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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 52, 54, 57, and 58, drawn to a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B, or a sheet comprising the polymer of claim 1, or a molded article comprising the polymer of claim 1, classified in C08G63/183.
II. Claim 9, drawn to a process for preparation of a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B, classified in C08G63/183.
III. Claim 32, drawn to a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is C2-30 alkylene, wherein C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, classified in C08G63/183.
IV. Claim 35, drawn to a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, classified in C08G63/183.
V. Claim 55, drawn to a polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group A, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, classified in C08G63/183.
VI. Claim 56, drawn to a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group B, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, classified in C08G63/183.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process because the cleavable polymer of claim 1 can be made by a process comprising reacting a compound having the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
34
90
media_image1.png
Greyscale
with a compound having the formula
PNG
media_image2.png
88
150
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ra is H, and a compound having the formula
PNG
media_image3.png
90
154
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein Rb is H.
Inventions I and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because the cleavable polymer of claim 1 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B, which is not required by claim 32, and the cleavable polymer of claim 32 comprises one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is C2-30 alkylene, wherein C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 1. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and IV are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because the cleavable polymer of claim 1 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B, which is not required by claim 35, and the cleavable polymer of claim 35 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 1. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and V are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because the cleavable polymer of claim 1 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B, which is not required by claim 55, and the polymer of claim 55 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 1. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and VI are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because the polymer of claim 1 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B, which is not required by claim 56, and the cleavable polymer of claim 56 comprises one or more repeat units containing group B, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 1. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions III and II are directed to an unrelated product and process. Product and process inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that the product cannot be used in, or made by, the process. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06. In the instant case, the cleavable polymer of claim 32 cannot be used in, or made by, the process of claim 9 because the cleavable polymer of claim 32 comprises one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is C2-30 alkylene, wherein C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, and the process of claim 9 is a process for preparation of a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B.
Inventions IV and II are directed to an unrelated product and process. Product and process inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that the product cannot be used in, or made by, the process. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06. In the instant case, the cleavable polymer of claim 35 cannot be used in, or made by, the process of claim 9 because the cleavable polymer of claim 35 comprises one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, and the process of claim 9 is a process for preparation of a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B.
Inventions V and II are directed to an unrelated product and process. Product and process inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that the product cannot be used in, or made by, the process. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06. In the instant case, the polymer of claim 55 cannot be used in, or made by, the process of claim 9 because the polymer of claim 55 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, and the process of claim 9 is a process for preparation of a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B.
Inventions VI and II are directed to an unrelated product and process. Product and process inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that the product cannot be used in, or made by, the process. See MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06. In the instant case, the cleavable polymer of claim 56 cannot be used in, or made by, the process of claim 9 because the cleavable polymer of claim 56 comprises one or more repeat units containing group B, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, and the process of claim 9 is a process for preparation of a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B.
Inventions III and IV are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because the cleavable polymer of claim 32 comprises one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is C2-30 alkylene, wherein C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 35, and the cleavable polymer of claim 35 comprises one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 32. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions III and V are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because the cleavable polymer of claim 32 comprises one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is C2-30 alkylene, wherein C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 55, and the polymer of claim 55 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 32. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions III and VI are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed cleavable polymer of claim 32 comprises comprising one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is C2-30 alkylene, wherein C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 56, and the cleavable polymer of claim 56 comprises one or more repeat units containing group B, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 32. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions IV and V are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because the cleavable polymer of claim 35 comprises one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 55, and the polymer of claim 55 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 35. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions IV and VI are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because the cleavable polymer of claim 35 comprises one or more repeat units containing group C and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 56, and the cleavable polymer of claim 56 comprises one or more repeat units containing group B, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 35. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions V and VI are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because the polymer of claim 55 comprises one or more repeat units containing group A, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 56, and the cleavable polymer of claim 56 comprises one or more repeat units containing group B, one or more repeat units containing group C, and one or more repeat units containing group D, wherein group C is arylene or C2-30 alkylene, wherein arylene and C2-30 alkylene can be optionally substituted from 1 to 3 times with R3, which is not required by claim 55. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
It is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions, such as employing different search queries because the inventions are independent and distinct from each other as explained above.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Anna V. Gromova on 06/24/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-7, 52, 54, 57, and 58. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9, 32, 35, 55, and 56 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 52, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teng et al. (CN 112176453 A, machine translation in English or untranslated patent used for citation as indicated).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 52, and 54, Teng teaches a modified copolymer polyester masterbatch that has the structure (translation [0014]) that is one of (translation [0016])
PNG
media_image4.png
112
652
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(untranslated [0012]), wherein the m:n ratio in the structure of the modified polyester is 6-10:3-6 (translation [0017]), wherein the modified copolymer polyester is prepared (translation [0024]) from 2,5-dihydroxyterephthalic acid, terephthalic acid, and ethylene glycol as follows (translation [0025])
PNG
media_image5.png
276
840
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(untranslated [0027]), wherein the melt viscosity is 0.42-0.6 (translation [0029]) at 280-290°C (translation [0028]), wherein the modified copolymer polyester (translation 0030) which reads on a cleavable polymer comprising one or more repeat units containing group A and one or more repeat units containing group B, wherein the repeating unit containing group A is
PNG
media_image6.png
96
194
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, the repeating unit containing group B is
PNG
media_image7.png
104
196
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
12
26
media_image8.png
Greyscale
is a chemically cleavable bond, group
PNG
media_image9.png
46
46
media_image9.png
Greyscale
is selected from arylene, group
PNG
media_image10.png
44
42
media_image10.png
Greyscale
is selected from phenylene, Rb and Rbb are independently selected from -H, s is 1, n is within 1 to 1,000,000, and m is within 1 to 1,000,000 as claimed, wherein the repeat unit containing group A is
PNG
media_image11.png
92
192
media_image11.png
Greyscale
as claimed, wherein the repeat unit containing group B is
PNG
media_image12.png
94
196
media_image12.png
Greyscale
as claimed, wherein the polymer comprises a moiety of formula
PNG
media_image13.png
124
364
media_image13.png
Greyscale
as claimed, wherein the polymer has the structure of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image14.png
134
420
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein Ra and Raa are independently selected from -H as claimed, wherein the polymer has the structure of Formula (Ia) or Formula (Ib):
PNG
media_image15.png
132
416
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
128
420
media_image16.png
Greyscale
wherein Ra and Raa are independently selected from -H, and Rb and Rbb are independently selected from -H as claimed, the cleavable polymer of claim 1, further comprising one or more repeat units group C: wherein the repeat unit containing group C is
PNG
media_image17.png
94
194
media_image17.png
Greyscale
, group
PNG
media_image18.png
44
44
media_image18.png
Greyscale
is arylene, each Y is independently O, and p is 1 as claimed, the cleavable polymer of claim 1, further comprising one or more repeat units containing group D: wherein the repeat unit containing group D is
PNG
media_image19.png
92
194
media_image19.png
Greyscale
, group
PNG
media_image20.png
42
44
media_image20.png
Greyscale
is arylene, each Y is independently O, and p is 1 as claimed.
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.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (CN 112176453 A, machine translation in English or untranslated patent used for citation as indicated) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0141030 A1).
Regarding claim 57, Teng teaches the polymer of claim 1 as explained above. Teng teaches a four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber comprising a sheath layer and a core layer, wherein the sheath layer is made of Teng’s modified copolymer polyester, and the core layer is made of a polyester [0013].
Teng does not teach a sheet comprising the polymer of claim 1. However, Lee teaches a composite cloth having a sheet shape formed by weaving or knitting copolyester fiber of a copolyester into cloth having a sheet shape [0014], wherein the fiber is formed by spinning copolyester into fiber threads to form a copolyester fiber [0013]. Teng and Lee are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a copolyester. Before the effective filing date of claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a cloth having a sheet shape by weaving or knitting Teng’s four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber comprising a sheath layer comprising Teng’s modified copolymer polyester and core layer into cloth having a sheet shape, as suggested by Lee. The proposed modification would read on a sheet comprising the polymer of claim 1 as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an additional utility for Teng’s modified copolymer polyester and Teng’s four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber because Lee teaches that a copolyester fiber is beneficial for forming a composite cloth having a sheet shape by weaving or knitting the copolyester fiber of a copolyester into cloth having a sheet shape [0014], wherein the fiber is formed by spinning copolyester into fiber threads to form a copolyester fiber [0013], and because Teng teaches that the four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber comprises a sheath layer and a core layer, wherein the sheath layer is made of Teng’s modified copolymer polyester, and the core layer is made of a polyester [0013], which means that Teng’s four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber and Lee’s copolyester fiber both comprise polyester.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (CN 112176453 A, machine translation in English or untranslated patent used for citation as indicated) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Venugopal et al. (US 2021/0023815 A1).
Regarding claim 58, Teng teaches the polymer of claim 1 as explained above. Teng teaches a four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber comprising a sheath layer and a core layer, wherein the sheath layer is made of Teng’s modified copolymer polyester, and the core layer is made of a polyester [0013].
Teng does not teach a molded article comprising the polymer of claim 1. However, Venugopal teaches a molded article produced from a nonwoven laminate [0051], wherein the nonwoven laminate comprises [0019] a spunbond nonwoven layer comprising fibers, which comprise polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester [0020]. Teng and Venugopal are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a copolyester. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to produce a molded article from a nonwoven laminate comprising a spunbond nonwoven layer comprising Teng’s four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber comprising a sheath layer comprising Teng’s modified copolymer polyester and core layer, as suggested by Venugopal. The proposed modification would read on a molded article comprising the polymer of claim 1 as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an additional utility of Teng’s modified copolymer polyester and Teng’s four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber because Venugopal teaches that polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester is beneficial for being useful for fibers and spunbond nonwoven layer comprising the fibers [0020], that the spunbond nonwoven layer is beneficial for use in [0020] a nonwoven laminate [0019], and that the nonwoven laminate is beneficial for producing a molded article from the nonwoven laminate [0051], and because Teng teaches that the four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber comprises a sheath layer and a core layer, wherein the sheath layer is made of Teng’s modified copolymer polyester, and the core layer is made of a polyester [0013], which means that Teng’s four-leaf-shaped core-sheath structure negative oxygen ion fiber and Venugopal’s fibers comprising polyethylene terephthalate and copolyester both comprise polyester.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights