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 .
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 1 and dependent claims 2-16 as well as claims 17-20 which incorporate claim 1 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 1 describes the synthetic staple fibers comprise of polypropylene polymer matrix, an ethylene-propylene copolymer and fatty acid amide. It is not clear what the term “matrix” means in the scope of the claim. Matrix is typically a polymer that encapsulates a fiber reinforcement. In the instant case, the specification describes a polymer composition containing polypropylene, ethylene-propylene copolymer and fatty acid amide.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “matrix” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a component of the composition,” while the accepted meaning is “the continuous polymer phase in which reinforcement fibers reside.” Or as dictionary.com 9, states “the main component of a composite material, such as the plastic in a fibre-reinforced plastic”
The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The specification describes the method wherein “melting a polypropylene polymer matrix, an ethylene propylene copolymer and a fatty acid amide together;”[0033] and the polypropylene polymer matrix as the main component [0043]-[0049] which is understood to mean that all of the components are melted together.
For purposes of examination, the term matrix is interpreted to mean the main component in the composition that is used to form the fibers.
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, 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 20140088535).
Xu is directed to a nonwoven article which includes a layer of spunbond fibers. The fibers of the nonwoven material are made of a composition that includes a first polyolefin, a second polyolefin that is a propylene copolymer and is different from the first polyolefin and a softness enhancer. The layer of fibers includes calendaring bonds (ABST).
Xu teaches suitable nonwoven web material of the invention included but are not limited to spunbond, meltblown, carded air-laid, dry-laid, wet-laid staple fibers [0083].
Xu teaches it would have been obvious to produce a carded, staple fiber web from the various known types of nonwoven webs.
Xu teaches the fibers are made from a blend of a first polyolefin and second polyolefin where the first polyolefin may be polypropylene homopolymer. The second polyolefin comprising a propylene copolymer can provide advantageous properties to the nonwoven. A "propylene copolymer" includes at least two different types of monomer units, one of which is propylene. Suitable examples of monomer units include ethylene and higher alpha-olefins ranging from C4-C20, such as, 1-butene, 4-methyl-1-Xu teaches preferably the copolymer is ethylene is copolymerized with propylene, so that the propylene copolymer includes propylene units (units on the polymer chain derived from propylene monomers) and ethylene units (units on the polymer chain derived from ethylene monomers) [0112].
Xu teaches the propylene copolymer (propylene-ethylene copolymer) is employed in amounts of 1-35%. The comonomer content is adjusted so that the propylene-alpha-olefin copolymer has preferably a heat of fusion of 75 g/g or less, melting point of 100C or less and crystallinity of 2% to about 65% [0113].
Xu teaches the fibers comprise a first polyolefin of polypropylene, which is equated with the claimed polypropylene polymer matrix and a second polyolefin of polypropylene-ethylene copolymer. The first propylene is equated with the polymer matrix as it is the greater amount of the blend.
Xu teaches the addition of a softness enhancer additive can be advantageous to reduce the tacky or rubbery feel of fibers that are made of a composition that includes a blend of the first and second polyolefin previously described [0122]. The softness enhancer can be added in amounts of 0.01-10% [0123]. The softness enhancer can be a fatty acid amide [0124].
Xu teaches a batt of fibers may be formed from any of these resin by conventional methods such as carding, meltblowing, spunlaying, airlaying, wet-laying etc. Preferred is a spunbond method. The batt is then calendar-bonded to form the nonwoven web [0132].
Xu’s examples are made in spunbond form and not specific to the carded staple fiber web. Xu teaches other options for the fibers are staple fibers of carded air-laid or wet-laid webs.
As to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a carded calendared nonwoven of staple fibers from a blend of polypropylene, ethylene-propylene copolymer and a fatty acid amide motivated to softening the blend and reduce the rubbery feel.
As to claims 1 and 5, Xu is silent with regard to the enthalpy of crystallization of the ethylene-propylene copolymer. Xu teaches the crystallinity of 2% to about 65% of isotactic propylene. As Xu teaches the same composition and structure as claimed it is reasonable to presume that property is inherent to Xu. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claims 6 and 7, Xu teaches the average and number average molecular weight of the propylene-alpha-olefin (propylene-ethylene copolymer) can range from 10,000-1,000,000 and 2500-250000 respectively. Xu does not measure the Peak Molecular Weight Measurement Method.
As Xu teaches the same composition and structure as claimed and average and number average molecular weight that overlap the peak molecular weight range, therefore it is reasonable to presume that molecular weight is inherent to Xu. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claims 8 and 9, Xu teaches the nonwoven can be formed of blends of propylene homopolymer and propylene-ethylene copolymers in the fibrous nonwoven, wherein the propylene is in composition in amounts of at least 60% up to at least 80% and the propylene copolymer is present in amounts of at least 10%, 12% and 14 weight %. A propylene copolymer is soft to touch and the nonwoven textile produced from it has good drapeability and is easy to bend. On the other hand polypropylene provides strength and reduces the plasticity of the material. The described composition is generally drapable and soft but also maintains the required mechanical properties, however can be described as rough to the tough or rubbery [0121].
Xu teaches the composition that overlaps the claimed range of 5-25% ethylene-propylene copolymer in the fibers. 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).
As to claim 10, Xu teaches the fatty acid amide is oleamide or erucamide [0127] as claimed.
As to claims 11 and 12, Xu teaches the softness enhancer can be added in amounts of 0.01-10% [0123] which overlaps the claimed range of at least 0.05% (claim 11) and 0.1-2% (claim 12). 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).
As to claim 13, Xu teaches addition of a surfactant to provide hydrophilic surface [0087].
As to claim 14, Xu teaches embodiments that do not include bicomponent fibers in examples 8 [0242], 15 [0251], 21 [0260]. However these embodiments are not the carded staple fiber web, but as Xu teaches carded webs are an alternative to the spunbonds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a nonwoven of staple fibers from a blend of polypropylene, ethylene-propylene copolymer and a fatty acid amide motivated to softening the blend and reduce the rubbery feel.
As to claim 15, Xu teaches the nonwoven webs have basis weights of 6 to 50 gsm [0133] which overlaps the claimed range of 10-40 gsm. 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).
Xu teaches that relatively higher basis weight, while having relatively greater apparent caliper and loft, also has relatively greater cost. On the other hand, relatively lower basis weight, has lower cost, but adds to the difficulty of providing for a backsheet that has dramatic visual 3-dimensional appearance following compression of the article in a package, and has suitable mechanical properties. Xu teaches the combination of features described herein strikes a good balance between controlling material costs while providing a dramatic visual 3-dimensional appearance and suitable mechanical properties. Xu teaches consolidating bond shapes and patterns may be particularly useful in applications of nonwovens of relatively low basis weights and such features provide a way to enhance loft while reducing, basis weight. Xu teaches applications of basis weight from 6.0 to 50 gsm, more preferably from 8.0 to 35 gsm, even more preferably from 9.0 to 25 gsm, and still more preferably from 10 to 20 gsm may be used [0133].
As to claim 16, Xu teaches the coefficient of friction is unit-less [0316] and presented in Table 2 as less than 0.65 [0327]. As shown in Table 2, the COF is 0.2988 – 0.6192.
Claims 2, 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 20140088535) in view of Bais-Singh et al (WO 9946119).
As to claims 2, 3 and 18, Xu does not teach the nonwoven comprises natural fibers.
Bais-Singh is directed to a nonwoven composite combines a support layer (12) with at least one carded fiber layer, and the combined layers are thermally bonded together between calendar rolls. The support layer consists of a prebonded thermal-bond nonwoven which provides a softer, more drapable hand. The preferred trilaminate wipe product, the carded fiber layers (10a and 10b on exterior of support layer) are comprised of a blend of absorbent, resilient and soft fibers. In a preferred bilaminate skin care product, the carded fiber layer is bonded with a different bond pattern than that of the prebonded thermal-bond support layer, to produce a dual textured product (ABST).
The fibers of the carded fiber layers (10a and 10b) comprise fibers preferably made of absorbent, resilient and binder fibers including thermoplastic fibers, for example, polypropylene, polyester, polyethylene, or blends thereof. Cellulosic fibers (e.g., rayon or cotton) may also be blended with the thermoplastic fibers. The cellulosic fibers are equated with natural fibers as cotton is a naturally grown fiber. Carded nonwoven layers in accordance with this invention each have a basis weight in the range of 5 - 60 grams per square yard (gsy) , preferably 12 - 45 gsy. A listing of several preferred fibers and their properties is given in Tables 4, 5 and 5A (page 9, lines 21-31).
Bais-Singh teaches a carded nonwoven layer made from a blend of cellulosic fibers of rayon or cotton (equated with natural) and thermoplastic fibers.
Bais-Singh teaches the use is for a skin care product with calendar bonding process line as shown in Fig. 2 is fed with a prebonded thermal-bond nonwoven fabric used as the support layer 12. One layer of carded fibers can be combined on one side of the prebonded thermal -bonded nonwoven to form a bilaminate product, or two - 10 - layers may be combined with a thermal -bond nonwoven to form a trilaminate product. The thermal -bond nonwoven can be previously bonded on the same bonding line, thereby producing a support layer of the same dimensions that will be used for the second, composite bonding step. The calender rolls can have any geometries including, but not limited to, the Novonette #4, Novonette #2, Novonette #1, repeating 7 pt . dot pattern and Slash pattern. The total bond area can be varied in the range of 5 - 50%. Examples of products produced by this process for skin care applications are given below (page 9, lines 32-37, page 10, lines 1-11).
An acne pad trilaminate was made by the thermal bonding process combining a prebonded thermal -bond nonwoven as the support layer with a blend of absorbent and resilient fibers for the outer layers. The composition and physical properties of two composite examples are summarized in Table 1. In the two trials, different fiber blends were used in the top and bottom layers. However, the same blend composition may be used on both sides (page 10, lines 13-24).
In these examples, the support layer was composed of a blend of rayon and thermoplastic fibers thermally bonded together. A higher percentage of rayon fibers was used in the support layer as compared to the two outer layers. This allowed the product to maintain high absorbency and softness, while fuzz generation on the surface is reduced (more rayon on the surface tends to generate more fuzz) . The sink time performance was also good (page 10, lines 24-32).
Examples are made with 80% polypropylene and 20% rayon (page 19) (alternately as taught earlier that cotton or other cellulose fiber can be used in view of rayon). 20% overlaps the claimed range of 5-20% (claim 2).
Xu is silent with regard to the enthalpy of crystallization of the ethylene-propylene copolymer and the dynamic coefficient of friction. Xu teaches the crystallinity of 2% to about 65% of isotactic propylene. As Xu teaches the same composition and structure as claimed it is reasonable to presume that property is inherent to Xu. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claims 2, 3 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a blend of cellulosic (natural) fibers with thermoplastic fibers motivated to provide for absorbency of the cellulosic fibers yet low fuzz generation provided by the thermoplastic fibers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 20140088535) in view of Jensen et al (US 5958806).
As to claim 17, Xu teaches the steps of making the nonwoven include: combining the polypropylene homopolymer, propylene copolymer and softener enhancer addition of erucamide wherein the composition is melted at 252°C and melt spun and collected on a moving belt and then calendared on heating rollers [0329]. Xu teaches the process of calendaring the webs with a bond shape with a greatest measurable length and measurable width [0018]. The calendar is equated with between two roll and bond shapes are equated with bonding points on the web.
The optional feature of mixing with natural fibers is not required by the claim.
While Xu teaches alternate methods of making, such as carding staple fiber webs, Xu does not explicitly teach the process of carding.
Jensen is directed to a method for producing cardable, hydrophobic polyolefin-based staple fibers by applying to spun filaments a first spin finish and a second spin finish, and crimping, drying and cutting the filaments to obtain staple fibers; as well as textured, cardable, polyolefin-based staple fibers prepared by the method and hydrophobic nonwoven materials produced from such fibers. The fibers are able to be carded at extremely high speeds and are particularly suitable for use in the preparation of thermally bonded hydrophobic nonwoven fabrics e.g., for disposable diapers, feminine hygienic products and medical products (col. 3, lines 14-25).
Jensen teaches the carded nonwovens are thermally bonded via calendar rollers (col. 16, lines 42-58).
Jensen teaches the process is well suited for polypropylene fibers that are carded and the thermally bonded web has ratio of tensile strength in the machine direction and tensile strength in the cross direction is at most 6. The randomization of the fibers expressed as the ratio between two tensile strengths should be as close to 1 as possible (col. 16, lines 8-30). Jensen teaches the web has a bondability index being defined as the square root of the product in the machine direction strength and cross direction strength at standard 20 gsm nonwoven. For polypropylene, the bondability index is at least 15 N/5 cm depending on carding speed (col. 16, lines 65-67; col. 17, lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a carded nonwoven via the process steps motivated to produce staple fiber nonwoven web with low ratio of tensile strengths and good bondability index.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 20140088535) in view of Bais-Singh et al (WO 9946119) and in further view Jensen et al (US 5958806).
As to claim 19, Xu differs and does not teach a mixture with natural fibers.
Bais-Singh teaches blending thermoplastic fibers with cellulosic (cotton) fibers which are equated with natural fibers in order to provide for absorbency as noted under the rejection over claim 18.
Xu in view of Bais-Singh differ and do not teach the claimed method steps.
Jensen is directed to a method for producing cardable, hydrophobic polyolefin-based staple fibers by applying to spun filaments a first spin finish and a second spin finish, and crimping, drying and cutting the filaments to obtain staple fibers; as well as textured, cardable, polyolefin-based staple fibers prepared by the method and hydrophobic nonwoven materials produced from such fibers. The fibers are able to be carded at extremely high speeds and are particularly suitable for use in the preparation of thermally bonded hydrophobic nonwoven fabrics e.g., for disposable diapers, feminine hygienic products and medical products (col. 3, lines 14-25).
Jensen teaches the fibers are spun and then stretched and then cut (col. 2, lines 38-52).
Jensen teaches the carded nonwovens are thermally bonded via calendar rollers (col. 16, lines 42-58).
Jensen teaches the process is well suited for polypropylene fibers that are carded and the thermally bonded web has ratio of tensile strength in the machine direction and tensile strength in the cross direction is at most 6. The randomization of the fibers expressed as the ratio between two tensile strengths should be as close to 1 as possible (col. 16, lines 8-30). Jensen teaches the web has a bondability index being defined as the square root of the product in the machine direction strength and cross direction strength at standard 20 gsm nonwoven. For polypropylene, the bondability index is at least 15 N/5 cm depending on carding speed (col. 16, lines 65-67; col. 17, lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a carded nonwoven via the process steps motivated to produce staple fiber nonwoven web with low ratio of tensile strengths and good bondability index.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 20140088535) in view of Bais-Singh et al (WO 9946119) and in further view Jensen et al (US 5958806) and in further view of Bansal (US 20050241745) as evidenced by Marmon (US 5965468).
As to claim 20, Xu teaches the composition of propylene, propylene ethylene copolymer and the fatty acid amide are combined and melted to flow through spinnerets [0333]. Xu differs and does not teach the process as claimed.
Bais-Singh teaches blending thermoplastic propylene stable fibers with cellulosic (natural) fibers).
Jensen teaches the process of spinning the fiber, stretching and then cutting. Jensen does not teach stretching to a first density and then stretching to a second linear density.
Bansal is directed to a method of making fine filaments. Bansal teaches the method produces spunbond fibers having reduced diameters. The fibers are re-heated and drawn in a secondary drawing step after quenching to provide fibers having at least a 5% reduction in average fiber diameter compared to fibers that have not been re-heated and drawn in a secondary drawing step (ABST).
Bansal teaches drawing the filaments in a first drawing step[0010];
quenching the drawn filaments [0011];
passing the quenched filaments through a pneumatic draw jet [0012],
supplying the draw jet with a gaseous stream, the gaseous stream applying a tension to the filaments as the filaments and the gaseous stream pass through and exit the draw jet [0013];
heating the filaments while under the tension applied by the gaseous stream to a temperature sufficient to draw the filaments in a second drawing step thereby reducing the average filament diameter by at least 5 percent compared to the average filament diameter that is achieved when the filaments are not heated and drawn in a second drawing step in an otherwise identical process [0014];
Bansal teaches additional drawing (stretching) steps that reduce the diameter. Diameter is related to linear density (denier or dtex) and the linear density can be calculated for fibers with a round cross-section, as fiber diameter squared multiplied by the density in grams/cc multiped by 0.00707 as evidenced by Marmon.
Marmon teaches fiber linear density is denier, which is defined as grams per 9000 meters of a fiber and may be calculated, for fibers having a round cross-section, as fiber diameter in microns squared, multiplied by the density in grams/cc, multiplied by 0.00707. A lower linear density indicates a finer fiber and a higher linear density indicates a thicker or heavier fiber (col. 2 and 3, lines 65-68 and 1-12).
Bansal teaches the diameter, and therefore linear density, is reduced by 5% with each drawing step. Therefore the first linear density is 5% greater than the second linear density and overlaps the claim range of no more than 40% larger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to draw a filament in an additional stage motivated to further reduce the linear density to produce a finer fiber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 19 and 20 are allowed.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-3, 5-16 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of copending Application No. 18657875 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant invention and the copending application claim a carded calendared nonwoven made from synthetic staple fibers comprising a polypropylene polymer matrix, at least one ethylene-propylene copolymer at least one fatty acid amide (claim 1) and natural fibers (claim 2) with an enthalpy of crystallization at least about 10 J/g (claims 4 and 5) and a Peak Molecular weight above 100,000 g/mol (claim 6 and 7) and 5-25% ethylene propylene copolymer of stable fibers (claim 8) a fatty acid amide (claim 10 and 12) and a surfactant (claim 13) and free of bicomponent fibers (claim 14) and a basis weight of 10 to 40 gsm (claim 15) and a coefficient of friction less than 0.65 (claim 16).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the term matrix have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(d) over claims 19 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the Xu does not teach the properties of enthalpy of crystallization of the ethylene-propylene copolymer. In the absence of evidence of an unexpected result, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues claim 2, 3, and 18 that the claimed combination provides for superior softness and demonstrated by lower dynamic coefficient of friction values in Table 1 examples 1-3. With respect to claim 18, the claim is indicated as allowable in view of the unexpected softness.
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 JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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 STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights