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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/25 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, 3, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2018-0120373 in view of Meinders et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0231365.
KR ‘373 discloses a high strength polyethylene fiber. See paragraph 0001. The fiber is made from polyethylene having a number average molecular weight of 100,000 to 300,000. See paragraph 0029. The molecular weight distribution Mw/Mn is 5 to 10. See paragraph 0029. The polyethylene has a melt index of 0.6- 2.0 g/10 min. See paragraph 0028. The fibers have a strength, (tenacity) of 12-16 g/d, a fineness of one filament of 0.5-2.5 and the yarn comprises 60-400 filaments. See paragraph 0048.
KR ‘373 differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach the degree of entanglements/number of nodes, the initial modulus, or the elongation.
However, Meinders teaches that it was known to intermingle or interlace filaments in a multifilament yarn in order to impart desirable characteristics such as tensile strength, thickness, intermingling, intra-yarn cohesion and/or the like. See paragraph 0001. The interlacing of the filaments forms tangled bundles of filaments called nodes along the length of the yarn. See paragraph 0002.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have intermingled and interlaced the filaments of the yarn of KR ‘373 to form nodes and to have selected the degree of interlacing and number of nodes which produced a yarn having the desired properties of strength including initial modulus, thickness, elongation, etc.
Additionally, the instant claims are drawn to a product, not a process of making. The added “wherein the drawn multifilament yarn is interlaced with an air pressure of 15to 100 psi” is a process limitation. As set forth above, the combination of KR’373 and Meinders teach the claimed interlaced polyethylene multifilament yarns. Since the interlacing provide strength and cohesion to the yarn, there is a reasonable expectation that one of ordinary skill would have been able to select the degree or interlacing which produced a yarn having the desired initial modulus. Therefore, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any product differences result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior at product.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examples establish that the claimed air pressure provides an improved cut resistance and reduced fluff occurrence. However, the examples set forth in the specification are not commensurate in scope with the claims because the claims recite an air pressure of 15-100 psi, but the examples all use an air pressure of 60 psi. Additionally, the examples all use polyethylene having a molecular weight of 200,000 except for one which has a molecular weight of 170,000 and wherein the final yarns have a molecular weight of 180,000, while the claims recite a molecular weight of 90,000 – 300, 000. Therefore, the showing is insufficient to establish criticality or unexpected results over the claimed ranges because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Meinders is not drawn to forming a yarn having reduced occurrence of fluff. However, Meinders clearly teaches that interlacing is a result effective variable which provides strength and cohesion to the yarns, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that reduced fluffing would be a part of both increased strength and cohesion.
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
Prosecution Insights