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 1-9) in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Instant Specification discloses “L/m3” as a unit of an air flow rate in several instances ([0052, 0054, 112], as published in US 20240284968 A1). In general, an air flow rate is defined by a volume per unit time. Here, a volume of “L” (i.e., liter) is divided by another volume unit of “m3” (i.e., corresponding to (100 cm)3, and thus, equivalent to 1000 L), and thus, it does not mean a flow rate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “the lyocell multi-filaments treated with the oil and the hydrogen peroxide” (lines 8-9), “simultaneously with the oil and the hydrogen peroxide” (lines 12-13), “a mixed solution of the oil and the hydrogen peroxide” (line 13), and “a single solution of the oil” (line 16).
Claim 9 should be corrected to “the hydrogen peroxide” (line 2).
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 2-3, 6, and 9 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 “in the solution” in line 2. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) “a mixed solution of the oil and the hydrogen peroxide (claim 1 line 13), (2) “a single solution of the hydrogen peroxide” (claim 1 line 16), or (3) both of (1) and (2). For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “in the solution” in line 2. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) “a mixed solution of the oil and the hydrogen peroxide (claim 1 line 13), (2) “a single solution of the oil” (claim 1 line 16), or (3) both of (1) and (2). For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an air flow rate of 50 L/m3 to 250 L/m3” in line 3. It is unclear what the unit of the air flow rate means. In general, an air flow rate is defined by a volume per unit time. Here, a volume of “L” (i.e., liter) is divided by another volume unit of “m3” (i.e., corresponding to (100 cm)3, and thus, equivalent to 1000 L), and thus, it does not mean a flow rate. For the purpose of examination, the underlined unit would be considered as any unit of a flow rate.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the crimped tow is a lyocell crimped tow including hydrogen peroxide in an amount of 1000 ppm or less” in lines 1-2. It is unclear the underlined limitation the crimped tow, including the hydrogen peroxide in an amount set forth in the claim, means the crimped tow (1) in step (S5), (2) after step (S5) but before step (S6), (3) in step (S6), and/or (4) after step (S6), as it is known that the hydrogen peroxide decomposes upon oxidation in air and/or heating. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a lyocell crimped tow including hydrogen peroxide in an amount of 1000 ppm or less” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the underlined limitation means a range (1) even including 0 ppm (i.e., without the hydrogen peroxide), or (2) an amount of 1000 ppm or less and more than 0 ppm. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 20180007952 A1) in view of Jiang (US 20120241669 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches a method of manufacturing a lyocell material, the method comprising:
(S1) spinning a lyocell spinning dope comprising cellulose pulp and an N-methyl morpholine-N-oxide (NMMO) aqueous solution (claim 1: S1);
(S2) coagulating the lyocell spinning dope spun in the step (S1) to obtain lyocell multi-filaments (claim 1: S2);
(S3) water-washing the obtained lyocell multi-filaments (claim 1: S3);
(S4) treating the water-washed lyocell multi-filaments with oil [and hydrogen peroxide] (claim 1: S4);
(S5) crimping the lyocell multi-filaments treated with oil and hydrogen peroxide to obtain a crimped tow (claim 1: S5); and
(S6) drying the crimped tow (claim 1: S5: applying steam and pressure to the lyocell multifilament, thus obtaining a crimped tow; here, although Jin does not explicitly disclose that the crimped tow is dried, it is implied that the crimped tow is dried after being crimped as the crimping requires applying steam and the steam does not stay in the crimped tow but is removed (i.e., dried)),
wherein [the step (S4) comprises
a process of treating the water-washed lyocell multi-filaments simultaneously with oil and hydrogen peroxide in a bath containing a mixed solution of the oil and hydrogen peroxide with a uniformly maintained concentration, or
a process of treating the water-washed lyocell multi-filaments sequentially in baths respectively containing a single solution of the hydrogen peroxide, and a single solution of oil].
Jin does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., (S4) water-washed lyocell multi-filaments is treated with “hydrogen peroxide” and oil simultaneously or sequentially as recited, but Jiang teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Jiang teaches a method for producing a solvent spun cellulose fiber by dissolving a cellulose in a N-methyl morpholine-N-oxide aqueous solution, followed by spinning, water washing, bleaching, oiling, and drying (abstract, claim 1). Jiang teaches that (S4) treating the water-washed lyocell multi-filaments with oil and hydrogen peroxide, and the step (S4) comprises a process of treating the water-washed lyocell multi-filaments sequentially in baths respectively containing a single solution of the hydrogen peroxide and a single solution of oil, and the treated lyocell multi-filaments are dried ([0020-0022, 0032-0034 ] [0075]: Example 1: the washed fiber was bleached by hydrogen peroxide in which the concentration of the circulating hydrogen peroxide was 0.20%, and then, the bleached fiber was oiled in which the concentration of the circulating oil was 1.8%).
In the same field of endeavor of manufacturing a lyocell filament using by spinning a cellulose solution (Jin: claim 1; Jiang: claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the method of manufacturing a lyocell material, in particular the step S4 of oiling treatment, Jin to include a known step of bleaching of the spun/ washed filaments with hydrogen peroxide followed by oiling as taught by Jiang in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a lyocell filament with a desired level of whiteness (Jiang: derived from [0066]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the hydrogen peroxide in the step (S4) is used to have a concentration maintained in a range of 2 wt. % to 6 wt. % in the solution for treating the lyocell multi-filaments. However, modified Jin teaches that bleaching the washed fiber was bleached by hydrogen peroxide and stabilizer to reach the required whiteness, with parameters of a concentration of circulating hydrogen peroxide being 0.05-1.0%, a pH value of circulating hydrogen peroxide being 8-13, and a temperature of circulating hydrogen peroxide being 75° C (Jiang: [0067, 0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventio to modify the concentration of the hydrogen peroxide solution, through routine optimization and experiment, to derive an optimum range of the concentration in order to obtain a desired/required level of whiteness of the treated filaments in consideration of various factors such as pH and temperature of the hydrogen peroxide solution, a residing time of the filaments in the solution, and a drying temperature of the treated filaments. See MPEP 2144.05, II (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the oil in the step (S4) is used to have a concentration maintained in a range of 2 wt. % to 8 wt. % in the solution for treating the lyocell multi-filaments (Jiang: [0069-0070]: a concentration of circulating oil of 0.5 – 5%; here, although the disclosed range does not anticipate the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 2 to 5 %). See MPEP 2144.05 I (“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Moreover, through routine optimization and experiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventio to modify the concentration of the oiling solution to derive an optimum range of the concentration in order to obtain treated filaments with a desired property of maintaining uniform over process rollers, decreasing friction upon contact with a drying roller and a guide, and efficiently forming crimps on the filaments (Jin: derived from [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the oil in the step (S4) comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a lubricating component, a cohesion component, a smoothness component, and a hydrophobic component (Jin: [0008]: the oil functions to decrease friction, and the oil is not particularly limited so long as it is one that is typically used for the production of filaments; here, it is implied or at least obvious that the oil is a lubricating component or a hydrophobic component).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the coagulating in the step (S2) is performed by supplying cooling air to the spun dope at a temperature of 4° C. to 15° C. and at an airflow rate of 50 L/m3 to 250 L/m3 (Jin: [0029-0030]: by supplying the cold air at a temperature of 4 to 15° C. and a wind velocity of 30 to 120 m/s to the spinning dope). See above, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the lyocell spinning dope in the step (S1) comprises 8 wt. % to 13 wt. % of the cellulose pulp and 87 wt. % to 92 wt. % of the N-methyl morpholine-N-oxide aqueous solution (Jin: claim 1: S1: 8 to 13 wt. % of a cellulose pulp and 87 to 92 wt. % of an N-methyl morpholine-N-oxide (NMMO) aqueous solution).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cellulose pulp comprises 85 wt. % to 99 wt. % of alpha-cellulose and has a degree of polymerization (DPw) of 600 to 1700 (Jin: [0013]: the cellulose pulp may comprise 85 to 99 wt. % of alpha-cellulose, and may have a degree of polymerization (DPw) of 600 to 1700).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the crimped tow is a lyocell crimped tow including hydrogen peroxide in an amount of 1000 ppm or less. However, modified Jin teaches that bleaching the washed fiber was bleached by hydrogen peroxide and stabilizer to reach the required whiteness, with parameters of a concentration of circulating hydrogen peroxide being 0.05-1.0%, a pH value of circulating hydrogen peroxide being 8-13, and a temperature of circulating hydrogen peroxide being 75° C, and the fiber is dried after the treatment (Jiang: [0032-0034, 0067, 0068]). Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing inventio to modify the concentration of the hydrogen peroxide solution, through routine optimization and experiment, to derive an optimum range of the concentration in order to obtain a desired/required level of whiteness of the treated filaments in consideration of various factors such as pH and temperature of the hydrogen peroxide solution, a residing time of the filaments in the solution, and a drying temperature of the treated filaments. See MPEP 2144.05, II (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Moreover, upon the modification, it would also have been obvious that a trace of the hydrogen peroxide used for the bleaching would remain after crimping, and the remaining trace would be adjustable upon the concentration of the hydrogen peroxide solution, bleaching conditions, and drying conditions to reach to a desired level of the trace that would satisfy quality criteria or industrial standards.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 20180007952 A1) and Jiang (US 20120241669 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corallo (US 20050287368 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jin teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the drying of the crimped tow in the step (S6) is performed by using a continuous drying device at a temperature of 105° C. to 135° C. for 15 minutes to 45 minutes.
Corallo teaches a process for making a cellulose acetate tow (claim 8). During the process, the crimped tow passed through a crimper 114 is dried in a dryer 116, and then baled at baling station 118 ([0026], fig. 1).
In the same field of endeavor of manufacturing a cellulose tow for cigarette filters (Jin: abstract, claim 1; Corallo: [0002], claim 18, fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the method of manufacturing a lyocell crimped tow, in particular the step S6 of drying the crimped tow, to use a dryer continuously feed in a crimped tow and out to a bailing station as taught by Corallo in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of setting the crimps on the tow, removing residual moisture or solvents, and ensuring stability during storage or transport.
Upon the modification, modified Jin still does not explicitly teach that the drying of the crimped tow in the step (S6) is performed at temperature of 105° C. to 135° C. for 15 minutes to 45 minutes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the drying temperature of the crimped tow similar to the drying temperature of at 80-150° C. performed after the bleaching and the oiling treatment (Jiang: [0034]) in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of drying the lyocell filaments to remove residual moisture or solvents without decomposing/damaging the lyocell filaments. Here, although the disclosed temperature range does not anticipates the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 105° C. and 135° C. See MPEP 2144.05 I (“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Moreover, through routine optimization or experiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to derive an optimum range of a drying time in order to remove unwanted moisture and/or residual solvents so as to obtain the crimped tow with a desired level of moisture/residual solvents that would satisfy quality criteria or industrial standards.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bell (US 5,690,874) teaches a method of forming a cellulose fiber including a step of producing lyocell fiber and oxidizing it using hydrogen peroxide solution (abstract, claim 1, fig. 1).
Kwon (US 20050019564 A1) teaches a method for producing lyocell multi-filaments (claim 6, figs. 1-2, 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744