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 I in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13-15, 17, 21-23 and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2011/0151738 to Moore or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2011/0151738 to Moore.
Claim 1, Moore discloses a spunbond nonwoven fabric comprising a plurality of fibers comprised of at least one plant-derived polymer and wherein the filaments are air through bonded, and wherein the plurality of fibers are optionally further bonded via calender bonding (see entire document including [0005], [0020], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0028], [0043], [0072] and [0093]). It is noted that 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.
Claim 2, the plant-derived polymer is selected from the group consisting of bio-based aliphatic polyesters, blends of bio-based aliphatic polyesters, and copolymers of bio-based aliphatic polyesters ([0020], [0021] and [0023]).
Claims 3 and 27, the plant-derived polymer includes polyethylene, polypropylene, blends thereof, or copolymers thereof ([0020], [0021], [0023]). It is noted that 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. For example, polypropylene made from plants is chemically identical to polypropylene made from petroleum. Both share the exact same molecular structure. Plus, Moore discloses that the method of making the polypropylene is not critical [0153] and discloses that there is a desire in the art to replace petroleum-based polypropylene with renewable plant-based polymers [0005]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for Moore to derive the polypropylene from a bio source, as claimed, to be meet the need in the art and/or be environmentally friendly.
Claim 6, the plant-derived polymer comprises polybutylene succinate, polyethylene succinate, polybutylene adipate, polyethylene adipate, and polytetramethylene adipate/terephthalate ([0020], [0021] and [0023]).
Claim 7, the plurality of fibers have a sheath/core configuration in which the sheath comprises a polylactic acid and a core comprising polylactic acid ([0020], [0021], [0023], [0036] and [0058]).
Claim 9, the plurality of fibers comprise a hydrophobic polymeric blend of a bio-based aliphatic polyester and a secondary alkane sulfonate ([0020], [0021], [0023], [0039]-[0043] and [0212]-[0214]). Moore does not appear to specifically mention the claimed property but considering that Moore discloses a substantially identical nonwoven fabric in terms of structure and fiber material, the claimed property appears to be inherent. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 10 and 28, Moore does not appear to specifically mention the claimed properties but considering that Moore discloses a substantially identical nonwoven fabric in terms of structure and fiber material, the claimed properties appear to be inherent.
Claim 13, Moore discloses an absorbent article comprising the fabric of claim 1 ([0033]-[0035]).
Claim 14, Moore discloses a composite fabric comprising a plurality of layers in which at least one of the layers comprises the fabric of claim 1, and wherein one or more additional layers of the composite fabric are selected from the group consisting of a carded layer, a meltblown layer, a spunbond layer, an air laid layer, a resin bonded layer, a spunlace layer, and a cellulose layer [0033].
Claim 15, at least one of the layers comprises a meltblown nonwoven fabric [0033].
Claim 17, the composite fabric has a structure selected from the group consisting of a spunbond-meltblown (SM) composite, a spunbond-meltblown-spunbond (SMS) composite, and a spunbond-meltblown-meltblown- spunbond (SMMS) composite [0033].
Claim 21, Moore discloses a nonwoven fabric comprising a plurality of fibers that are bonded to each other to form a coherent web, wherein the fibers comprise a polymeric blend comprising a biobased aliphatic polyester and a secondary alkane sulfonate, wherein the amount of secondary alkane sulfonate in the polymeric blend is from about 0.0125 to 2.5 weight percent, based on the total weight of the blend (see entire document including [0005], [0020], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0028], [0039]-[0043], [0072], [0093], [0195] and [0212]-[0214]). Moore does not appear to specifically mention the claimed property but considering that Moore discloses a substantially identical nonwoven fabric in terms of structure and fiber material, the claimed property appears to be inherent. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 22, the fibers consist of a polymeric blend consisting of a biobased aliphatic polyester and a secondary alkane sulfonate ([0005], [0020], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0028], [0039]-[0043], [0072], [0093], [0195] and [0212]-[0214]). It is noted that the specification indicates that up to 5% additives may be present ([0056] and [0057]). Therefore, although Moore includes polypropylene, the polypropylene is an additive [0049] and may be present in an amount of less than 5% ([0020] and [0156]).
Claim 23, the plurality of fibers comprise bicomponent fibers having a sheath-core configuration in which at least the sheath comprises a polymer blend of the plant-derived polymer and a secondary alkane sulfonate, and wherein the amount of the secondary alkane sulfonate in the sheath is from 0.1 to 0.75 weight percent, based on the total weight of the polymer blend, and the amount of secondary alkane sulfonate in the nonwoven fabric is from 0.03 to 0.2250, based on the total weight of the nonwoven fabric ([0005], [0020], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0027], [0028], [0036], [0039]-[0043], [0058], [0072], [0093], [0195] and [0212]-[0214]).
Claim 26, the plant-derived polymer comprises one or more of polylactide acid (PLA), polybutylene succinate (PBS) or polybutylene succinate co-adipate (PBSA), poly(ε-caprolactone), polyhydroxyalkanoates, polyhydroxybutyrates, poly-(hydroxybutyrate-co- hydroxyvaleterate), poly-(hydroxybutyrate-co- polyhydroxyhexanoate), polyglycolic acid polyethylene succinate, polybutylene adipate, polyethylene adipate, and polytetramethylene adipate/terephthalate [0023].
Claim 29, the fibers have a bicomponent structure comprising a first polymer component comprising a first plant-derived polymer and a second polymer component comprising a second plant-derived polymer. For example, Moore discloses that two or more plant-derived polymers may be present which is considered a bicomponent structure ([0020]-[0023]). Further, Moore discloses that the fibers may have a core/sheath construction ([0036], [0058], [0307] and [0317]) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the sheath and core from any of the material(s) disclosed by Moore, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claims 30 and 31, the first polymer component may comprise polylactide acid (PLA) and the second polymer component may comprise polybutylene succinate (PBS), which inherently has a different melting point than PLA [0023]. Further, Moore discloses that the fibers may have a core/sheath construction ([0036], [0058], [0307] and [0317]) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the sheath and core from any of the material(s) disclosed by Moore, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Conclusion
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 18/196,794. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
