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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/27/25 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: there are comma’s missing for the fabric width. 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.
(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) 1-4, 6-10, 12-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) or (a2) as being anticipated by USPUB 20110151737A1 issued to Moore et al.
Moore et al., teach making dimensionally stable nonwoven fibrous webs made from continuous fibers formed from one or more thermoplastic polyesters [abstract].
At ¶¶ 0018-0019, the instant reference teaches that the fibers may be formed using melt-spinning, melt blowing, filament extrusion, electrospinning, gas jet fibrillation or combinations.
Moore et al., at ¶¶ 0005, 0011, 0038, 0043, 0044, and 0070-0072, i teaches a method for producing fibers, the method involving a step (1) of heating and melting a thermoplastic resin composition of PLA resin (PLLA), where the (PLLA) has a mass average molecular weight (Mw) of 80000 and a second component of the thermoplastic resin composition, and a step (Il) includes the discharging same from a nozzle (extruding same from a spinning nozzle), wherein fibers are spun at an average fiber diameter of 0.42 µm. [for fiber diameter see ¶¶ 0012, 0013, 0048-0052 and 0084-0087.
Moore et al., further teaches a method for producing nonwoven fabric, the method involving a step for collecting the fibers obtained by said method for producing fibers, and forming the fibers into a sheet shape. It should be noted that Applicant’s filed specification lists PLA resin (polylactic acid) as an example of component A. Poly(caprolactone) is also taught at ¶ 0005, 0011, 0112, 0113 and 0122. This serves to meet the limitations seeking the composition of component A and specifically for claim 20. Other examples of materials thought to be biodegradable which can serve as component A are taught at ¶¶ 0005, 0009-0011 and 0111-0112, and include aliphatic polyesters such as PLA, poly(glycolic acid), poly(caprolactone), copolymers of lactide and glycolide, poly(ethylene succinate), polyhydroxybutyrate, and combinations thereof.
At ¶ 0112, Moore et al., teach the molecular weight of the aliphatic polyesters which ranges from 10,000 to 500,000 at most.
For component B, at ¶ 0012, and more specifically at ¶ 0195 Moore et al., disclose that the fibers may comprise at least one of a plasticizer, a diluent, a surfactant, a viscosity modifier, an antimicrobial component, or combinations thereof. The viscosity modifiers include includes one or two or more selected from fatty acids, higher alcohols, fatty acid amide compounds, polyglyceryl fatty acid ester compounds, sucrose fatty acid ester compounds, and sorbitan fatty acid ester compounds.
At ¶ 0196 and 0199 they further disclose that the viscosity modifier may be present in the melt extruded fiber in an amount sufficient to modify the melt viscosity of aliphatic polyester. Typically, the viscosity modifier is present at no greater than 10 weight %. At ¶ 0199 teaches fatty acid’s as well .
Total optional additives which would serves as component B equate to at most 10% by weight, preferably no more than 5% by weight and, most preferably no more than 3% by weight. As such, the amount of component B is met as well as component A which would be 95% mass or less.
At ¶¶ 0013, 0048 and 0084-0087, Moore et al., teach that the fibers exhibit a median fiber diameter of no greater than about 25 μm, more preferably no greater than 12 μm, and even more preferably no greater than 10 μm. In certain of these embodiments, the fibers exhibit a median fiber diameter of at least 1 μm, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range as sought in claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 18.
In the step (Il) of the method for producing fibers as taught by Moore et al., uses a heated fluid spraying process at 300°C and an electrostatic spinning process as shown at ¶ 0043. Since the melting point of polylactic acid is around 170°C, the difference between the temperature of the heated fluid in the spraying process and the melting point of polylactic acid is 20°C-200°C.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by USPUB 20110151737A1 issued to Moore et al.
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the method of producing fibers according to claim 1, wherein in the process (II), a discharge speed of a melt of the thermoplastic resin composition from the nozzle is 0.1 g/minute·nozzle or more and 20 g/minute ·nozzle or less; Moore et al., teach what is set forth above but do not specifically teach the unit of measure for the discharge speed of the composition coming from the nozzle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the discharge speed of a melt of the thermoplastic resin composition from the nozzle is 0.1 g/minute·nozzle or more and 20 g/minute ·nozzle or less when making the fibers of Moore et al. One would have been motivated to do so, or optimize the best speed needed as routine experimentation as it is known in fiber making that high production speeds can compromise fiber consistency and quality, leading to weaker, less durable textiles and higher environmental costs. Slower speeds such as 0.1 g/minute ·nozzle or more and 20 g/minute·nozzle or less would lead to a more controlled production, which can improve fiber performance, sustainability, and end-product longevity, but may require trade-offs in output volume.
Regarding the width in claims 11 and 19, Moore et al. do not make an explicit disclosure of width of the nonwoven and since the instant specification is silent to any unexpected results having a width of 50mm or more, it is the position of the Office that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, size, weight, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2015178692A issued to Nakahara et al., teaches a method for producing nanofibers which are produced by a heat-melting electrospinning method and have excellent handling properties when they are made into web-like nanofibers or nonwoven fabrics. Some examples of the synthetic polymer-based bioabsorbable resins include (i) aliphatics such as polybutylene succinate (b) polyglycolic acid (PGA), polylactic acid (PLA), or copolymers thereof. Polylactides such as certain lactic acid / glycolic acid copolymers (PLGA), (c) polylactones such as poly ε-caprolactone (PCL), (d) polyethers such as polyethylene glycol (PEG), (e) polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) Polyol) such as ()), polycarbonate such as (f) polyester carbonate, or (g) other, polyanhydride, polycyanoacrylate, polyorthoester, polyphosphazene, polybutylene terephthalate, adipate, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights