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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species II from Species Group I, and Species II from Species Group II, in the reply filed on July 16, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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 2, 5-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Study on Spinnability of PP/PU Blends and Preparation of PP/PU Bi-component Melt Blown Nonwovens” to Zhou in view of USPN 5,852,118 to Horrion and US Pub. No. 2020/0362492 to Ichikawa.
Regarding claims 2, 5-14, and 16, Zhou teaches blending polypropylene and polyurethane to prepare PP/PU bicomponent melt blown nonwovens, wherein melt blown fibers exhibited a “sea-island” structure with PP as the continuous phase and PU as the dispersed phase (Zhou, Abstract). Zhou teaches the spinnability of PP/PU compositions of 95/5, 90/10, 80/20, and 70/30, wherein when the content of PU in the blend was above 40%, PP/PU melt blown nonwovens could not be produced due to fiber breaking (Id.). Zhou teaches that PP is economic but the elasticity is poor (Id., page 1200). Zhou teaches that polyurethane is a thermoplastic elastomer with excellent mechanical and shape member properties, but the usage of PU has challenges due to the high viscosity of PU melts (Id.). Zhou teaches that blending provides an effective way, not only for obtaining polymer materials with excellent properties, but also for improving their processing capabilities and reducing costs (Id.). Zhou teaches that the viscosity of PP/PU blends increased with increasing PU content (Id., page 1204).
Zhou teaches that some of the PU particles had debonded from the PP matrix, and that the interface between PP and PU was sharp due to high interfacial tension (Id., pages 1202, 1206). Zhou teaches that interfacial layer design for PP/PU blends, by using certain kind of compatibilizers, is planned (Id., page 1206).
Horrion teaches block copolymers of chemically modified polyolefins with polyurethanes and their use for compatibilizing blends of polar and non-polar thermoplastic elastomers, wherein the block copolymers can further be used for promoting the adhesion of thermoplastic elastomers onto various polar engineering resins (Horrion, Abstract). Horrion teaches that the block copolymer comprises 5 to 95% by weight of a chemically modified polyolefin, 95 to 5% by weight of a thermoplastic polyurethane, and 0.05 to 5.0 parts by weight of one or more coupling agents (Id., column 2 lines 30-52). Horrion teaches that the modified polyolefin component comprises a functional group selected from ethylene/acrylic acid copolymer (Id., column 4 lines 23-39). Horrion teaches that another group of modified polyolefins which can be used include styrene/butadiene/styrene-block copolymer and its hydrogenated form, grafted with a primary or secondary amine (Id., column 4 lines 40-49). Horrion teaches that polar thermoplastic elastomers include thermoplastic polyurethane (Id., column 10 lines 32-40), and that specific examples of non-polar polyolefins are polypropylene and polyethylene (Id., column 10 lines 45-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fibers of Zhou, and including a compatibilizer comprising a styrene/butadiene/styrene-block copolymer and its hydrogenated form, grafted with a primary or secondary amine in amounts, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Horrion, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional blend comprising a suitable compatibilizer known in the art to predictably promote adhesion of thermoplastic elastomers to polyolefins.
Zhou teaches nonwovens formed by melt spinning for use in filtration and wound dressings (Zhou, page 1200). Zhou does not appear to specifically teach spun-bonding. However, Ichikawa teaches a spunbonded nonwoven fabric including a fiber formed of a composition containing a propylene homopolymer and a polyethylene in a sea-island structure which is excellent in extensibility and suitable for use in hygiene materials such as a bandage (Ichikawa, Abstract, paragraphs 0321-0324). Ichikawa teaches that the composition is melt spun and drawn preferably in a range of from 500 m/min to 10,000 m/min (Id., paragraphs 0285-0292). Ichikawa taches that long fibers have improved flexibility and tactile feeling (Id., paragraph 0319).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fibers of the prior art combination, wherein the fibers are spun-bonded and drawn, such as greater than 3,000 m/min, as taught by Ichikawa, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polypropylene fiber formed by a process known in the art to be predictably suitable for similar end uses, where properties including improved flexibility and tactile feeling are desired.
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed ratio and peak intensity. However, the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, wherein the fibers are drawn in a manner consistent with Applicants’ specification. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed ratio and peak intensity naturally flows from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 9, Zhou does not appear to teach the claimed propylene homopolymer. However, Ichikawa teaches that the propylene is a propylene homopolymer having a melting point of 140ºC or higher (Ichikawa, paragraphs 0148-0153).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fibers of the prior art combination, wherein the propylene is a homopolymer having a melting point within the claimed range, as taught by Ichikawa, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polypropylene fiber comprising a propylene known in the art as being predictably suitable for such fibers.
Regarding claims 9-11, Zhou does not appear to teach the claimed polyethylene. However, Ichikawa teaches polyethylene as an island phase having an average length of from 1 µm to 500 µm, to inhibit the crystallization of polypropylene and increasing extensibility (Ichikawa, paragraphs 0089, 0254-0258). Ichikawa teaches that the content of polyethylene is preferably from 1.0% by mass to 15.0% by mass, wherein the density of the polyethylene is in a range from 0.941 g/cm3 to 0.970 g/cm3 from the viewpoint of further improving the extensibility and flexibility of the spunbonded nonwoven fabric, and improving the strength (Id., paragraphs 0100-0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fibers of the prior art combination, and including polyethylene in island phases in amounts, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Ichikawa, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polypropylene fiber having predictably improved extensibility and strength suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art combination teaches polyethylene as an island phase having an average length of from 1 µm to 500 µm, to inhibit the crystallization of polypropylene and increasing extensibility. As shown in Figs. 1A and 1B of Ichikawa, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the diameters of the island phases appear to be within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fibers of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the amount and diameter of the island phases, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught and suggested by Ichikawa, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine suitable properties of the islands based on the desired extensibility and strength.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Horrion and Ichikawa, as applied to claims 2, 5-14, and 16 above, and further in view of USPN 5,534,335 to Everhart.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed properties. However, Everhart teaches a nonwoven fabric made from fibers comprising at least two immiscible thermoplastic polymers and a compatibilizer, wherein the polymer of the dominant continuous phase is polypropylene (Everhart, Abstract, column 3 lines 9-16). Everhart teaches that modifying the interfacial properties of the immiscible polymer blend is accomplished through the use of a compatibilizer (Id., column 3 lines 49-61). Everhart teaches that the reduction in the interfacial energy caused by the compatibilizer allows the size of the discontinuous phase to be reduced within the continuous phase (Id.).
The prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, including in the claimed amounts. The prior art combination teaches the inclusion of a compatibilizer to promote the adhesion of the claimed components. As evidenced by Everhart, the compatibilizer reduces the size of the discontinuous phase.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fibers of the prior art combination, wherein the polyurethane island phases are present having an average diameter and number, such as within the claimed ranges, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine suitable sizes and amounts of the island phases based on the desired properties of the resulting fiber, as the incorporation of the compatibilizer necessarily appears to predictably reduce the sizes as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights