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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 3-6 have been amended. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on March 9, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3,5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “hot” in claims 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes the examiner interpreted “hot” to be the range defined in claim 4, of 210-295°C. Claims 2,3,5 and 6 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US 5,908,290) in view of Berner (WO 2011/098223).
Kawamura teaches treating polyacrylonitrile (acryl based fibers (20)) for oxidation in a furnace where the fibers are guided on guide rollers (19a-e) outside the furnace (10) and the blowers are at an end of the furnace (11, B1A-B3A) where the fiber passes in between the blowers and receives hot air supplied in a parallel direction above and below the fibers (Figure 1, column 20, example 1). Kawamura teaches precursor yarns are heated to 200-350°C (precarbonization) and carbonized at 500-1500°C in inactive atmosphere (inert) (column 6, lines 10-26), specifically hot air speeds of 2m/s (V) and temperatures of 240°C for precarbonization and carbonization at 1400°C in nitrogen (inert) atmosphere (column 20, example 1).
Kawamura does not specify the claimed Vf and Vn.
Berner teaches that when using blowers and suction devices in an oxidation furnace to produce carbon fibers by oxidizing precursor fibers, flow can be directed around the fiber (orthogonally and below (see Figure 3, flow around the blowers 20 and above and below the fibers (20).
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 Kawamura by treating the fibers under the blower region (Vf ) and orthogonally to the travelling direction (Vn) as Berner teaches this pattern of air plow treatment can be created by using a blower and suction device. Further selecting a Vf and Vn as it is important to produce a uniform treatment to the fibers while they travel through the from the guide rollers through to oxidation. Selecting identical V, Vf and Vn unit would ensure that the fibers were getting a uniform treatment throughout the entire oxidation process.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US 5,908,290) in view of Berner (WO 2011/098223) and further in view of Nishida (JP 2000160435A).
Kawamura and Berner are relied upon as set forth above.
Kawamura and Berner do not specify the claimed single fiber fineness of 0.05-0.22 tex.
Nishida teaches treating acryl based fibers of 0.5-2.5 g/tex (page 3, paragraph 9) in an oxidation furnace with an oxidizing gas wherein the hot air gas flows at a rate of 1.5 -5 mm/sec parallel to the direction of the fibers (page 5, paragraph 5). Nishida teaches the fibers are placed on guide rollers installed on both ends outside the furnace body (see Figure 4; page 6, paragraph 2). Nishida teaches acrylonitrile fibers and oxidizing at 200-360°C (page 4, paragraphs 3 and 4). Nishida teaches application of uniform temperature to the fibers is important to avoid breakage and fusion between yarns and is adjusting air direction and air speed determination can produce a desired effect and ensure safety (page 4, paragraph 5).
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 Kawamura by treating the fibers under the blower region (Vf ) and orthogonally to the travelling direction (Vn) as Berner teaches this pattern of air plow treatment can be created by using a blower and suction device. Further selecting a Vf and Vn as it is important to produce a uniform treatment to the fibers while they travel through the from the guide rollers through to oxidation as is emphasized by Nishida. Selecting identical V, Vf and Vn unit would ensure that the fibers were getting a uniform treatment throughout the entire oxidation process.
It would have been further obvious to treat fibers of the claimed tex values in the methods of Kawamura as Nishida teaches treating acryl based fibers of 0.5-2.5 g/tex effectively by similar oxidation techniques with parallel air flow of hot gases to oxidize the fibers uniformly. Using a standard fiber of a conventionally used fiber fineness only requires routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
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