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 .
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Saito et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,338,27 in view of Katsumoto et al, U.S. Patent No. 4,130,521.
Saito teaches melt spinning polyamide monofilament to provide a monofilament having a diameter of 0.05-2 mm and then cooling and quenching in hexane. See col. 3, lines 1-10. The cooled monofilament can then be drawn. See col. 3, lines 33-62. Saito teaches that any known polyamide can be used.
However, Katsumoto discloses a filament which is melt spun from nylon 4 wherein the nylon 4 has a density of less than 1.230 g/cc. See col. 2, lines 35-38. Note that 20-50 pounds per cubic foot converts to 0.32-0.8 grams per cubic centimeter. The nylon 4 can be melt spun into a filament which is equated with the claimed monofilament. See claim 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the particular nylon 4 taught by Katumoto as the polyamide in Saito in view of its art recognized suitability for melt spinning into filaments.
With regard to the particular claimed temperature, it would have been obvious to have selected the temperature of the quench bath that produced the desired properties in the filament, recognizing that faster cooling provides for more amorphous regions with a high degree of crystallinity in specific regions while a higher temperature slower cooling will provide for more ordered chains parallel to the spin direction and slower crystallization, which will in turn have a direct impact on the mechanical properties of the filaments.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-2.
With regard to claim 3, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the would normally have avoided excessive rapid cooling for the sake of stability in production. However, as set forth above, it would have been obvious to have selected the temperature of the quench bath that produced the desired properties in the filament, recognizing that faster cooling provides for more amorphous regions with a high degree of crystallinity in specific regions while a higher temperature slower cooling will provide for more ordered chains parallel to the spin direction and slower crystallization, which will in turn have a direct impact on the mechanical properties of the filaments. Arguments regarding the density of the monofilament as claimed have been considered, but the method claims do not include any density limitations.
Claims 1-2 are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789