DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 06/08/2026, claims 1, 3-4, and 7-16 are pending. Claims 1, 3, and 9 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 5-6 are canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 10-16 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-9 are considered in this 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 .
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, 3-4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 20180007952 A1) in view of Jiang (US 20120241669 A1) and Corallo (US 20050287368 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 the oil and the hydrogen peroxide in a bath containing a mixed solution of the oil and the 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 the oil,
wherein 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 mixed solution for treating the lyocell multi-filaments],
[wherein 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.].
Jin does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., the step (S4) and the step (S6), as recited, but Jiang and Corallo teach 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 ([0020-0022, 0032-0034]: the circulating hydrogen peroxide has a concentration of 0.05-1.0%, and the circulating oil has a concentration of 0.5-5%; [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%), and the treated lyocell multi-filaments are dried at 80-150 °C ([0022, 0035]; of note, although Jiang’s disclosed drying temperature range does not anticipate the recited temperature range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range from 105 to 135 °C1).
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 and the step S6 of drying, Jin to include a known step of bleaching of the spun/ washed filaments with hydrogen peroxide followed by the oiling treatment and a known step of drying upon heating at 80-150 °C 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 and strength/hardness upon appropriate bleaching and drying processes (Jiang: derived from [0066, 0075, 0081]).
Upon the modification, modified Jin still does not specifically teach that the drying of the crimped tow in the step (S6) is performed by using a continuous drying device 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.
Although modified Jin (Jin in view of Jiang and Corallo) is silent about a specific drying time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization and experimentations, to optimize the drying time, in consideration of factors such as amounts of residual water/solvent, a drying temperature, and/or an energy consumption, to achieve an appropriate level of dryness in the crimped tow without burning/browning.
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 mixed solution for treating the lyocell multi-filaments. Of note, the respective sequential treating of the hydrogen peroxide solution and the oil solution as recited in claim 1 does not require this condition of the mixed solution.
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 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 after the step (S6) is a lyocell crimped tow including the hydrogen peroxide in an amount of 110 ppm to 1000 ppm. In this case, modified Jin’s lyocell crimped tow is produced by the identical process as recited in claim 1. Therefore, a prima facie case of anticipation is established to the claimed property (i.e., the residual content of the hydrogen peroxide) by modified Jin. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "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." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (see pages 8-13) that modified Jin does not teach or suggest the limitation(s) – “wherein 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 mixed solution for treating the lyocell multi-filaments” and “wherein 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” as (1) no cited references teach the specific conditions of the hydrogen peroxide concentration and the drying temperature/time, (2) the recited conditions cannot be obtained through routine optimization as being driven to unpredicted results.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Modified Jin teaches all the claimed limitations as recited in claim 1 (for details, see above the 103 rejection of claim 1).
Regarding the argument (1):
Of note, in the step (S4), the underlined limitations as presented below may NOT be required - “the step (S4) comprises (A) a process of treating the water-washed lyocell multi-filaments simultaneously with the oil and the hydrogen peroxide in a bath containing a mixed solution of the oil and the hydrogen peroxide with a uniformly maintained concentration, or (B) 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 the oil, wherein 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 mixed solution for treating the lyocell multi-filaments,” as the step (S4) comprises a process (A) or (B), and accordingly, modified Jin teaches the step (S4) with the process (B). The following specific concentration of the hydrogen peroxide only belongs to “the mixed solution” of the process (A). In other words, the process (B) is not further limited to any specific concentration conditions of the hydrogen peroxide or the oil (see also, claim 3).
Regarding the argument (2):
At first, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 716.02(d)). Furthermore, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outsides the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 716.02(d) II.).
Here, regardless of the resolution whether the recited limitations result in unexpected results in the lyocell tow, the proffered evidence as the unexpected results (Examples 1-5, Comparative Examples 1-8, Table 1 on para. [0111-0144] in Instant Specification) does not commensurate in scope with the claimed limitations, at least, but not limited to, for the following reasons:
Example 5 represents only one test point of the hydrogen peroxide/oil concentrations, but claim 1 recites all ranges without limits.
Examples 1-4 represent variable hydrogen peroxide concentration ranges but only one fixed oil concentration and one drying condition, but claim 1 recites much broader ranges.
Examples 1-4 represent a range of contents of the residual hydrogen peroxide, as allegedly unexpected results, but the range of the resulting contents (i.e., 110 ppm to 1000 ppm) as recited in claim 9 upon the condition of claim 1 does not correspond to the actually obtained results (i.e., 400-980 ppm).
Comparative Example 8 represents the content of the residual hydrogen peroxide (650 ppm), which satisfies the range of the unexpected results as recited in claim 9 (i.e., 110 ppm to 1000 ppm), but its drying condition (140 °C and 50 minutes) is not within the recited range (i.e., 105 °C to 135 °C for 15 minutes to 45 minutes).
Secondly, the proffered results do not fully resolve whether the recited limitations result in unexpected results in the lyocell tow (Examples 1-5, Comparative Examples 1-8, Table 1 on para. [0111-0144] in Instant Specification). “A greater than expected result is an evidentiary factor pertinent to the legal conclusion of obviousness ... of the claims at issue.” In re Corkill, 711 F.2d 1496, 226 USPQ 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 716.02(a) I.). “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.” In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967) (MPEP 716.02(c) II.). Examples 1-4 and Comparative Examples 1-5 and 8 show a trend of higher contents of the residual hydrogen peroxide over higher concentrations of the hydrogen peroxide in the mixed solution. However, it does not seem to be unexpected but somewhat linear and expected. Also, the lower contents of the residual hydrogen peroxide are obtained upon the higher drying temperature and the longer time. Such trend seems to be expected as it is known that the hydrogen peroxide tends to decompose upon heating and removal of water.
Thus, the recited ranges of the hydrogen peroxide, the oil, and the drying temperature and the time do not seem to be commensurate in scope with the claims and the offered evidence.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claims 1, 3-4, and 7-9 remain rejected.
Conclusion
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.
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
1 “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).
Prosecution Insights