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 1-16 are pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on April 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted claims 9-16 are use claims, which are subject to 112(b) and 101 rejections as they recite a use with no active method steps.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a the” in the last line should be corrected to “and the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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 “high-speed” in claims 1 (steps s2, high-speed stirring, and s3, high speed premixing) and 7 (high-speed mixer) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. Claims 2-6 and 8 are also rejected for being dependent upon claims 1 or 7 and inheriting the same deficiencies.
The term “fully” in claims 1-3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fully” 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. Claims 4-8 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiencies.
The term “trickle” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “trickle” 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. Claim 8 is also rejected for being dependent upon claim 7 and inheriting the same deficiencies.
Claim 5 contains the trademark/trade names KH-602, KH550, KH540 and YDH-151. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe silane coupling agents and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (CN 115787121) in view of Zhou (CN 113026163).
Yao teaches producing anti-cutting ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers (abstract) by mixing solvent and dispersant in a kettle and mixing uniformly (page 4), adding one or more silane coupling agents selected from KH 550, KH 570, KH 560, KH151 and KH 1160, and ceramic fibers to the dispersing agent solvent composition in a high speed mixer and heating to 150-250°C and adding the polyolefin powder, mixing and melt spinning into a double-screw extruder and passing to a spinneret, cooling, stretching and drying (heat setting) and heat stretching (heat setting) and winding (page 5, page 6 example 1). Yao teaches the ceramic whisker fibers can have diameters of less than 2 micrometer and length diameter ratios of more than 15:1 (page 3).
Yao does not specify the order of mixing and the microscale and nanoscale alumina and silica or fully dried ceramic fiber.
Zhou teaches that anti-cutting fibers are conventionally made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (page 2, paragraph 2) and effectively incorporate ceramic fibers which are made from aluminum silicate (alumina and silica blend; page 3, paragraph 9).
It would have been obvious to ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Yao by using ceramic fibers made from nano and micro silica and alumina as Zhou teaches ceramic fibers used in anti-cutting fibers are effectively made from aluminum silicate which is a blend of alumina and silica and Yao invites the inclusion of ceramic fibers of diameters of less than 2 micrometer and length diameter ratios of more than 15:1. Selecting micrometer and nanometer sized silica and alumina from the less than 2 micrometer range and selecting the length to be the claimed values from Yao’s teaching of length diameter ratios of more than 15:1 is obvious through routine experimentation as mixtures of these elements are known to make ceramic fibers used for the same purpose and using any diameter and length or mixtures of different sizes within the acceptable range is obvious absent a showing of unexpected results for a particular subset of the range. Regarding the limitation of fully dried ceramic fiber, the prior art does not teach the fiber is wetted and therefore it meets the limitation of fully dried. Regarding the mixing order, the examiner argues that mixing the same components together to form a homogeneously bended and dispersed composition for producing similar fibers by extruding through a twin screw extruder, spinning through a spinneret, colling, stretching heat setting and winding is obvious as all the same components are blended to form the composition prior to the fiber forming steps. The order of combining the components into the final composition has not been demonstrated to be critical. The final composition contains all the same components regardless of the order of combining them. Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
Regarding the mass of the silane coupling agent and dispersant based on the dried ceramic fiber, the mass ratio of the fully dried ceramic fiber to the polyolefin powder, mass of the nanoscale alumina and silica, the mass of the microscale alumina and silica, the stirring and premixing temperature, times and speeds, Yao teaches preferred temperatures and times in the examples and body of the reference and teaches high speed mixing, since the embodiments are preferred they are not limiting. Selecting the claimed amounts of silane coupling agents, ceramic fibers, polyolefin, alumina and silica, and the mixing conditions, specifically high speed mixing speed, temperature and time of claims 2,3,6 and 8 to prepare a uniform dispersion of the components used to make uniform fibers is obvious through routine experimentation such that the end product fiber has a uniform composition and desired anti-cutting performance.
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