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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 12, 14, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st par. as failing to comply with the written description requirement, as understood the traversal relies on arguments. The rejection was previously presented because the Specification had changed the scope of “synthetic fiber” from including lignin and cellulose (as originally filled) to lignin and cellulose based fibers. Applicant argues “The present application is an English translation of an earlier application and perhaps the translation has caused confusion. The Japanese specification as filed in the international application actually recites
PNG
media_image1.png
45
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which might be more accurately rendered in English as "cellulose-based fibers" and "lignin-based fibers." Accordingly, the proposed amendment more closely tracks the original Japanese text and further clarifies the English translation, without introducing any new technical matter.” [Remarks, Page 7, Paragraph 1]. This is unpersuasive. Although the original text “might be” more accurately translated as cellulose/lignin based, it also might not. There is no indication that the translation presented in the Remarks translates to an official translation by applicants and/or a third party. The rejections have been MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 12, 14, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita et al. in view of Toshio et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Applicant has amended Claim 12 to recite “the content of boron atoms detected by ICP emission spectrometry from the nonvolatile content of the treatment agent is not less than 0.1 ppm and not more than 15 ppm”.
Applicant argues “To render a claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, at a minimum, each and every element of the claim must be disclosed in the cited art.” []. This is inaccurate. 35 U.S.C. 103 states “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.”. Nowhere is it required that every element be disclosed in the art, only that the differences between what is disclosed and what is claimed are obvious.
Applicant further argues “Applicant respectfully submits that Iwashita and Toshio, alone or in any combination, do not teach or fairly suggest the newly recited upper limit of the boron content of 15 ppm.” [Remarks, Page 7, Paragraph 6]. This is unpersuasive. The claimed range (0.1 – 15 ppm) is entirely within Iwashita’s range of less than 20 ppm, or 0 - 20 ppm.
Furthermore, to the extent to which Iwashita et al. is limited to a purity of 20 ppm (no such concession is given) the present amendments still would not lead to patentability. MPEP 2144.04.VII states “the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.”. It is also noted that the purification process disclosed by the instant invention specification is conventional “The method for removing the catalyst from a liquid that has undergone the addition step is not restricted in particular, and a known method can be used.” [0055], and therefore within the reach of one of ordinary skill in the art. The disclosure of Iwashita clearly prefers more pure compositions which motivates purities lower than 20 ppm.
Applicant further argues that it would be non-obvious to pick boron trifluoride out of the list of catalysts disclosed by Iwashita. These arguments have been previously presented and responded to, see Office Action dated 3/10/2026, Page 5, Paragraph 2. The present arguments do not appear to address the 3/10/2026 response, and merely restate the Applicants position. This remains unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues “Toshio relates to a synthetic fiber treatment agent for papermaking and addresses dispersion of synthetic fibers in a papermaking bath. Toshio does not address the problem of suppressing fluff in a spinning step of a carbon fiber precursor as in the present application. Therefore, Toshio does not provide a proper motivation to modify Iwashita in the manner required to arrive at the claimed invention. The only motivation to do so appears to originate from Applicant's own specification, which is impermissible hindsight.”. This is unpersuasive. Although Toshio et al. discloses that the alcohol in question (“a monohydric aliphatic alcohol having an alkyl chain with 12, 13, or 14 carbon atoms in its molecule and having a hydroxy group at a β-position of the alkyl chain”) has different effects other than suppressing fluff, these beneficial effects are clearly articulated entirely within the disclosure of Toshio et al. The motivation to combine Toshio et al. with Iwashita et al. was clearly communicated in the Office Action dated 3/10/2026 on Page 10, Paragraph 1. It is unclear how the Applicant thought that the motivation to combine originated within their disclosure. The rejections are MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita et al., in view of Toshio et al., in further view of Hashimoto et al., as understood the traversal relies on arguments. Applicant argues “Hashimoto does not cure these defects. Consequently, Iwashita, Toshio, and Hashimoto fail to disclose each and every element of amended independent claims 1 and 12.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 3]. This is unpersuasive, as Iwashita et al. in view of Toshio et al. have not been found defective (see above). The rejection is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 12, 14, and 18-21 are directed towards a synthetic fiber treatment agent. As of the amendments presented on 12/18/2025 the scope of “synthetic fiber” has been changed from including cellulose and lignin fibers to cellulose and lignin based synthetic fibers. The broadened scope is considered new matter not supported by the specification as filled; said claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st par. for failing the written description requirement as a result.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105189856 Iwashita et al. in view of JP 2004183124 A Toshio et al. Claim 12 requires “A synthetic fiber treatment agent comprising a smoothing agent and a (poly)oxyalkylene derivative”. Iwashita et al. discloses “the treating agent of the present invention preferably contains a polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether represented by the general formula (1) and a polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether ester represented by the general formula (2).” [0098]. The polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether is identified as a polyoxyalkylene derivative and the polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether ester is identified as the smoothing agent. Both the instant application specification (“Examples of the smoothing agent contained in the treatment agent of the present embodiment include a silicone and an ester” [0043]) and Iwashita et al. (“Generally, synthetic fiber treatment agents are composed mainly of smoothing agents such as polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether, polyether compounds, and ester compounds” [0005]) recognize esters as smoothing agents.
Claim 12 further requires “wherein the (poly)oxyalkylene derivative is prepared by adding an alkylene oxide to an alcohol under presence of a catalyst having a boron atom in its molecule”. Iwashita et al. discloses “The method for producing the polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether represented by the general formula (1) can be carried out in the presence of a catalyst. The catalyst is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include: … boron trifluoride, and boron trifluoride diethyl ether” [0049]. The method of Iwashita et al. does not require a boron containing catalyst however its selection would have been obvious because it is listed as an effective catalyst for performing the required reaction. MPEP 2143 I.(E) & 2144.07.
Claim 12 further requires “the alcohol being a monohydric aliphatic alcohol having an alkyl chain with 12, 13, or 14 carbon atoms in its molecule and having a hydroxy group at a β-position of the alkyl chain”. Iwashita et al. discloses “Examples of the monohydric alcohol include aliphatic monohydric alcohols. … The monohydric alcohol is preferably a primary alcohol or a secondary alcohol … The monohydric alcohol preferably has 4 to 24 carbon atoms, more preferably 8 to 22 carbon atoms, and even more preferably 8 to 18 carbon atoms” [0046]. In other words Iwashita discloses a range of alcohols that can be effectively used which contain the claimed range of alcohols, however Iwashita does not specifically limit the position of the hydroxyl group within the alcohol to the β-position.
Toshio et al. is similarly directed to a synthetic fiber treatment agent comprising polyoxyalkylene derivatives. Toshio et al. discloses “In the hydroxy compound represented by formula 1 used in the synthetic fiber treating agent for papermaking according to the present invention (hereinafter simply referred to as the treating agent of the present invention), R in formula 1 is a residue obtained by removing a hydroxyl group from a monovalent secondary alcohol having 8 to 22 carbon atoms. Examples of R include residues obtained by removing a hydroxyl group from a monovalent secondary alcohol having 8 to 22 carbon atoms, such as 4-octanol, 4-decanol, 2-dodecanol, 4-dodecanol, 5-tridecanol, 7-tridecanol, 2-tetradecanol, 3-tetradecanol, 3-hexadecanol, 9-octadecanol, and 6-ethyl-6-hexadecanol. Of these, residues obtained by removing a hydroxyl group from a monovalent secondary alcohol having 10 to 16 carbon atoms, such as 2-dodecanol, 4-dodecanol, 5-tridecanol, 7-tridecanol, 2-tetradecanol, 3-tetradecanol, and 3-hexadecanol, are preferred.” [3.]. Of the preferred alcohols of Toshio et al. 2-dodecanol and 2-tetradecanol are identified as a monohydric aliphatic alcohol having an alkyl chain with 12 or 14 (respectively) carbon atoms in its molecule and having a hydroxy group at a β-position of the alkyl chain. Furthermore an embodiment using 2-dodecanol is used by Toshio et al. as example 1 “The following 1) to 24) are examples of embodiments of the treatment agent of the present invention. 1) A treatment agent comprising 79% by weight of the following hydroxy compound (A-1) …
Hydroxy compound (A-1): A hydroxy compound represented by formula 1 in which R in formula 1 is a residue obtained by removing hydroxyl groups from 2-dodecanol” [8.-9.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of forming a synthetic fiber treatment agent of Iwashita et al. with the alcohol employed by Toshio et al. in the process of making a synthetic fiber treatment agent for at least the reason that both inventors are trying to solve a similar problem within the same field.
