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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-4, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al. (WO 2017/094850) in view of Knowlson et al. (US 2018/0326699), Sugawara (JPH1026434) and Angadjivand et al. (US 2008/0315454).
Regarding claim 1, Honda teaches a sheet for a fiber-reinforced plastic molded body (“a fiber aggregate for molding”) (Paragraph [0001]). The sheet comprises reinforcing fibers derived from organic sources and a thermoplastic resin in addition to a binder component (“a fiber component and a thermal fusion bonding resin component”) (Paragraph [0009]; [0030]). The reinforcing fibers derived from organic sources may be a pulp fiber and the thermoplastic resin may be a polypropylene resin and may be in the form of a thermoplastic resin fiber (“the fiber component contains a pulp fiber and a polypropylene fiber”) (Paragraphs [0021]-[0027]). The binder component may be present in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 40 mass% and may be formed from a variety of resin-based components (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). The sheet has a ratio (T/Y) of a tensile strength in a first direction (T) and a tensile strength in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Y) is 0.4 to 2.5 (Paragraph [0012]).
Furthermore, Honda fails to teach the inclusion of any fine fibers in the pulp fiber, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as teaching the ratio of fine fiber in the pulp fiber being 0%, which is less than 30%.
Honda further teaches the reinforcing fibers having a length of 0.1 mm to 15 mm and increase the strength of fiber-reinforced plastic molded products (“the pulp fiber has an average fiber length of 0.1 mm or longer and 2.5 mm or shorter”) (Paragraphs [0003]; [0023]).
Honda is silent with respect to the reinforcing fibers having an average fiber width of 1 micron or larger and 50 microns or smaller.
Sugawara teaches fiber reinforced decorative molding sheets (Paragraph [0001]). The sheets include reinforcing fibers which may be from natural resources such as cotton and hemp with diameters of 1 to 50 microns in order to maintain impact resistance without impairing surface smoothness (Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the organic reinforcing fibers of Honda to have diameters of 1 to 50 microns in order to maintain impact resistance without impairing surface smoothness as taught by Sugawara.
Honda is silent with respect to the polypropylene fibers having a polypropylene fiber with an average fiber diameter of 1 micron or larger and 16 microns or smaller and a polypropylene fiber having an average fiber diameter of larger than 16 microns and 50 microns or smaller.
Angadjivand teaches an intermingled mixture of staple fibers and meltblown fibers (Paragraph [0007]). The melt blown fibers may have a combination of mesofibers and microfibers wherein the mesofibers impart mechanical strength and integrity to the web and microfibers aid in the capture and filtration of fine particles (Paragraph [0007]). The mesofibers have diameters of greater than 10 microns and the microfibers have diameters of 10 microns or less (Paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the sheets of Honda such that the polypropylene fibers are formed from a combination of mesofibers, having diameters greater than 10 microns, in order to impart mechanical strength and integrity to the sheets and microfibers, having diameters less than 10 microns, in order to aid in the capture of fine particles as taught by Angadjivand.
Honda is silent with respect to the binder component containing at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene and an acid-modified polyethylene.
Knowlson teaches nonwoven webs having high wet strength, abrasion resistance, solvent resistance, low or no linting or dusting and good absorbency (Paragraph [0001]). The webs include a combination of cellulose fibers, manmade fibers and bonding fibers (Paragraph [0025]). The bonding fibers may have a polypropylene core with a polyethylene sheath which melts allowing for thermobonding to take place while imparting three-dimensional structure to the nonwoven fiber matrix (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the binder resin of Honda as the bonding fibers of Knowlson which have a polypropylene core with a polyethylene sheath which melts allowing for thermobonding to take place while imparting three-dimensional structure to the nonwoven fiber matrix.
R Regarding claim 3, Honda teaches the sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Knowlson further teaches the fiber length of the optional manmade fibers being 6.0 mm or greater, overlapping with the claimed range (Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Honda teaches the sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Honda further teaches the density, which is considered equivalent to the claimed bulk specific gravity, being from 0.01 g/cm3 to 3.0 g/cm3 (0.01 to 3.0 g/mL), overlapping with the claimed range (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Honda teaches the sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Honda further teaches the pulp fibers being present in a range from 5% to 95% by mass, overlapping with the claimed range (Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Honda teaches the sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Angadjivand teaches the mixture of microfibers and mesofibers as discussed above with respect to claim 1 and further teaches the mesofibers comprising at least 30% by weight of the meltblown fiber mixture (Paragraph [0066]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting ratio of microfibers to mesofibers (polypropylene fiber A:polypropylene fiber B) to be 70:30 to 1:99, overlapping with the claimed range.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al. (WO 2017/094850) in view of Knowlson et al. (US 2018/0326699), Sugawara (JPH1026434) and Angadjivand et al. (US 2008/0315454) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tabor et al. (EP 0496734).
Regarding claim 15, Honda teaches the sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Knowlson teaches the bonding fibers having a propylene core and an ethylene sheath to allow for bonding.
Honda and Knowlson are silent with respect to the ethylene sheath being a maleic-anhydride-modified ethylene sheath.
Tabor teaches bicomponent fibers which are suitable to be thermally bonded and have improved adhesive properties (Col. 1, Lines 3-22; Col. 5, Lines 20-24). The adhesion is improved through the use of a succinic anhydride group, such as maleic anhydride (Col. 6, Lines 7-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the ethylene sheaths to further be grafted with maleic anhydride in order to improve the adhesion properties as taught by Tabor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 09/15/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 6-8, applicant argues that the combination of Honda and Knowlson fails to teach the pulp fibers having an average fiber width of 1 micron to 50 microns. Applicant additionally argues that the combination fails to teach the polypropylene A being a core portion of a core-sheath fiber and the sheath portion comprising the thermal fusion bonding resin component in addition to the polypropylene B fibers not having the thermal fusion bonding resin component.
The examiner first notes that the claim includes comprising language and fails to indicate that the polypropylene A fibers being the only core portion with the thermal fusion bonding component. In other words, the claim does not preclude the polypropylene fibers B from also being a core portion with the thermal fusion bonding component. Therefore, the examiner contends that both the microfibers and mesofibers could be considered bonding fibers with the ethylene sheaths of Knowlson.
The examiner concedes that none of the cited references teaches the organic reinforcing fibers of Honda having diameters from 1 to 50 microns. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in further view of Sugawara.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights