KS M 6518 specification. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to form the nonwoven of the prior art combination, wherein the rigidity is adjust, such as within the claimed range, based on the desired confirmability and strength of the nonwoven.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2004/0214984 to Keep in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0327705 to Clark.
Regarding claim 8-10, Keep teaches a meltblown nonwoven fabric formed from a fiber composition comprising a polyester fiber reacted from dicarboxylic acid residues comprising 60 to 100 mole%, more preferably about 90 to 100 mole %, of a first dicarboxylic acid residue, specifically terephthalic acid, and from 0 to about 40%, more preferably from about 0 to 10 mole %, of a second dicarboxylic acid residue, preferably isophthalic acid, with diol residues (Keep, abstract, para 0006-0021, 0032, 0034). Keep teaches a specific example using 95% mole terephthalic acid, 5 % isophthalic acid, and 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol. At a 1:1 dicarboxylic acid:diol ratio, that reads on 2.5 mol% of the isophthalic acid in the polyester based on the total moles used to form the polyester. Keep teaches the nonwoven having high temperature resistance, the stabilized fiber are useful in industrial applications such as dryer felts, steamer felts, filters, electrical motor housing, and high temperature insulation (Id., para 0019, 0010).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 0.3 to 3.0 mol% of isophthalic, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the mol% of isophthalic acid, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Keep is silent with regards to the basis weight of the meltblown fabric, specifically being 100 to 900 gsm.
However, Clark teaches a in situ core/skin nonwoven material formed by collecting polymer melt filaments, such as polyester polyethylene terephthalate filaments and meltblown filaments, on a heat collector having sound dampening properties (Clark, para 0010-0013, 0049, 0052, 0067, 0074, 0083-0084). Clark teaches the in situ generated core and skin structure mat provide rigidity in the resultant nonwoven material (Id., para 0049, 0053, 0171). Clark teaches the being about 100 g/m2 to 750 g/m2 (Id., para 0066, 0176, 0181). Clark teaches the nonwoven being use in insulation product, such as sound and vibration, filters, automotive applications (Id., para 0111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the meltblown nonwoven of Keep, wherein the basis weight is from about 100 g/m2 to 750 g/m2 as taught by Clark, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known basis weight for nonwoven material comprising polyester, such as polyethylene terephthalate, and meltblown fiber predictably suitable for use in insulation, filter, and automotive applications.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art combination teaches the polyester fibers being formed by blend blending (Keep, abstract). The limitation “wherein the meltblown nonwoven fabric is manufactured by spinning a polyester flake melt” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. The prior art teaches the formation of a polyester melt to form the fiber. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches a meltblown nonwoven core having a diameter for about 500 nm to an upper limit of about 10 microns Clark, para 0059), with a specific embodiment having size ranging from about 0.4 micron to about 3.5 micron (Id., para 0160-0162), substantially overlapping with the claimed range of 0.5 to 20 microns. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the diameter, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2004/0214984 to Keep in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0327705 to Clark, as applied to claims 8-10 above, further in view of Bending Rigidity of Thermally Bonded Nonwoven Structures to Rawal, WO 2016/125645 to Shimura, and Overview and Analysis of the Meltblown Process and Parameters to Dutton.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art teaches the creation of a core and skin structure can provide rigidity (Clark, para 0049, 0053).
The prior art combination is silent with regards to the rigidity being 1.3 to 1.5 MPa when measured according to KS M 6518.
However, Rawal teaches bending rigidity being one of the most important parameters affecting the fabric drape characteristics and teaches the parameters affecting the rigidity including volume fraction, modulus, orientation and thermal bonding (Rawal, abstract). Shimura teaches there is a correlation between flexural modulus rigidity and sound absorption (Shimura, p. 4). While Shimura’s discussions is with regards to glass fiber sound absorbing body, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would appreciate that the correlation would also exist with polymeric fiber sound absorption materials. Additionally, Dutton summarizes the effect of various process parameters on the properties of meltblown nonwoven and teaches bending rigidity being affected by polymer flow rate, die temperature, and air pressure (Dutton, abstract, Table 11). Therefore, the prior art teaches rigidity is an optimizable feature with regards to the desired fabric drape, or conformability, as well as sound absorption properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the meltblown nonwoven of prior art combination, wherein the rigidity is optimized, such as within the claimed range, by adjusting the process parameters as taught Clark, Rawal, and Dutton, motivated by the desire to predictably influence the sound absorption properties of the nonwoven as taught by Shimura as well as based on the desired drape/conformability properties as taught by Rawal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 100471535 to Takano teaches a spun polyester fiber having excellent strength and dyeability with good spinning and teaches the polyester using terephthalic acid or dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene glycol with the content of isophthalic acid being added is less than 1 mol%, it is not expected to improve radioactivity and when it is added in excess of 5 mol%, the strength is sharply lowered, which is not preferable, as well as teaches the use of isophthalic acid as an additive together with one component of trimellitic acid, trimesic acid, or trimellitic anhydride, which has been conventionally used in a polyester polymer so that the strength, dry heat shrinkage, and dyeability are no reduced, it is possible to prevent the deterioration of radioactivity, which is a problem of the conventional manufacturing method without adding isophthalic acid and improve productivity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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 GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789