The motivation to have included the preferred alcohols from Toshio et al. in place of the general alcohols disclosed as effective by Iwashita et al. is given by Toshio et al. Specifically it is noted that treatment liquid “P-1” which contains the hydroxyl compound “A-1” which is made from 2-dodecanol ([15.]) was tested in Table 2 and got the highest possible rating, indicating it had no air bubble adhesion observed and good formation, no fiber bundles such as adductor muscles observed [19.]. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that by using 2-dodecanol as suggested by Toshio et al. that the detrimental bubble formation and adductor muscles would be avoided during fiber treatment.
Claim 12 further requires “the content of boron atoms detected by ICP emission spectrometry from the nonvolatile content of the treatment agent is not less than 0.1 ppm and not more than 15 ppm.”. Regarding the amount of catalyst remaining in the final product Iwashita et al. discloses “The amount of the catalyst remaining after removal is not particularly limited, but is preferably 300 ppm or less, more preferably 200 ppm or less, further preferably 100 ppm or less, particularly preferably 50 ppm or less, and most preferably 20 ppm or less.” [0074]. Therefore the range disclosed (less than 20 ppm, or 0 – 20 ppm) overlaps significantly with the range claimed (0.1 – 15 ppm). It is noted that Iwashita et al. does not disclose what particular method was used to assess the content of boron, however ICP emission spectroscopy is an accurate tool the content of boron would have returned similar results. There is no reason to expect that a composition containing, for example, 10 ppm of boron atoms would have been measured outside of the range of 0.1-15 ppm if ICP emission spectroscopy had been used as the measurement tool.
Furthermore, to whatever extent Iwashita et al. is limited to 15-20 ppm of boron in their preferred composition (no such concession is given) further purification would have been prima facie obvious because Iwashita clearly demonstrates that more pure compositions are preferred (see above) which motivates further purification. It is noted that as disclosed by the instant invention specification (“The method for removing the catalyst from a liquid that has undergone the addition step is not restricted in particular, and a known method can be used.” [0055]) the purification process is conventional, in other words within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 requires “the (poly)oxyalkylene derivative includes a compound in which an alkylene oxide with 2 to 4 carbon atoms is added at a ratio of 1 to 30 moles in total to 1 mole of an alcohol.”. Iwashita gives a generic formula (1) for the polyoxyalkylene ether of “RO-(EO)a-[(PO)b/(EO)c]-(EO)d-H” [0036]. It is understood that RO corresponds to the ether formed from the alcohol (“an alcohol represented by the following general formula (A) … ROH (A)” [0044-0045]) and the EO and PO correspond to ethylene oxide and propylene oxide (“PO represents oxypropylene, and EO represents oxyethylene.” [0037]). Therefore the ratio of alkylene oxide to alcohol is given by (a+b+c+d):1. Regarding a, b, c, and d Iwashita discloses “The average number of added moles a in the general formula (1) is not particularly limited, but is usually 1 to 10 mol, preferably 2 to 6 mol, and more preferably 3 to 4 mol.” [0038], “The average added molar numbers b and c in the general formula (1) are not particularly limited, but b is usually 1 to 10 mol, preferably 2 to 8 mol, more preferably 3 to 4 mol, and c is usually 1 to 10 mol, preferably 2 to 8 mol, more preferably 3 to 6 mol.” [0039], and “The average added mole number d in the general formula (1) is not particularly limited, but is usually 1 to 40 mol, preferably 2 to 30 mol, more preferably 3 to 20 mol, and most preferably 4 to 10 mol.” [0040]. Therefore using the broadest range disclosed by Iwashita et al. yields a ratio of 4-70:1 and using the most preferred range the ratio is 13-24:1, both of which read on the claimed range of 1-30:1.
Claim 19 requires “if the sum of the contents of the (poly)oxyalkylene derivative and the smoothing agent is taken as 100 parts by mass, the content of the (poly)oxyalkylene derivative is 10 to 70 parts by mass and the content of the smoothing agent is 90 to 30 parts by mass.” Iwashita et al. discloses “the weight ratio of polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether [the (poly)oxyalkylene derivative] to polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether ester [the smoothing agent] (polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether:polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether ester) is preferably 20:80 to 99:1, more preferably 40:60 to 95:5, and further preferably 55:45 to 90:10.” [0099]. In other words the content of the (poly)oxyalkylene derivative is 20 to 99 parts by mass and the content of the smoothing agent is 80 to 1 parts by mass, which has significant overlap with the range claimed.
Claim 20 requires “the synthetic fiber is a carbon fiber precursor.”. Iwashita is silent towards carbon fiber, however Claim 20 modifies the preamble of Claim 12 which is considered intended use. MPEP 2111.02(II) states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. In this case the body fully sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention (a mixture comprising a polyoxyalkylene derivative and smoothing agent) while the preamble merely suggests an intended use (treating synthetic fibers/carbon fiber precursors). There are no limitations to the mixture suggested by the use of treating synthetic fibers or treating synthetic fibers that are later converted into carbon fibers and therefore the scope of Claim 12 and 20 is the same. Additionally and/or alternatively, titling the synthetic fiber as a carbon fiber precursor is, at best, a mere difference in nomenclature, which, without more, cannot connote non-obviousness. See Ex parte Stanley, 121 USPQ 621, 625 (BPAI 1958) (holding that mere nomenclature differences do not patentably distinguish a claim from the prior art), and Sellers v. Cofrode 35 F. 131 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1888) (per curiam) (stating that a difference in naming “does not tend to distinguish”). See also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975) (reaching conclusion so as to prevent “the allowance of claims drawn to unpatentable subject matter merely through the employment of descriptive language not chosen by the prior art”).
Claim 21 requires “A synthetic fiber to which the synthetic fiber treatment agent according to claim 12 is adhered.”. Iwashita et al. discloses “The method for applying the synthetic fiber treating agent of the present invention to the (raw material) synthetic fiber filaments is not particularly limited, and a known method can be adopted. Typically, there are methods of applying oil to (raw) synthetic fiber filaments during the spinning process or the stretching process, or applying oil to the (raw) synthetic fiber filaments using an oil roller, an oil guide, etc.” [0121].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105189856 Iwashita et al., in view of JP 2004183124 A Toshio et al., in further view of WO 2017169632 A1 Hashimoto et al. Regarding Claim 18, Iwashita et al. in view of Toshio et al. disclose all of the limitations of Claim 12. Claim 18 further requires “the smoothing agent contains an amino-modified silicone.”. Iwashita et al. and Toshio et al. are silent towards amino-modified silicone.
Hashimoto et al. is similarly directed to agents for the treatment of fibers (see Abstract). Hashimoto et al. discloses “That is, the treatment agent for acrylic fibers of the present invention contains an amino-modified silicone and a polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether” [6]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the treatment agent of Iwashita et al. with the amino-modified silicone of Hashimoto et al. because they both similarly related to compositions for treating fibers. The motivation to include the amino-modified silicone of Hashimoto et al. is to prevent the fusion of fibers “By using amino-modified silicone and polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether in combination and setting the ratios P(10), P(30), and P(120) within the prescribed ranges, it is possible to suppress fusion of fibers” [30].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any 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 JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights