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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/25 has been entered.
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) 1-6, 8-12, 14-20, 22-30, 32-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106350882, (relying on machine translation attached to this action), in view of Van der Werff, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0145301.
CN ‘882 discloses a cut resistant ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fiber. The polyethylene includes particles having a Moh’s hardness of 3 and above, an aspect ratio of greater than or equal to 2, a diameter of 30 microns or less, (which meets the limitations of at least 3 microns), in an amount of 3-20 percent. See second page of machine translation, bottom of first paragraph. Since aspect ratio is defined as length divided diameter, then if the aspect ratio is 3 and the diameter is 20 microns, the length would be 60 microns. Since the particles can be present in an amount of 3 percent for example, the ratio of particles to particles plus resin would be 0.02, (3/103) and if the particles are present at 20 percent the ratio would be 0.166, (20/120), which meets the claimed range of 0.143-0.50.
CN ‘882 differs from the claimed invention because it does not specifically disclose multifilaments, does not disclose the claimed dtex and does not disclose the viscosity values less than 22 dl/g.
However, Van der Werff teaches a multifilament including a filler formed from ultra high molecular weight polyethylene having a suitable intrinsic viscosity of 5-40 dl/g. See paragraph 0013. Van der Werff teaches the claimed method including forming a dispersion of nanotubes and mixing with a solution of ultrahigh molecular weight in a spin solvent such as decalin and spinning into multifilament yarns. See paragraphs 0024-0028. Van der Werff teaches the multifilaments include fillers made from carbon nanotubes. See paragraph 0021. Van der Werff teaches an intrinsic viscosity of 19.8 in example 1, paragraph 0047.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used viscosity of from 5-40 dl/g to form the composition of CN ‘882 as taught by Van der Werff and to have spun the composition into multifilaments and to have selected the size of the multifilaments, (dtex), depending on the intended use of the multifilaments by selecting the number of filaments to include in the multifilament yarn. Using the value of 19.8 dl/g for the viscosity in the formula of claim 1, produces 198.8 divided by 0.1667, which equals 118.776 which is less than 125, so using an ultra high molecular weight polyethylene having an intrinsic viscosity as shown in Van der Werff in the invention of CN ‘882 would satisfy the formula for the intrinsic viscosity in claim 1, 2, 3,10.
Claim 1 recites a coefficient of variation in linear density of at most 12% wherein the coefficient of linear density is determined from linear density values x corresponding to a number of 10 representative length, wherein each of said lengths corresponds to a different randomly sampled filament of said yarn and using Formula 1. Similarly, claim 2 recites Formula 2 for calculating variation in density, and claim 3 recites Formula 3 for calculating variation in tenacity. Neither CN ‘882 nor Van der Werff tests its disclosed yarns in the same way and does not provide a means for determining if the yarns formed in Van der Werff meet formulas 1, 2 and 3. Neither CN ‘882 nor Van der Werff disclose the particular coefficient of variation for the linear density, tenacity or Tenacity as claimed, however, since CN ‘882 in view of Van der Werff teaches a multifilament fiber comprising an UHMWPE and a filler, wherein the range of viscosity disclosed encompasses the claimed viscosity, wherein the filler aspect ratio range encompasses the claimed aspect ratio, wherein the ratio of the mass of the filler divided by the mass of the filler and the mass of the UHMWPE in CN ‘882 in view of Van der Werff is within the claimed range, and wherein the process of making the yarn is the same as the claimed process, there is a reasonable expectation that the material of CN ‘882 as modified by the teaching of Van der Werff would necessarily have the claimed properties, or else it would have been obvious to have selected values for viscosity, aspect ratio and the proportions of filler and UHMWPE which produced the desired properties in the final product, since it would have been obvious to have selected optimum values from within disclosed ranges. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the yarns so that they were uniform in order to provide a product which had consistent properties of strength, density, tenacity, etc.
With regard to claims 15, 28, 38, the multifilament of Van der Werff is capable of being used to form the claimed articles.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have removed the 112 rejections.
Applicant argues that CN ‘882 teaches a viscosity of 22 dL/g and that therefore the multifilaments of CN ‘882 do not meet the claimed value of IV/X is less than or equal to 125 dL/g. This statement is correct, however, Van der Werff also teaches viscosity values of from 5-40 dL/g and employs a UHMWPE having a viscosity of 19.8 in the example which does meet the formula as set forth in the amended claims because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed UHMWPE having viscosities as taught by Van der Werff in view of their art recognized suitability for this intended purpose.
Applicant argues that van der Werff teaches employing a different amount of carbon nanotubes, (CNTs) than in the claimed invention. However, CN ‘882 already teaches the claimed amount of carbon nanotubes. Van der Werff is relied on for teaching that viscosity values of from 5-40 dL/g can be used in forming UHMW polyethylene multifilaments which include fillers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789