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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 8-20, in the reply filed on 17 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the unity of invention exists as there is a technical relationship between the groups of inventions. This is not found persuasive because the requirement of unity of invention was not based on the lack of technical relationship between the two groups but instead that the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art, to which applicant has not presented any specific arguments against.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 17 July 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, the figures only show the creation of the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric (reference character “B”). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0009]: Preferably, a Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) curve
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length (currently is 159 words). The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” or more specifically “The present invention provides” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: endothermic start temperature of the resin composition in differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) to lower by
Claims 2-6 and 8-20: The method of producing [[a]] the melt-blown nonwoven fabric according to
Claim 5: in a Machine Direction (MD) direction perpendicular to the MD Direction (CD) (based off of [0091] of applicant’s originally submitted specification)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kann et al. (WO2010075530) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kann discloses a method of producing a melt-blown nonwoven fabric, the method comprising:
obtaining a second melt-blown nonwoven fabric by heating a first melt-blown nonwoven fabric ([00185]), wherein:
the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric is formed from a resin composition containing a poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate)-based resin ([00182]-[00185]); and
the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric comprises heating the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric at a temperature in a range from lower by 10°C than an endothermic start temperature of the resin composition in differential scanning calorimetry to lower by 10°C than a melting point of the resin composition ([00183], in that the temperature range at which the PHA composition is heated at is from about 90oC to about 130oC, which falls within the 80oC to 140oC range disclosed in applicant’s own specification in [0095]).
Regarding claim 2, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth Additionally, Kann discloses that in the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric, the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric is heated in a non-contact manner ([00186]).
Regarding claim 3, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Kann discloses that in the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric, the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric is heated for about 10 minutes to about 70 minutes ([00185] which falls within the claimed range of from 2 to 300 minutes).
Regarding claim 5, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Kann discloses that a tensile elongation at maximum load of the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric in a MD direction is higher than a tensile elongation at maximum load of the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric in the MD direction; and a tensile elongation at maximum load of the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric in a CD direction is higher than a tensile elongation at maximum load of the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric in the CD direction ([00182]-[00184], in that the physical properties of the PHA composition after heating are improved, including that of “tensile elongation at break”, which would include both claimed directions).
Regarding claim 9, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Kann discloses that in the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric, the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric in an elongated shape is heated continuously while being transported ([00186]).
Regarding claim 10, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Kann discloses that in the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric, the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric is heated by gas having a temperature within the temperature range ([00186] via the air heated by the “oven”).
Regarding claim 11, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Kann discloses that the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric comprises heating the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric in a heating furnace by gas having a temperature within the temperature range ([00186] via “oven”).
Regarding claim 12, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Kann discloses that the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric comprises heating the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric by applying gas having a temperature within the temperature range to the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric ([00186] via the air heated by the “oven”).
Regarding claim 13, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that applicant’s own specification in [0094]-[0095] teaches that the temperature of 80oC to 140oC would fall within the acceptable range for step (2) and Kann discloses that the PHA composition is heated at from about 90oC to about 130oC ([00183]), Kann discloses that in the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric, the temperature range is from lower by 7°C than the endothermic start temperature of the resin composition in differential scanning calorimetry to lower by 10°C than the melting point of the resin composition.
Regarding claim 14, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that applicant’s own specification in [0094]-[0095] teaches that the temperature of 80oC to 140oC would fall within the acceptable range for step (2) and Kann discloses that the PHA composition is heated at from about 90oC to about 130oC ([00183]), Kann discloses that in the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric, the temperature range is from lower by 10°C than the endothermic start temperature of the resin composition in differential scanning calorimetry to lower by 15°C than the melting point of the resin composition.
Regarding claim 15, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Kann discloses that the PHA composition is heated at from about 90oC to about 130oC ([00183]), Kann discloses that in the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric, when the melting point of the resin composition is from 140°C to lower than 150°C, the temperature range is a range of from 80°C to lower than 140°C.
Regarding claim 16, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, given that Kann discloses that the PHA composition is heated at from about 90oC to about 130oC ([00183]), Kann discloses that in the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric, when the melting point of the resin composition is from 150°C to lower than 160°C, the temperature range is a range of from 90°C to lower than 150°C.
Regarding claim 20, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Kann discloses that the thickness of the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric can be .26 or.35 mm ([00243], which is within the claimed range of from 0.10 to 0.40 mm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later 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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kann et al. (WO2010075530) (of record).
Regarding claim 4, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, as overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness and Kann teaches that the polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer makes up about 75% to about 95% by weight of the fibers ([0005]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for the poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate)-based resin to comprise a homopolymer, a copolymer, or a combination thereof, and comprise at least 80% by mole of 3-hydroxybutyrate as a structural unit (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Kann does not explicitly disclose that a DSC curve of the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric comprises at least two endothermic peaks; a DSC curve of the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric comprises at least two endothermic peaks; and where when, on each DSC curve, among peak tops of the respective endothermic peaks, a second highest peak top is defined as a second peak top, a height of the second peak top of the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric is greater than a height of the second peak top of the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Kann teaches the use of poly 3-hydroxyalkanoate-based resin [0050] in the method obtaining a second melt-blown nonwoven fabric by heating a first melt-blown nonwoven fabric that comprises said resin ([00182]-[00185]), similar to the claimed method, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably assume that two similar compositions undergoing the same process would result in the composition having similar properties, including that of the heights of peaks for the DSC of the composition before and after heating (see MPEP 2112(III)).
Regarding claim 8, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Kann does not explicitly disclose that in the obtaining the second melt-blown nonwoven fabric, the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric is heated in a state where the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric has been wound into a roll, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that case law holds that changes in shape are matters of design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant (see MPEP 2144.04). In the instant case, the shape the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric is heated in is considered to be a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 19, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, as overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness and Kann teaches that the areal weight of the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric is from about 20 to about 160 g/m2 ([0005]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application for an areal weight of the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric to be from 10 to 100 g/m². (See MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kann et al. (WO2010075530) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and further in view of Siti et al. (JPWO2019142920) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Kann does not explicitly disclose that in the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric, a melt mass-flow rate of the resin composition at 160°C is from 90 to 700 g/10min, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, as Siti, which is within the nonwoven fabric manufacturing art, teaches that in the production of a nonwoven fabric comprising poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate), the melt flow rate of said composition at 160oC should be between 0.1 to 100 g/10 min ([0036], which overlaps with the claimed range of from 90 to 700 g/10 min) to ensure that the fibers can easily undergo spinning ([0036]).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kann et al. (WO2010075530) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and further in view of Lee et al. (KR20140004277) (machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, Kann discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Kann does not explicitly disclose that a coefficient of variation of a fiber diameter of fibers in the first melt-blown nonwoven fabric is 0.40 or less, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, as Lee, which is within the art of manufacturing nonwoven fabric via meltblowing, teaches that for a meltblown nonwoven fabric made of fibers, the coefficient of variation of the diameter of said fibers should be 30% (or 0.30) or less to ensure improved filtration efficiency and performance ([0030], which is within the claimed range of 0.40 or less).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
