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 .
Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed July 23, 2026 are acknowledged.
Examiner acknowledges amended claims 1,6, 9, 12 and 14.
Examiner acknowledges cancelled claims 7, 11 and 13.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tai et al., CN113181711, as evidenced by Jian et al., An overview on synthesis, properties and applications poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate) - PBAT, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research, Volume 3, Issue, January 2020, pp. 19-26 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dorel et al., WO 2016/203166 as evidenced by Jian et al., An overview on synthesis, properties and applications poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate) - PBAT, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research, Volume 3, Issue, January 2020, pp. 19-26 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 7, 9 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tai et al., CN113181711, as evidenced by Jian et al., An overview on synthesis, properties and applications poly(butylene-adipate-co- terephthalate) - PBAT, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research, Volume 3, Issue, January 2020, pp. 19-26 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 7, 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dorel et al., WO 2016/203166 as evidenced by Jian et al., An overview on synthesis, properties and applications poly(butylene-adipate-co- terephthalate) - PBAT, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research, Volume 3, Issue, January 2020, pp. 19-26 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai et al., CN113181711, as evidenced by Jian et al., An overview on synthesis, properties and applications poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate) - PBAT, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research, Volume 3, Issue, January 2020, pp. 19-26 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai et al., CN113181711, as evidenced by Jian et al., An overview on synthesis, properties and applications poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate) PBAT, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research, Volume 3, Issue, January 2020, pp. 19-26 and further evidenced Wikipedia, electrospinning is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorel et al., WO 2016/203166 as evidenced by Jian et al., An overview on synthesis, properties and applications poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate) - PBAT, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research, Volume 3, Issue, January 2020, pp. 19-26 in view of Electrospin Tech, Solution Feed- rate is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 4 and 8 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorel et al., WO 2016/203166 as evidenced by Jian et al., An overview on synthesis, properties and applications poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate) PBAT, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research, Volume 3, Issue, January 2020, pp. 19-26 and further evidenced Wikipedia, electrospinning is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
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 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2021/0380757 in view of Noda et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2022/0169779
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12 , Kim discloses a resin composition of a biodegradable polyester resin and a nonwoven fabric wherein the composition includes a diol component, a first dicarboxylic component and a second dicarboxylic component [0018] wherein the first dicarboxylic component can be terephthalic acid [aromatic dicarboxylic acid] and the second dicarboxylic acid can be succinic acid or adipic acid [aliphatic carboxylic acids] [0024, 0044 and 0160]. Paragraph 0155 discloses that the composition can include a catalyst such as magnesium acetate in the amount of 50 ppm to 1,000 ppm [0156]. Paragraph 0223 discloses the method of electrospinning. Paragraph 0427 discloses that the biodegradable resin is dissolved in chloroform [organic solvent].
Kim discloses a method of electrospinning [0223]. Kim is silent to the steps in the electrospinning. Paragraph 0028 of Noda discloses a nonwoven fabric prepared by injecting a polymer solution using electrospinning 0105]. The abstract of Noda discloses an average fiber diameter of less than 2,000 nm. Noda discloses in paragraph 0047 a polyester polyol comprising an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, an aromatic dicarboxylic and a diol. Additionally, paragraph 0047 discloses polybutylene adipate diol. It is disclosed in paragraph 004 of Noda that the solvent can be ketone [organic solvent]. Paragraph 0086 of Noda discloses a catalyst present in the amount of 0.01 % to 10% by weight [100 ppm to 100,000 ppm]. Paragraph 0105 discloses an electrospinning method for the nonwoven fabric by injecting a polymer solution in an electrostatic field which is generated by apply a high voltage between electrodes on a nozzle and collector. Paragraph 0106 of Noda discloses a voltage of 15 kV and 10 kV. Paragraph 0110 of Noda discloses a distance between electrodes range from 5 to 30 cm [50 to 300 mm]. Paragraph 0113 of Noda discloses a feed rate [release rate] of the polymer solution is 0.01 to 0.1 ml/min. It is disclosed in paragraph 0145 of Noda a solvent mixture including N,N-dimethylformamide and methyl ethyl ketone [organic solvent]; a distance between nozzle to collecting substrate is 10 cm [100 mm]; the polymer solution is discharged onto the collecting substrate [gravity]. Reference claim 9 of Noda discloses drying after electrospinning. Noda discloses in paragraphs 0118-0120 discloses that the method imparts improved properties such as elastic modulus for the nonwoven fabric. Kim and Noda are analogous art in that both references disclose a biodegradable resin solution including a catalyst wherein the solution is subjected to electrospinning to form a nonwoven fabric. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would utilize the electrospinning method of Noda as the electrospinning method of Kim for the benefit of obtaining a nonwoven fabric having an average diameter of the fibers being in the range 50 nm to 1000 nm wherein the nonwoven fabric has improved properties such as elastic modulus.
Kim teaches the claimed invention but fails to teach that the biodegradable has an electrical resistance of 3 M ohm to 10 M ohm in a molten state. It is reasonable to presume that the electrical resistance of the biodegradable resin composition is 3 M ohm to 10 M ohm in a molten state. It is reasonable to presume that the electrical resistance of the biodegradable resin composition is 3 M ohm to 10 M ohm in a molten state is inherent to Kim. Said presumption is based upon Kim’s disclosure of a resin composition of a biodegradable polyester resin and a nonwoven fabric wherein the composition includes a diol component, a first dicarboxylic component and a second dicarboxylic component [0018] wherein the first dicarboxylic component can be terephthalic acid [aromatic dicarboxylic acid] and the second dicarboxylic acid can be succinic acid or adipic acid [aliphatic carboxylic acids] [0024, 0044 and 0160]. Paragraph 0155 discloses that the composition can include a catalyst such as magnesium acetate in the amount of 50 ppm to 1,000 ppm [0156]. Burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2021/0380757 in view of Noda et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2022/0169779 and in further view of Tai et al., CN11318711 al., as evidenced by Jian et al., An overview on synthesis, properties and applications poly(butylene-adipate-co-terephthalate) - PBAT, Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research, Volume 3, Issue, January 2020, pp. 19-26.
Kim in view of Noda, remains relied upon for claim 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, neither Kim nor Noda disclose a second biodegradable resin int the composition. Example 4 of Tai [0055] discloses six (6) parts of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate -co-3-hydroxyvalerate) [second resin] and nine (9) parts of poly(butylene adipate/terephthalate) [first resin] and 85 parts of N,N-dimethylacetamide [solvent] [0025] wherein the mixture was heated and stirred for 24 hours resulting in a homogeneous mixed solution wherein 0.3 parts of alumina and continue stirring for 4 hours to obtain a uniform and stable spinning solution. The spinning solution is placed in the solution chamber of an electrospinning machine wherein the spinning voltage is set to 30 kV. A layer of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate -co-3-hydroxyvalerate)- poly(butylene adipate/terephthalate) nanofibers [spun yarn] is spun on a nonwoven substrate [0023]. The abstract of Jian provides evidence that PBAT includes a butanediol [diol], adipic acid [aliphatic dicarboxylic acid] and terephthalic acid [aromatic dicarboxylic acid]. The abstract of Tai discloses that the nonwoven fabric has high filtration efficiency Kim, Noda and Tai are analogous art in that the references are directed to a nonwoven fabric formed from electrospinning a biodegradable resin solution. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would include a second biodegradable such as poly(3-hydroxybutyrate -co-3-hydroxyvalerate)- poly(butylene adipate/terephthalate) in the biodegradable resin solution of Kim for the benefit of obtaining a nonwoven fabric having enhanced filtration efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the present claims 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.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights