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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, in the reply filed on March 14, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claims would appear to be part of an overlapping search area, and therefore there is no undue burden to search all the claims. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search and have a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,981,408 to Nakagawa in view of USPN 5,260,380 to Isayev.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 10, Nakagawa teaches a core and sheath type conjugate fiber in which a core component is formed of a thermotropic liquid crystalline polyester (A polymer) and a sheath component formed by blending a flexible thermoplastic polymer (B polymer) and a thermotropic liquid crystalline polyester (C type) (Nakagawa, Abstract). Nakagawa teaches that the sheath component has an islands-in-sea structure where the C polymer forms island components and the B polymer forms a sea component, wherein the island components preferably have a diameter of 0.01 to 0.5 micron (Id., column 7 lines 15-38). Nakagawa teaches that the core component ratio in the conjugate fiber is 0.25 to 8.0, and preferably, 0.3 to 0.7 (Id., column 8 lines 4-26). Nakagawa teaches that the diameter of the fiber is preferably 33 microns or less (Id., column 15 line 63 to column 16 line 3), and that exemplary deniers include about 9 and about 13 denier (Id., Examples 1-7, column 19 line 40 to column 20 line 40). Note that the A polymer and C type appear to be polyesters of the same species.
Nakagawa does not appear to teach the claimed ratio of the maximum diagonal length to the maximum width, including the length along the longitudinal direction. However, Isayev teaches a similar blend of a matrix polymer which is a melt processable flexible chain polymer or liquid crystal polymer and a fiber forming melt processable second liquid crystal polymer (Isayev Abstract). Isayev teaches that the first and second polymers are phase separated in the solid state, wherein the second polymer is capable of forming sub-microscopic fibers in situ in a matrix of the first polymer (Id., column 2 lines 6-33). Isayev teaches that the second polymer exhibits anisotropy and includes wholly aromatic polyesters (Id., column 5 line 59 to column 4 line 15). Isayev teaches that the submicroscopic fibers are not over about 10 microns in diameter and having a high aspect ratio over 50 and more typically over 100 (Id., column 7 lines 15-28). Note that the submicroscopic fibers in a matrix polymer are equivalent to islands in a sea. Isayev teaches that the preferred shaped article is an extruded article (Id., column 3 lines 3-4) in a desired shape, such as rods (Id., column 7 lines 3-13). Isayev teaches that as the extrudate blend cools and is stretched, submicroscopic fibers form to enhance molecular orientation and develop fibers (Id., column 7 lines 29-48). Isayev teaches that shaped articles have outstandingly good mechanical properties such as tensile strength and second modulus, as none of the fiber structure of the liquid crystal polymer is lost during molding or other shaping (Id., column 8 lines 21-56).
Since Nakagawa and Isayev comprise similar compositions and similar structure, such as compositions comprising a matrix phase and a liquid crystal polymer fiber forming phase, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the structure and properties of Isayev are similarly applicable to the fibers of Nakagawa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the conjugate fiber of Nakagawa, wherein the islands comprise an aspect ratio and corresponding length to the aspect ratio, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Isayev, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional conjugate fiber comprising islands having a length and aspect ratio known in the art to predictably result in the outstandingly good mechanical properties suitable for the intended application.
Note that based on the island diameter, aspect ratio, and corresponding length, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the maximum diagonal length would be met by the teachings of the prior art combination.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches that the core component ratio in the conjugate fiber is 0.25 to 8.0, and preferably, 0.3 to 0.7, and that the diameter of the fiber is preferably 33 microns or less. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the conjugate fiber of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the thickness of the sheath, such as within the claimed range, as suggested by Nakagawa, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional conjugate fiber comprising the desired dimensions based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights