DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Election filed on 08/03/2026, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn based on the Restriction requirement. Claims 1-18 are considered in the current Office 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 claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant disagreed with the Examiner’s finding that Group I to III lack unity because the technical feature they have in common is not a specific technical feature. This is not found persuasive because Group I to III shared the same common feature of claim 1 and this technical feature is not a specific technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of EP2264232 (“Tanaka at el” hereinafter Tanaka), see 35 USC 103 rejection below. As the Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement over the prior art, the restriction is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/03/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2023 and 08/20/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the crystallite thickness of the polymer fiber" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the crystallite thickness, in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the crystallite thickness of the first drawn fiber" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the crystallite thickness, in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the crystallinity of the coagulated fiber" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the crystallinity, in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the crystallinity of the first drawn fiber" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the crystallinity, in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the Herman’s orientation factor of the coagulated fiber" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the Herman’s orientation factor, in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the Herman’s orientation factor of the polymer fiber" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the Herman’s orientation factor, in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the Herman’s orientation factor of the first drawn fiber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the Herman’s orientation factor, in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the cyclization activation energy of the first drawn fiber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the cyclization activation energy, in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the peak temperature of the cyclization exotherm of the coagulated fiber" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the peak temperature and the cyclization exotherm, in the claim.
Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of depended upon a rejected claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2264232 (“Tanaka et al” hereinafter Tanaka), cited in IDS dated 09/05/2023.
Regarding Claim 1, Tanaka teaches a process for producing polymer fiber ([0001] and abstract), the process comprising:
a) spinning a polymer solution into a coagulation bath, wherein a jet stretch is applied, to form coagulated fiber ([0058], the PAN-based polymer solution is coagulated in the coagulation bath to form a swelling fiber, and the fibers are wound by the roller provided with the driving source and the process of spinning solution passes through the spinnerets hole, jet stretch is applied);
b) subjecting the coagulated fiber obtained in step (a) to a wet stretch to form a first drawn fiber ([0060], the swelling fiber then subjected to a first drawing step which is generally carried out in a warm water bath for form); and
c) subjecting the first drawn fiber obtained in step (b) to a hot stretch ([0060], in the second drawing step, dry-heat drawing or drawing in a heating medium may be employed), thereby forming the polymer fiber ([0059]); the Herman's orientation factor of the polymer fiber produced is at least 0.60 ([0079], the crystallite orientation degree for the obtained precursor fiber is preferably 85 to 90%).
Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein the amount of jet stretch, the amount of wet stretch, and the amount of hot stretch are effective to achieve the following properties wherein: the crystallite thickness of the polymer fiber produced is at least 3 nm greater than the crystallite thickness of the first drawn fiber.
As the thickness is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said viscosity of the fiber, with said viscosity increases as the thickness of the fiber decreases, as evidenced by Tanaka ([0032]), the precise thickness of the fiber would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness of the fiber cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the fiber in the method of Tanaka to obtain desired viscosity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. With respect to the crystallite thickness required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the same process for manufacturing polymer fiber as required by the instant claims, the crystallite thickness would be expected to be the same. See MPEP 2112.01 (II). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding Claim 2, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein the crystallinity of the coagulated fiber is no more than 8% greater than the crystallinity of the first drawn fiber.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a coagulated fiber ([0058]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a coagulated fiber (page 6, lines 19-20).
As the crystallinity is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said density of the fiber, with said viscosity increases as the thickness of the fiber increases, the precise crystallinity of the fiber would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed crystallinity of the fiber cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the crystallinity of the fiber in the method of Tanaka to obtain desired density of the fiber (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to the crystallinity of the coagulated fiber required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of spinning the polymer solution to form a coagulated fiber as required by the instant claims, the crystallinity of the coagulated fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein a linear mass density of the polymer fiber produced is from 0.7 to 1.2 denier per filament.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch ([0058]-[0060]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch (page 6, lines 19-30).
As the linear mass density is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said crystallinity of the fiber, with said linear mass density increases as the crystallinity of the fiber increases, the precise linear mass density of the fiber would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed linear mass density of the fiber cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the linear mass density of the fiber in the method of Tanaka to obtain desired crystallinity of the fiber (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to the liner mass density of the polymer fiber required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of forming the polymer fiber as required by the instant claims, the linear mass density of the polymer fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein an average diameter of the coagulated fiber is at least 40 µm.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a coagulated fiber ([0058]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a coagulated fiber (page 6, lines 19-20).
With respect to the average diameter of the coagulated fiber required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of spinning the polymer solution to form a coagulated fiber as required by the instant claims, the average diameter of the coagulated fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein an average diameter of the first drawn fiber is at least 15 µm.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a first drawn fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet stretch ([0058]-[0060]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a first drawn fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet stretch (page 6, lines 19-30).
With respect to the average diameter of the first drawn fiber required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of forming the first drawn fiber as required by the instant claims, the average diameter of the first drawn fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 6, Tanaka teaches the process according claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein the Herman's orientation factor of the coagulated fiber is at least 0.35.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a coagulated fiber ([0058]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a coagulated fiber (page 6, lines 19-20).
