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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/27/2026.
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.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2 and 3 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 2 recites the limitation “an intrinsic viscosity of 4.0 to 9.0 dl/g” in line 2. The specification of the instant application recites that the intrinsic viscosity of the polymer was measured according to Equation 1 below [Equation 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
34
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, that in Equation 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
34
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a natural logarithmic function, C is the concentration of the polymer solution, and the relative viscosity
PNG
media_image1.png
34
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is the ratio of a flowing time between the polymer solution and the solvent as measured by a capillary viscometer at 30°C (p. 13, l. 21-p. 14, l. 1). However, the following definitions of inherent viscosity and intrinsic viscosity obtained from the reference (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. (2009). Compendium of Polymer Terminology and Nomenclature - IUPAC Recommendations 2008 - 3.4.2.20 Inherent Viscosity, ηinh, SI Unit: m3kg-1 Logarithmic Viscosity Number. Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). Retrieved from https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/pdf/rcid:kpCPTNIUPG/id:kt00C1ULD3/compendium-polymer-terminology/inherent-viscosity-inh) show that the applicant is using the term “intrinsic viscosity” to mean the term “inherent viscosity”.
PNG
media_image2.png
176
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
50
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “intrinsic viscosity” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “viscosity of polymer measured according to Equation 1 below [Equation 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
34
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where in Equation 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
34
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is a natural logarithmic function, C is the concentration of the polymer solution, and the relative viscosity
PNG
media_image1.png
34
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is the ratio of a flowing time between the polymer solution and the solvent as measured by a capillary viscometer at 30°C” while the accepted meaning is “limiting value of the reduced viscosity or the inherent viscosity at indefinite dilution of the polymer, and calculated according to the equation
PNG
media_image3.png
50
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For further examination of the claims, the limitation “an intrinsic viscosity of 4.0 to 9.0 dl/g” in claim 2 is interpreted as “an inherent viscosity of 4.0 to 9.0 dl/g”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an intrinsic viscosity deviation of 1.0 dl/g or less”, which is indefinite for the same reasons as for claim 2. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “an inherent viscosity deviation of 1.0 dl/g or less”.
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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshari et al. (US 2016/0032492 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 2008/0200640 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Afshari teaches yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) [0012], wherein the filaments in the yarn have an apparent crystallite size of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012], wherein the yarn has a yarn tenacity of at least 22 gpd [0016], wherein the filaments in the yarn have a D110 crystallinity of at least 55 angstroms [0035, 0043], wherein the yarn has a linear density of 500 to 3000 denier [0039], which reads on a para-aramid fiber comprising a plurality of monofilaments, wherein the para-aramid fiber has: an apparent crystal size based on 110 plane of 4.4 to 8.0 nm, a total fineness of 500 to 3,000 de, and a tenacity of 22 g/d or more.
Afshari does not teach that the para-aramid fiber has a crystallinity of 67% or more. However, Han teaches wholly aromatic polyamide filament [0013], wherein the wholly aromatic polyamide filament is characterized in that the crystallinity X before heat treatment ranges from 70 to 79% and the apparent crystal size (based on 200 plane) before heat treatment ranges from 42 to 50 Å [0014], wherein the wholly aromatic polyamide filament has the crystallinity X ranging from 70 to 95% and the apparent crystal size (based on 200 plane) before the heat treatment ranging from 41 to 50 λ [0051]. Afshari and Han are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a para-aramid fiber comprising a plurality of monofilaments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Han’s crystallinity that ranges from 70 to 95% as the crystallinity of Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide). The proposed modification would read on wherein the para-aramid fiber has a crystallinity of 70% to 95% as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for modifying the crystallinity of Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) and/or because it would have been beneficial for providing a crystallinity that is suitable for Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) because Han teaches wholly aromatic polyamide filament [0013], wherein the wholly aromatic polyamide filament is characterized in that the crystallinity X before heat treatment ranges from 70 to 79% and the apparent crystal size (based on 200 plane) before heat treatment ranges from 42 to 50 Å [0014], wherein the wholly aromatic polyamide filament has the crystallinity X ranging from 70 to 95% and the apparent crystal size (based on 200 plane) before the heat treatment ranging from 41 to 50 λ [0051], which is substantially similar in composition to Afshari’s yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide), which means that Han’s crystallinity would have been a suitable crystallinity for Afshari’s yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) because Afshari teaches yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) [0012], wherein the yarn has an apparent crystallite size of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012], wherein the filaments in the yarn have a D110 crystallinity of at least 55 angstroms [0035, 0043].
Afshari does not teach with sufficient specificity that the para-aramid fiber has an apparent crystal size based on 110 plane of 5.8 to 7.0 nm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the apparent crystallite size of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn and the D110 crystallinity of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn to be from 58 to 70 angstroms. The proposed modification would read on wherein the para-aramid fiber has an apparent crystal size based on 110 plane of 5.8 to 7.0 nm as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing heat-aged strength retention of Afshari’s yarn because Afshari teaches that the filaments in the yarn have an apparent crystallite size (ACS) of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012, 0040], that the filaments in the yarn have a D110 crystallinity of at least 55 angstroms [0035, 0043], that it is believed that the apparent crystallite size (ACS) is one important property related to improving HASR [0010], that HASR is heat-aged strength retention [0010], that it is believed that having an apparent crystallite size of less than 55 angstroms will not provide the desired HASR [0040], and that the yarn has a HASR of at least 93 percent [0012, 0016, 0017, 0018, 0035, 0043] or at least 95 percent [0035, 0044], which means that the apparent crystallite size of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn and the D110 crystallinity of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn in angstroms would have affected heat-aged strength retention of Afshari’s yarn.
Afshari does not teach with sufficient specificity that the para-aramid fiber has a total fineness of 200 to 1,600 de. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the linear density of Afshari’s yarn to be from 500 to 1600 denier. The proposed modification would read on wherein the para-aramid fiber has a total fineness of 500 to 1,600 de as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success and/or because it would have been beneficial for providing linear density that is suitable for Afshari’s yarn because Afshari teaches that the yarn has a linear density of 500 to 3000 denier [0039], which encompasses from 500 to 1600 denier. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Afshari teaches that in examples, the poly (p-phenylene terephthalamide) in the yarn has an inherent viscosity of 6.3 dL/g [0052], which reads on the para-aramid fiber of claim 1, comprising a para-aramid polymer having an intrinsic viscosity of 6.3 dl/g as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Afshari, namely that the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 comprises a para-aramid polymer having an intrinsic viscosity deviation of 1.0 dl/g or less. However, Afshari in view of Han renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the para-aramid fiber of claims 1 and 2 as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the intrinsic viscosity deviation may be obtained by dividing the washed and dried para-aramid polymer into a group of 2 mm or more, a group of 1 mm or more and less than 2 mm, and a group of less than 1 mm using a standard sieve having mesh sizes of 1 mm and 2 mm, respectively, and measuring the intrinsic viscosity of each group, and then calculating the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the average intrinsic viscosity of the three groups (p. 7, l. 9-14). Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the para-aramid fiber that is rendered obvious by Afshari in view of Han. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 4, Afshari teaches that a process for producing the yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) comprises the steps of [0012] in a continuous process, spinning a polymer dope through a spinneret in an aqueous coagulation bath [0013], washing with an aqueous liquid [0014], and drying the filaments [0015], wherein additives can be used with the para-aramid in the polymer [0020], wherein in some embodiments, the washing fluid includes a water soluble base [0029], wherein before or after washing the fiber with an aqueous base, the process optionally may include the step of washing the yarn with water as a rinse to remove all or substantially all excess base from the yarn [0030], which reads on a specific embodiment in which no additives are used with Afshari’s poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) in Afshari’s yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide), and which reads on a specific embodiment of the aqueous liquid in Afshari’s step of washing with an aqueous liquid not comprising an aqueous base. Afshari in view of Han therefore renders it obvious that the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 comprises a para-aramid polymer having a content of inorganic impurities in the polymer of 50 ppb or less as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Afshari teaches that the filaments in the yarn have an apparent crystallite size (ACS) of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012, 0040], that the filaments in the yarn have a D110 crystallinity of at least 55 angstroms [0035, 0043], and that ACS is determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, based on wide-angle X-ray equatorial diffraction scans of the fiber [0041]. that for PPD-T fiber, the equatorial scan gives two sharp diffraction peaks, one for the (110) plane, and one for the (200) plane [0041], and that unless designated differently, the calculated ACS is determined using the (110) plane diffraction peak [0041], which suggests modifying the apparent crystallite size calculated and determined using the (110) plane diffraction peak of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn in angstroms.
Afshari does not teach that the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 has an apparent crystal size based on 200 plane of 5.0 to 6.5 nm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the apparent crystallite size calculated and determined using the (200) plane diffraction peak of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn to be from 58 to 65 angstroms. The proposed modification would read on the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 has an apparent crystal size based on 200 plane of 5.8 to 6.5 nm as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing heat-aged strength retention of Afshari’s yarn because Afshari teaches that the filaments in the yarn have an apparent crystallite size (ACS) of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012, 0040], that the filaments in the yarn have a D110 crystallinity of at least 55 angstroms [0035, 0043], that ACS is determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, based on wide-angle X-ray equatorial diffraction scans of the fiber [0041]. that for PPD-T fiber, the equatorial scan gives two sharp diffraction peaks, one for the (110) plane, and one for the (200) plane [0041], that unless designated differently, the calculated ACS is determined using the (110) plane diffraction peak [0041], that it is believed that the apparent crystallite size (ACS) is one important property related to improving HASR [0010], that HASR is heat-aged strength retention [0010], that it is believed that having an apparent crystallite size of less than 55 angstroms will not provide the desired HASR [0040], and that the yarn has a HASR of at least 93 percent [0012, 0016, 0017, 0018, 0035, 0043] or at least 95 percent [0035, 0044], which means that the apparent crystallite size calculated and determined using the (200) plane diffraction peak of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn in angstroms would have affected heat-aged strength retention of Afshari’s yarn.
Regarding claim 6, Afshari does not teach that the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 has a crystallinity of 67 to 78%. However, Han teaches wholly aromatic polyamide filament [0013], wherein the wholly aromatic polyamide filament is characterized in that the crystallinity X before heat treatment ranges from 70 to 79%, and the apparent crystal size (based on 200 plane) before heat treatment ranges from 42 to 50 Å [0014], wherein the wholly aromatic polyamide filament has the crystallinity X ranging from 70 to 95%, more preferably, 76 to 79%, and the apparent crystal size (based on 200 plane) before the heat treatment ranging from 41 to 50 λ [0051]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Han’s crystallinity that ranges from 76 to 79% as the crystallinity of Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide). The proposed modification would read on the para-aramid fiber of claim 1, having a crystallinity of 76 to 79%, which reads on the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for modifying the crystallinity of Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) and/or because it would have been beneficial for providing a crystallinity that is suitable for Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) because Han teaches wholly aromatic polyamide filament [0013], wherein the wholly aromatic polyamide filament is characterized in that the crystallinity X before heat treatment ranges from 70 to 79% and the apparent crystal size (based on 200 plane) before heat treatment ranges from 42 to 50 Å [0014], wherein the wholly aromatic polyamide filament has the crystallinity X ranging from 70 to 95%, more preferably, 76 to 79%, and the apparent crystal size (based on 200 plane) before the heat treatment ranging from 41 to 50 λ [0051], which is substantially similar in composition to Afshari’s yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide), which means that Han’s crystallinity would have been a suitable crystallinity for Afshari’s yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) because Afshari teaches yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) [0012], wherein the yarn has an apparent crystallite size of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012], wherein the filaments in the yarn have a D110 crystallinity of at least 55 angstroms [0035, 0043].
Regarding claim 9, Afshari does not teach that the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 has a procrystalline parameter of 1.00 to 1.85 %. However, Han teaches a wholly aromatic polyamide filament that has a procrystalline parameter ranging from 1.7 to 1.9% before a heat-treatment [0052]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Han’s paracrystalline parameter ranging from 1.7 to 1.9% as the paracrystalline parameter of Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide). The proposed modification would read on the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 having a paracrystalline parameter of 1.7 to 1.9 % as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for modifying the paracrystalline parameter of Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) and/or because it would have been beneficial for providing a paracrystalline parameter that is suitable for Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) because Han teaches a wholly aromatic polyamide filament that has a paracrystalline parameter ranging from 1.7 to 1.9% before a heat-treatment [0052], which is substantially similar in composition to Afshari’s yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide), which means that Han’s paracrystalline parameter would have been a suitable paracrystalline parameter for Afshari’s filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) because Afshari teaches yarn comprising filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) [0012].
Regarding claim 10, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Afshari, namely that the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 has a Young’s modulus of 750 to 900 g/d. However, Afshari in view of Han renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the para-aramid fiber of claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9, as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the para-aramid fiber may have a tenacity of 22 g/d or more, 22.5 g/d or more, 23 g/d or more, 23.5 g/d or more, 24 g/d or more, or 25 g/d or more, and 30 g/d or less or 28 g/d or less (p. 12, l. 22-24), that the para-aramid fiber may have a Young's modulus of 750 g/d or more, 760 g/d or more, 780 g/d or more, 790 g/d or more, 800 g/d or more, or 810 g/d or more, and 900 g/d or less, 880 g/d or less, or 860 g/d or less (p. 12, l. 24-27), that the para-aramid fiber may have an elongation of 2.0% or more, 2.5% or more, 3.0% or more, 3.1% or more, 3.2% or more, 3.3% or more, or 3.4% or more, and 4.5% or less or 4.0% or less (p. 12, l. 27-p. 13, l. 1), and that the tensile properties such as tenacity, Young's modulus and elongation are tensile properties measured according to the ASTM D885 standard test method with respect to a sample with a twist multiplier of 1.1, and for more detailed measurement methods (p. 13, l. 2-5). Also, Afshari teaches that the yarn has a yarn tenacity of at least 22 gpd [0016], which is within the ranges recited in the specification of the instant application. Also, Afshari teaches that the yarn comprising filaments of poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide) has an elongation at break of at least 3.2 percent [0016, 0035, 0043], that preferably yarn has an elongation at break of 3.5 percent or greater [0037, 0044], that the elongation at break is from 3.2 to 4.2 percent [0037, 0044], and that the elongation at break is from 3.5 to 4.2 percent [0037, 0044], which reads on the ranges recited in the specification of the instant application. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from para-aramid fiber that is rendered obvious by Afshari in view of Han. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Afshari teaches that the yarn comprising filaments of poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide) has an elongation at break of at least 3.2 percent [0016, 0035, 0043], that preferably yarn has an elongation at break of 3.5 percent or greater [0037, 0044], that the elongation at break is from 3.2 to 4.2 percent [0037, 0044], and that the elongation at break is from 3.5 to 4.2 percent [0037, 0044], which reads on the para-aramid fiber of claim 1, having an elongation of at least 3.2%.
Afshari does not teach a specific embodiment of the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 having an elongation of 2 to 4%. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the elongation at break of Afshari’s yarn to be from 3.2 to 4.2 percent or from 3.5 to 4.2 percent. The proposed modification would read on the para-aramid fiber of claim 1, having an elongation of 3.2 to 4.2% or 3.5 to 4.2%, which reads on the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success and/or because it would have been beneficial for providing elongation at break that is suitable for Afshari’s yarn because Afshari teaches that the yarn comprising filaments of poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide) has an elongation at break of at least 3.2 percent [0016, 0035, 0043], that preferably yarn has an elongation at break of 3.5 percent or greater [0037, 0044], that the elongation at break is from 3.2 to 4.2 percent [0037, 0044], and that the elongation at break is from 3.5 to 4.2 percent [0037, 0044]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshari et al. (US 2016/0032492 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 2008/0200640 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 4,374,978)
Regarding claim 7, Afshari in view of Han renders obvious the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 as explained above. Afshari teaches that the filaments in the yarn have an apparent crystallite size of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012], that the filaments in the yarn have a D110 crystallinity of at least 55 angstroms [0035, 0043], and that unless designated differently, the calculated ACS is determined using the (110) plane diffraction peak [0041].
Afshari does not teach that the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 has an orientation angle based on 110 plane of 2 to 12°. However, Fujiwara teaches that in products obtained by them, the apparent crystallite size is in the range of from 60 Å to 70 Å, and the orientation angle is in the range of from 8° to 10.5° (5:45-53), and that the products are poly-p-phenylene-terephthalamide fibers (1:7-10). Afshari and Fujiwara are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of para-aramid fibers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the orientation angle of Afshari’s crystallites of the (110) plane of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn to be from 8° to 10.5°, as suggested by Fujiwara. The proposed modification would read on the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 having an orientation angle based on 110 plane of 8 to 10.5° 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 orientation angle that is suitable for Afshari’s crystallites of the (110) plane of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn because Fujiwara teaches that in products obtained by them, the apparent crystallite size is in the range of from 60 Å to 70 Å, and the orientation angle is in the range of from 8° to 10.5° (5:45-53), and that the products are poly-p-phenylene-terephthalamide fibers (1:7-10), and because Afshari teaches that the yarn comprises filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) [0012], that the filaments in the yarn have an apparent crystallite size of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012], and that unless designated differently, the calculated ACS is determined using the (110) plane diffraction peak [0041].
Regarding claim 8, Afshari in view of Han renders obvious the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 as explained above. Afshari teaches that the filaments in the yarn have an apparent crystallite size (ACS) of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012, 0040], that the filaments in the yarn have a D110 crystallinity of at least 55 angstroms [0035, 0043], and that ACS is determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, based on wide-angle X-ray equatorial diffraction scans of the fiber [0041]. that for PPD-T fiber, the equatorial scan gives two sharp diffraction peaks, one for the (110) plane, and one for the (200) plane [0041], and that unless designated differently, the calculated ACS is determined using the (110) plane diffraction peak [0041].
Afshari does not teach that the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 has an orientation angle based on 200 plane of 2 to 13°. However, Fujiwara teaches that in products obtained by them, the apparent crystallite size is in the range of from 60 Å to 70 Å, and the orientation angle is in the range of from 8° to 10.5° (5:45-53), and that the products are poly-p-phenylene-terephthalamide fibers (1:7-10). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the orientation angle of Afshari’s crystallites of the (200) plane of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn to be from 8° to 10.5°, as suggested by Fujiwara. The proposed modification would read on the para-aramid fiber of claim 1 having an orientation angle based on 200 plane of 8 to 10.5°. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an orientation angle that is suitable for Afshari’s crystallites of the (200) plane of Afshari’s filaments in Afshari’s yarn because Fujiwara teaches that in products obtained by them, the apparent crystallite size is in the range of from 60 Å to 70 Å, and the orientation angle is in the range of from 8° to 10.5° (5:45-53), and that the products are poly-p-phenylene-terephthalamide fibers (1:7-10), and because Afshari teaches that the yarn comprises filaments of poly (paraphenylene terephthalamide) [0012], that the filaments in the yarn have an apparent crystallite size of from 55 to 80 angstroms [0012], that ACS is determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, based on wide-angle X-ray equatorial diffraction scans of the fiber [0041]. that for PPD-T fiber, the equatorial scan gives two sharp diffraction peaks, one for the (110) plane, and one for the (200) plane [0041], and that unless designated differently, the calculated ACS is determined using the (110) plane diffraction peak [0041].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 4-11 of copending Application No. 18/559,032 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application claims a para-aramid fiber comprising a plurality of monofilaments, wherein the para-aramid fibers has: a crystallinity of 67% or more (claim 1), an apparent crystal size based on 110 plane of 5.8 to 7.0 nm (claim 7), a total fineness of 200 to 1,600 de, a tenacity of 22 g/d or more, and an orientation angle based on 110 plane of 2 to 12°, wherein the para-aramid fiber comprises a para-aramid polymer having an intrinsic viscosity deviation of 1.0 dl/g or less (claim 1)..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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