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 .
Note
Applicant’s response filed on 12/09/2025 has been fully considered. Claim 1 is amended and claims 1-10 are pending.
Previous formal rejection under 35 USC § 112 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and comments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1: In line 7, the limitation of specific gravity has been replaced with a density. However, neither the current specification nor the original claims provide a support for density, but there is support for specific gravity in the current specification (see at least [0006], [0012], [0018], [0023], [0026], [0029]).
As an additional note: It is well established that a specific gravity has no units because it is a ratio of densities, and the units cancel out.
For the purpose of examination, and in view of the support in the current specification, the claimed value of 1.335 to 1.340 has been considered as specific gravity.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (JP 63-235560 A) in view of Yoshida et al. (WO 2014069562 A1) and Yoshida et al. (WO 2019/181827 A1). Yoshida et al. (US 2021/0008477 A1) has been used as an English Translation for Yoshida et al. (WO 2019/181827 A1).
Claim 1: Ishiwaka teaches a nonwoven sheet made of long fibers of polyethylene terephthalate, wherein the long fibers have a birefringence index (Δn) of 0.01-0.05 (last paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5). Ishiwaka teaches the sheet has a heat shrinkage of 30% or more (2nd full paragraph on page 5). Ishiwaka does not teach the claimed density. However, Yoshida ‘562 teaches a long fiber nonwoven fabric made of polyethylene terephthalate [¶14], wherein fibers of the long fiber nonwoven fabric have a specific gravity of 1.30-1.38 [¶21]. Ishikawa and Yoshida ‘562 are analogous art because they are from the same filed of endeavor that is the nonwoven fabric art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Yoshida ‘562, (i.e., selecting fibers having a specific gravity of 1.30-1.38) with the invention of Ishiwaka, and the motivation would be, as Yoshida ‘562 suggested, to control the crystallinity of the fibers [¶21].
Ishiwaka does not teach the claimed basis weight. However, Yoshida ‘477 teaches a long fiber nonwoven fabric made of polyethylene terephthalate [0017], wherein fibers of the long fiber nonwoven fabric have a basis weight of 90-120 g/m2 (abstract and [0021]). Ishikawa and Yoshida ‘477 are analogous art because they are from the same filed of endeavor that is the nonwoven fabric art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Yoshida ‘477, (i.e., selecting fibers having a basis weight of 50-120 g/m2) with the invention of Ishiwaka, and the motivation would be, as Yoshida ‘477 suggested, to control rigidity and secure shape retention property [0005].
Claims 2 and 7: With respect to a ratio of heat shrinkage rate in MD to heat shrinkage rate in TD, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the ratio, and the motivation would be to control dimension stability and heat resistance. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 3: Ishiwaka teaches involving spinning speed and thermocompression bonding steps in making the fabric sheet (last paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7).
Claims 4 and 8: Ishiwaka teaches a bag shaped product comprising the nonwoven sheet (1st full paragraph on page 4).
Claims 5 and 9: With respect to joining strength, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the joining strength, and the motivation would be to control moldability. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 6 and 10: Ishiwaka teaches the fabric sheet is widely used for molding medical material and sustained-release container of drugs (last paragraph on page 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The reference of Yoshida ‘477 teaches the claimed basis weight.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
December 29, 2025
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785