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 .
Claim 13, 26, and 32 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.
The phrase “the dpf” (cl 13:1) is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Further, it is unclear what is meant by it. The acronym should be written out and explained.
The phrase “the dpf” (cl 26:1) is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Further, it is unclear what is meant by it. The acronym should be written out and explained.
The phrase “dpf” (cl 26:1) is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by it. The acronym should be written out and explained.
Corrections are required.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al (USPN 5707737).
21. A process for making closed C shaped filaments comprising a cross-
sectional configuration having a first proximal end, a second proximal end, and a hollow
core (Mori et al: fig 4), the process comprising:
a. providing a cellulose acetate dope comprising cellulose acetate and solvent (Mori et al: col 4:41-col 5:55; col 6:10-13);
b. extruding the cellulose acetate dope through at least one spinneret having at least one D-shaped orifice to form wet filaments, wherein the D-shaped orifice has a theta angle within a range from 90 to 160° (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:14; the fan shaped orifice constitutes the claimed D-shaped orifice; since the central angle of Mori et al is larger than the claimed angle, the claimed angle is found within the central angle of Mori et al) ); and
c. drying the wet filaments in an apparatus adapted for removing solvent
from the wet filaments to form the closed C shaped filaments in which -
A. at least a portion of the first proximal end is either –
i. oriented toward at least a portion of the second proximal end, or
ii. contacting at least a portion of the second proximal end (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:15; fig 4); and
B. the first proximal end and the second proximal end form either -
i. a channel defined by a gap between the first proximal end and the second proximal end having a transverse distance D1, wherein the channel leads from
an outer surface of the closed C shaped filaments to the hollow core defined by
an inner filament surface and having a diameter D2, and wherein D2/D1 > 1, or
ii. no channel or passageway resulting from at least a portion the first
proximal end contacting at least a portion of the second proximal end (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:15; fig 4).
22. The process of claim 21, wherein at least 30% of the closed C shaped filaments are mutually opposed (Mori et al:fig 4). .
24. The process of claim 21, wherein the first proximal end and the second proximal end are co-extensively oriented to each other in an amount of at least 5% (Mori et al: fig 4).
25. The process of claim 21, further comprising drawing at least a portion of the closed C shaped filaments at a draft ratio from 0.9 to 1.6 (Mori et al: col 6:41-45; draft ratio of 1.1-1.4).
27. The process of claim 21, wherein the theta angle is within a range from 125 to 160 (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:15; fig 4; since the central angle of Mori et al is larger than the claimed angle, the claimed angle is found within the central angle of Mori et al).
28. The process of claim 21, wherein the angle is greater than 150 when dpf of the filaments are greater than 10, the angle is between 120 and 150 when the dpf of the filaments are between 6 and 10, and the angle is less than 120 when the dpf of the filaments are less than 6 (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:15; fig 4; since the central angle of Mori et al is larger than the claimed angle, the claimed angles are found within the central angle of Mori et al).
29. The process of claim 21, wherein the temperature of the acetate dope is from 50C to 60C (Mori et al: col 6:25-27; temperature is 55-62C).
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (USPN 5707737) in view of EP3821733.
Regarding claim 1, Mori et al teach:
1. A process for making closed C shaped filaments comprising a cross-
sectional configuration having a first proximal end, a second proximal end, and a hollow
core having a cross-section area within a filament that is 15% of a cross-section area of the filament (Mori et al: col 7:66-col 8:5; fig 4), the process comprising:
a. providing a cellulose acetate dope comprising cellulose acetate and solvent (Mori et al: col 4:41-col 5:55; col 6:10-13);
b. extruding the cellulose acetate dope through at least one spinneret having at least one fan shaped orifice to form wet filaments (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:14; the fan shaped orifice constitutes the claimed D-shaped orifice since the filament shaped by the orifice is circular with a hollow core); and
c. drying the wet filaments in an apparatus adapted for removing solvent
from the wet filaments to form the closed C shaped filaments in which -
A. at least a portion of the first proximal end is either –
i. oriented toward at least a portion of the second proximal end, or
ii. contacting at least a portion of the second proximal end (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:15; fig 4); and
B. the first proximal end and the second proximal end form either -
i. a channel defined by a gap between the first proximal end and the second proximal end having a transverse distance D1, wherein the channel leads from
an outer surface of the closed C shaped filaments to the hollow core defined by
an inner filament surface and having a diameter D2, and wherein D2/D1 > 1, or
ii. no channel or passageway resulting from at least a portion the first
proximal end contacting at least a portion of the second proximal end (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:15; fig 4).