As the Herman’s orientation factor is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said tensile strength of the fiber, with said Herman’s orientation factor increases as the tensile strength of the fiber increases, the precise Herman’s orientation factor of the fiber would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed Herman’s orientation factor of the fiber cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the Herman’s orientation factor of the fiber in the method of Tanaka to obtain desired tensile strength of the fiber (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to the Herman's orientation factor of the coagulated fiber required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of spinning the polymer solution to form a coagulated fiber as required by the instant claims, the Herman's orientation factor of the coagulated fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 7, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein the Herman's orientation factor of the polymer fiber produced is at least 0.08 greater than the Herman’s orientation factor of the first drawn fiber.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch ([0058]-[0060]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch (page 6, lines 19-30).
As the Herman’s orientation factor is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said tensile strength of the fiber, with said Herman’s orientation factor increases as the tensile strength of the fiber increases, the precise Herman’s orientation factor of the fiber would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed Herman’s orientation factor of the fiber cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the Herman’s orientation factor of the fiber in the method of Tanaka to obtain desired tensile strength of the fiber (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With respect to the Herman's orientation factor of the polymer fiber and the Herman’s orientation factor of the first drawn fiber required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of forming the polymer fiber and the first drawn fiber as required by the instant claims, the Herman's orientation factor of the polymer fiber and the Herman’s orientation factor of the first drawn fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 8 and claim 9, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein an activation energy of structural relaxation for βc of the polymer fiber produced is less than 700 kJ/mol as claimed in claim 8 or from 500 to 600 kJ/mol as claimed in claim 9.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch ([0058]-[0060]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch (page 6, lines 19-30).
With respect to the activation energy of structural relaxation for βc of the polymer fiber as required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of forming the polymer fiber as required by the instant claims, the activation energy of structural relaxation for βc of the polymer fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 10, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein a cyclization activation energy of the polymer fiber produced is at least 7 kJ/mol greater than the cyclization activation energy of the first drawn fiber.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch ([0058]-[0060]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch (page 6, lines 19-30).
With respect to the cyclization activation energy of the polymer fiber and the cyclization activation energy of the first drawn fiber required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of forming the polymer fiber and the first drawn fiber as required by the instant claims, the cyclization activation energy of the polymer fiber and the cyclization activation energy of the first drawn fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 11, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein a tenacity of the polymer fiber produced is at least 4 g/d.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch ([0058]-[0060]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch (page 6, lines 19-30).
With respect to the tenacity of the polymer fiber as required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of forming the polymer fiber as required by the instant claims, the tenacity of the polymer fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein a Young's Modulus of the polymer fiber produced is at least 95 g/d as claimed in claim 12 and 95 to 130 g/d as claimed in claim 13.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch ([0058]-[0060]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch (page 6, lines 19-30).
With respect to the Young's Modulus of the polymer fiber as required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of forming the polymer fiber as required by the instant claims, the Young's Modulus of the polymer fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 14, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, Tanaka fails to explicitly teach wherein a peak temperature of a cyclization exotherm of the polymer fiber produced is at least 3 °C higher than the peak temperature of the cyclization exotherm of the coagulated fiber and/or the first drawn fiber.
However, Tanaka teaches a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer and a solvent in which PAN is soluble such as dimethyl sulfoxide ([0043]) and spinning the polymer solution in a coagulation bath contains a dimethyl sulfoxide ([0057]) to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch ([0058]-[0060]). The instant application also discloses using a polymer solution comprises of PAN-based polymer (page 6, lines 34-page 7, lines 3) in a solvent such as dimethyl sulfoxide (page 8, lines 6-11) and spinning the polymer solution to form a polymer fiber through coagulation bath follow by wet and hot stretch (page 6, lines 19-30).
With respect to the peak temperature of a cyclization exotherm of the polymer fiber and a peak temperature of the cyclization exotherm of the coagulated fiber and/or the first drawn fiber required by the claims, it is the position of the examiner that because the reference teaches the use of the same polymer solution and the same process of forming the polymer fiber and the first drawn fiber as required by the instant claims, the peak temperature of a cyclization exotherm of the polymer fiber and the peak temperature of the cyclization exotherm of the coagulated fiber and/or the first drawn fiber would be expected to be the same. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (II).
Regarding Claim 15, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the polymer fiber produced is polyacrylonitrile-based polymer fiber ([0016]).
Regarding Claim 16, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the spinning of the polymer solution is achieved by wet spinning ([0053], the spinning of the spinning solution can be produced by wet spinning method).
Regarding Claim 17, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the coagulation bath comprises a mixture of DMSO and water ([0057], the coagulation bath comprises of dimethyl sulfoxide and water).
Regarding Claim 18, Tanaka teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the polymer fiber produced is carbon fiber precursor fiber (abstract and [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights