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 .
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 and 6 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).
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 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 or polyester 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 or polyester core with a polyethylene sheath which melts allowing for thermobonding to take place while imparting three-dimensional structure to the nonwoven fiber matrix.
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]).
Claim 2 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Angadjivand et al. (US 2008/0315454).
Regarding claim 2, Honda teaches the sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 04/07/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-9, applicant argues that the combination of Honda in view of Knowlson is improper and fails to teach each of the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, the combination is improper such that Honda and Knowlson are directed to inventions which solve mutually different problems. Honda provides sheets for fiber reinforced plastic molded bodies whereas Knowlson teaches nonwoven webs which have sufficient wet tensile strengths and absorbency for industrial wipe. Furthermore, the content of the thermal fusion bonding component being between 3% and 18% provides desired effects. Examples 1-13 illustrate the desired effects. Comparative examples 1 and 2 illustrate when the bonding component is less than 3% whereas comparative examples 3 to 5 illustrate when the bonding component is greater than 18%.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments.
Firstly, the combination of Honda in view of Knowlson is proper as provided in the rejection above. Specifically, Honda teaches each of the limitations of claim 1. Regarding the thermal fusion bonding component, Honda teaches a binder component which may be in the range of 0.5% to 30% by mass and may be formed from a synthetic fiber (Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]; [0048]). Honda further teaches the fibers being core-sheath fibers such that PE/PET composite fibers (Paragraph [0048]).
Even further, Knowlson teaches boding fibers with a polypropylene or polyester core and a polyethylene sheath allowing for thermobonding to take place (Paragraph [0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these core-sheath fibers of Knowlson are able to be used in the molded bodies of Honda as the binder fibers in order to allow for thermobonding.
Therefore, the examiner contends that the combination is proper such that both references teach binder fibers for thermobonding.
Concerning applicant’s examples in the specification, it is noted that the examples must illustrate sufficient examples both inside and outside of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d): To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
In the instant case, the claimed range in question is 3% to 18% and the examples fail to illustrate sufficient examples both inside and outside of the range. Firstly, there are no examples which illustrate either 3% or 18%. Examples 1-11 only illustrate a thermal fusion bonding resin component of 6% and 15% (Table 1-1). Therefore, the examples do not encompass the entirety of the claimed range.
Concerning the comparative examples, there are no values for the thermal fusion bonding resin component below 3% such that comparative examples 1 and 2 illustrate 4% of the bonding component, which is inside the claimed range (Table 1-2). Comparative examples 3-5 illustrate bonding components of 40%, 50% and 70% (Table 1-2). However, the lowest of these values, being 40% is far greater than the upper end of the range, being 18%. As such, it is unclear as to how the results between 18% and 40% vary. As such, the comparative examples fail to provide undesired results outside of the claimed range.
Ultimately, the examiner contends that the combination of Honda and Knowlson is proper and the examples in the instant specification fail to establish unexpected results over the combination.
The current rejection is made FINAL.
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 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