However, Mori et al do not teach a hollow core having a cross-section area within a filament that is at least 20% of a cross-section area of the filament. EP3821733 teaches a C shaped filaments comprising a cross-sectional configuration having a first proximal end, a second proximal end, and a hollow core having a cross-section area within a filament that is at least 20% of a cross-section area of the filament (figs 2 and 10). Since Mori et al and EP3821733 are analogous with respect to closed C-shaped filaments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the percent area of the hollow core of EP3821733 into the filament of Mori et al to form a filament having improved reel capacity and easier insertion or passage.
Regarding claim 2, such is taught by Mori et al (Mori et al: col 6:13-34; fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, such is taught by Mori et al (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:15; fig 4; since the central angle of Mori et al is larger than the claimed angle, the claimed angle is found within the central angle of Mori et al).
Regarding claim 4, Mori et al do not teach the proximal ends not touching. Since both touching and not touching proximal ends are well-known in the filament art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the proximal ends of Mori et al to not touch in order to provide a filament with desired physical and performance characteristics.
Regarding claim 5, such is taught by Mori et al (Mori et al: fig 4).
Regarding claim 6, such is taught by Mori et al (Mori et al: fig 4).
Regarding claim 7, such is taught by Mori et al (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:15; fig 4).
Regarding claim 8, Mori et al do not teach the aspect ratio of the hollow core. Since hollow filaments having the claimed aspect ratios are well-known in the filament art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the proximal ends of Mori et al to not touch in order to provide a filament with desired physical and performance characteristics.
Regarding claim 9, such is taught by Mori et al (Mori et al: col 7:60-col 8:15; fig 4).
Regarding claim 10, Mori et al do not teach the claimed materials. Since the claimed materials are well-known in the cellulose acetate dope art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the claimed materials into the CA dope of Mori et al in order to ensure a high quality filament.
Regarding claim 11, Mori et al do not teach the claimed materials. Since the claimed materials are well-known in the cellulose acetate dope art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the claimed materials into the CA dope of Mori et al in order to ensure a high quality filament.
Regarding claim 12, such is taught by Mori et al (Mori et al: col 6:41-50).
Regarding claims 13-14, Mori et al do not teach the claimed changes and adjustments. Since Mori et al teach a fixed angle ranging from 220* to 260* (col 8:9-14) and it is well-known in the spinneret and filament arts that a fixed angle of an orifice influences the dpf, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the spinneret of Mori et al to produce the claimed changes ad adjustments in order to produce filaments having desired physical and performance characteristics.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (USPN 5707737) as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of EP3821733. The above teachings of Mori et al incorporated hereinafter.
Mori et al do not teach a hollow core having a cross-section area within a filament that is at least 20% of a cross-section area of the filament. EP3821733 teaches a C shaped filaments comprising a cross-sectional configuration having a first proximal end, a second proximal end, and a hollow core having a cross-section area within a filament that is at least 20% of a cross-section area of the filament (figs 2 and 10). Since Mori et al and EP3821733 are analogous with respect to closed C-shaped filaments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the percent area of the hollow core of EP3821733 into the filament of Mori et al to form a filament having improved reel capacity and easier insertion or passage.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (USPN 5707737) as applied to claim 21 above. The above teachings of Mori et al are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 26, Mori et al do not teach the changed dpf for every 0.1 unit change in draft ratio. Since the change in dpf per change in draft ratio is well-known in the filament art for controlling the fineness of the filament, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the dpf of Mori et al through changes in the draft ratio of Mori et al to form a filament having the desired fireness.
Claim 31 and 33-36 allowed.
Claim 32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record including the closest prior art Mori et al neither teaches nor renders obvious every claimed limitation including the acetate dope containing not more than 4.5 weight % of plasticizer based on the weight of the cellulose acetate and plasticizer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 21-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP3821733 teaches forming C-shaped filaments from D-shaped orifices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights