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 claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 5-6-26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Cronk et al. does not teach the technical feature linking Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive because the claimed invention is taught by 20190145022 in view of 2016/0229104. 20190145022 discloses the claimed system except for a radiation source adapted and configured to project radiation through at least a portion of a distance defined between the proximate gap and the distal gap. However, 2016/0229104 teaches a radiation source for separation the filament from the collection surface. Therefore, the claimed invention is not inventive in view of the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5-6-26.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the angle" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the polarized laser polarization direction" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the fiber axis" in lien 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jao et al. (2019/0145022) in view of Mouthuy (2016/0229104).
Regarding claim 1, Jao et al. discloses a system 100 for manipulating fibers 116, the system comprising:
A first collection surface 104 and a second collection surface 105, each having a proximate end and a distal end, wherein the proximate ends define a proximate gap, and the distal ends define a distal gap (fig. 1-3, 6-8, abstract, claim 1).
Jao et al. does not teach a radiation source adapted and configured to project radiation through at least a portion of a distance defined between the proximate gap and the distal gap. However, Mouthuy teaches the continuous filament may be separate from the collection surface using one or more of: laser; heat; solvent e.g. to effectively “melt” the filament on one side of the collection surface (para 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jao et al. with the radiation source taught by Mouthuy in order to separate the fibers from the collection surface.
Regarding claim 2, Jao et al. discloses wherein the distal gap has a different distance as compared to the proximate gap (fig. 1-3, 6-8).
Regarding claim 3, Jao et al. discloses wherein the distal gap hast eh same distance as the proximate gap (para 74, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to project the radiation at an angle relative to a center axis defined by the first collection surface and the second collection surface in order to melt the fiber on one side of the collection surface.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the angle from about 0 to about 90 degrees in order to optimize the amount of radiation.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the angle to about 0 or about 90 degrees in order to optimize the amount of radiation.
Regarding claim 7, Mouthuy teaches wherein the radiation source comprises a laser radiation or a non-laser radiation (para 14).
Regarding claim 8, Jao et al. as modified teaches wherein the radiation source is further adapted and configured to scan the projected radiation at one or more different angles relative to the first collection surface and the second collection surface (para 74).
Regarding claim 11, Jao et al. discloses a nozzle 115 adapted and configured to deposit a fiber onto the first collection surface and second collection surface, wherein one end of the fiber is deposed on the first collection surface and another end of the fiber is deposited onto the second collection surface (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Jao et al. discloses the system is adapted and configured to promote zone-annealing or zone-carbonizing of the fiber (para 86).
Regarding claim 13, Jao et al. discloses wherein the first collection surface and the second collection surface are configured or adapted to:
Collect one or more fibers at the respective proximate ends; and
Transport the one or more fibers from the respective proximate ends towards the respective distal ends (para 76, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Jao et al. as modified teaches wherein the ration source is further adapted and configured to project radiation onto a section of a fiber deposited on the first collection surface and the second collection surface, wherein the section of the fiber is dependent on a position of the flier along a length of the first collection surface and a length of the second collection surface (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Jao et al. as modified teaches wherein the radiation source is further adapted or configured to project radiation onto a respective section of a plurality of fibers.
Regarding claim 16, Jao et al. as modified teaches wherein the respective section for each of the plurality of fibers is dependent on a position of the corresponding fiber along a length of the first collection surface and a length of the second collection surface (see fig. 2).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jao et al. in view of Mouthuy as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Khabashesku et al. (20070099792).
Regarding claim 9, Jao et al. as modified does not teach wherein the laser radiation is polarized, and wherein the angle between the polarized laser polarization direction and the fiber axis ranges from about 0 to about 90 degrees. However, Khabashesku et al. teaches orientation of the fibers with their fiber-axis oriented either parallel to or perpendicular to the incident laser polarization (para 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Jao et al. with the teaching of Khabashesku et al. in order to align the fibers to the desired orientation.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jao et al. in view of Mouthuy as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Muller et al. (US 12,591,223).
Regarding claim 10, Mouthuy does not teach wherein the laser radiation is polarized at a frequency from about 0 to about 100 GHz. However, Muller et al. teaches a laser supply system 47 may provide different types of laser light that differ by wavelength, power, polarization, pulsation, and; or amplitude profile (col. 18, line 15-23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the polarization and frequency of the laser radiation since Muller et al. teaches that polarization and frequency are parameters that can be optimized.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights