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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed on September 8, 2025. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 10-14 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 8, 2025.
All prior rejections are withdrawn in view of applicants amendments to the claims.
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 1-4,8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ropponen (WO 2016/193542) in view of Kano (JP 2009228159) and Buchanan (US 6,133,439).
Ropponen teaches cellulose fiber spun (paragraphs 0045,0060) from molar mass controlled cellulose ester having a side chain length between C6 and C18 (paragraph 0029) a total degree of substitution from 0.7 to 3 (paragraph 0042)and a molar mass distribution of between 30 and 300 kDa from a cellulose raw material comprising cellulose (paragraph 0028). Ropponen teaches controlling hydrolysis, excluding total hydrolysis, so that the average molecular mass of the cellulose is reduced at least 60% but not more than 85% from the molecular mass of the cellulose raw material wherein after the hydrolysis the average molecular mass of the cellulose is in the range between 40 and 200 kDa (paragraph 0030-0031). Ropponen teaches the cellulose raw material is selected from native softwood pulp, native hardwood pulp, annual plant pulp, softwood sulphite dissolving grade pulp, hardwood sulphite dissolving grade pulp, ozone treated hydrolyzed pulp or enzyme treated pulp (paragraph 0034). Ropponen teaches the cellulose raw material is hydrolyzed by enzymatic treatment, ozone treatment, hydrogen peroxide treatment, alkaline treatment or other chemical treatment (paragraph 0035). Ropponen teaches the molar mass controlled cellulose ester is prepared by homogeneous esterification of the cellulose raw material by adding palmitoyl chloride (fatty acid chloride) using pyridine as a catalyst at a reaction temperature of 60°C for 16 hours (page 12, lines 17-24; paragraph 0032). Ropponen also teaches reaction at 100°C and that process steps are describing a particular embodiment and are not intended to be limiting as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize equivalents (paragraph 0054,0056).
Ropponen does not specify melt spinning or the melt spinning temperature.
Kano teaches cellulose ester fibers are conventionally made by melt spinning the fibers at preferably in the range of 220°C or higher or 270°C or less (page 9, first paragraph) wherein the draw speed in 750 m/min or less, particularly 200 m/min (page 16, paragraph 1, example 2; page 9, paragraphs 4 and 5) and the spinneret has multiple holes (page 15, last paragraph).
Buchanan teaches cellulose ester fibers are effectively produced by melt spinning at melt temperatures of 120-250°C (column 6, lines 4-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Ropponen by melt spinning the molar mass controlled cellulose ester into fibers as Ropponen teaches the molar mass controlled cellulose ester can be spun into fibers and Kano teaches cellulose esters are conventionally and effectively melt spun into fibers a collected. Using a known effective method of producing cellulose fibers by melt spinning in a method inviting the inclusion of spinning fibers is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Ropponen and Kano by melt spinning at 120-150°C as Buchanan teaches this is a known temperature functionally equivalent to the temperatures of Kano to produce cellulose ester fibers. Using anything in the temperature range of 120-250°C would be obvious as the entire range is taught as equivalent and effective in melt spinning cellulose ester fibers. Substituting one known effective melt spinning temperature for another effective melt spinning temperature is obvious to arrive at the predictable result of producing a melt spun fiber.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ropponen (WO 2016/193542) in view of Kano (JP 2009228159) and Buchanan (US 6,133,439) and further in view of Willberg-Keyrilainen (Injection Molding of Thermoplastic Cellulose Esters and Their Compatibility with Poly(Lactic Acid) and Polyethylene Materials (Basel). 2018 Nov 23;11(12):2358. doi: 10.3390/ma11122358).
Ropponen, Kano and Buchanan are relied upon as set forth above.
Ropponen, Kano and Buchanan do not teach a reaction temperature of 80°C.
Willberg-Keyrilainen teaches cellulose palmitate is effectively produced by homogeneous esterification in a composition cellulose, palmitoyl chloride and pyridine wherein the reaction is carried out at 80°C for 16 hr (page 3, section 2.2.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Ropponen, Kano and Buchanan by reacting at 80°C since Willberg-Keyrilainen teaches reacting the same cellulose, palmitoyl chloride and pyridine wherein the reaction is effectively carried out at 80°C for the same amount of time of 16 hr. Willberg-Keyrilainen teaches the same product as Ropponen can be made at reacting at 80°C instead of 60°C. Further Ropponen teaches the process steps are describing a particular embodiment and are not intended to be limiting as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize equivalents the examples are not limiting and the process. Ropponen is not limited to the 60°C of the example as Willberg-Keyrilainen teaches 80°C works equivalently to produce an identical product.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ropponen (WO 2016/193542) in view of Kano (JP 2009228159) and Buchanan (US 6,133,439) and further in view of Arora (WO 02/075028).
Ropponen, Kano and Buchanan are relied upon as set forth above.
Ropponen, Kano and Buchanan do not teach single screw extruders, melt pumps, multi strand filament die and the drawing speed.
Arora teaches that polymers such as cellulose esters (page 8, last paragraph – page 9, first paragraph) are effectively melt spun in a device comprising a single screw extruder and a melt pump (page 12, last paragraph, page 13, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Ropponen, Kano and Buchanan by melt spinning in a device having a single screw extruder and a melt pump as Arora teaches these are conventional components in producing a fiber from cellulose esters. Using known equipment with known melt pumps and single screw extruders is obvious as these instruments are known to be able to produce fibers efficiently.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Buchanan have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner argues that the melt temperature is generally recognized in the art to be the minimum temperature polymers are heated to for melt spinning so it can be carried out readily as evidenced by US 3,959,200 (column 3, lines 30-40), see also US 20070232169 (paragraph 0016). Accordingly applicant’s arguments that the polymer melt temperature would not be the indicative to one of ordinary skill in the art of the melt spinning temperature is not persuasive as US 3,959,200 directly contradicts that argument by explicitly stating that the melt temperature is the generally understood in the art to be the minimum heating temperature for melt spinning. Similarly, US 20070232169, which teaches in melt spinning, polymers are heated to melt temperature prior to extrusion, also contradicts applicant’s assertion.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights