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 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 4 and 10 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 4 recites the limitation the first heat-setting roller is disposed to be higher than the second heat-setting roller. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the temperature of the heat setting roller being higher or the height of heat-setting roller being higher. Examiner is interpreted it as the height of the heat setting roller being higher.
Claim 10 recites the temperature is zero but is unclear what the temperature grade is (Celsius or Fahrenheit). Examiner is interpreting it as Celsius based on claim 8.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108642583B, herein referred to as ‘583B, in view of Kim (US2013/0267139 A1).
Regarding claim 1, spinning-drawing-winding device for industrial polylactic-acid fiber (abstract), comprising a double-surface oiling mechanism (11), a filament shearing-suctioning device (8), a pre-interlacer (12) and a splitting filament roller disposed in sequence according to a production process, wherein a drawing-winding device cooperates with a spinning device; and a tow passes from the spinning device through the double-surface oiling mechanism, the filament shearing-suctioning device, and the pre-interlacer (12) in sequence until the tow is conveyed to the splitting filament roller (14-16, );
Although ‘583 does not explicitly disclose drawing-winding device and the spinning device are configured as a parallel configuration, so that the tow between the spinning device and the splitting filament roller is arranged in a vertical direction and is tangential to the splitting filament roller. Kim depicts parallel configuration in in figure 2. Further, MPEP 2144.4 discloses shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated drawing-winding device and the spinning device are configured as a parallel configuration since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, ‘583 discloses wherein the splitting filament roller comprises a pair of tension splitting filament rollers or a feeding roller (pg. 2 paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 3-4, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108642583B, herein referred to as ‘583B, in view of Kim (US2013/0267139 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN 105937061, herein referred to as ‘061.
Regarding claim 3, ‘583 discloses further comprising the double-surface oiling mechanism, the filament shearing-suctioning device, the pre-interlacer, the splitting filament roller, a first pair of low-temperature hot rollers,
But does not explicitly disclose a second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers, a third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers, a fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers and a fifth group of setting hot rollers which are disposed in sequence according to the production process. However, MPEP 2144.04 states duplication of parts are a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicate hot rollers since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
As for fifth group of setting hot rollers comprises: a thermal insulation cover box, opened with a filament entering channel and a filament out channel for the tow passing therethrough; at least four heat-setting rollers disposed in sequence according to the production process and each disposed within the thermal insulation cover box; and a heating source, used to heat the tow within the thermal insulation cover box in an environment of 70-120°C. Analogous art, 061, discloses a thermal insulation box (20) (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thermal insulation cover box, as taught by ‘061, into the device taught by ‘583 for the benefit of preventing overheating.
As for the heating up of an environment of 70-120 C, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 4, ‘583 does not explicitly disclose wherein the fifth group of setting hot rollers comprises four heat-setting rollers which are a first heat-setting roller, a second heat-setting roller, a third heat-setting roller, a fourth heat-setting roller disposed in sequence according to the production process; the tow passes through the filament entering channel and is wound through the first heat-setting roller, the second heat-setting roller, a third heat-setting roller, a fourth heat-setting roller disposed in sequence according to the production process; the tow passes through the filament entering channel and the first heat-setting roller is disposed to be higher than the second heat-setting roller, a height of the third heat-setting roller being equal to that of the first heat-setting roller, a height of the fourth heat-setting roller being equal to that of the second heat-setting roller. However, ‘061 discloses the rollers using heat settings (pg.4 paragraph 5). Further, heat settings are considered a function of the apparatus. The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have rollers with different heat settings since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art. As for the order of the height set up of the heat setting rollers, MPEP 2144.04 discloses It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the splitting filament roller is wound by the tow for 1 circle, the splitting filament roller having a heating temperature of zero and a spinning speed of 550-650 m/min; the first pair of low-temperature hot rollers are wound by the tow for 6.5 circles to 7.5 circles, the first pair of low-temperature hot rollers having a heating temperature of 65-90°C and a spinning speed of 605 m/min, the splitting filament roller and the first pair of low-temperature hot rollers maintaining a speed ratio of 1:1.01; the second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers are wound by the tow for 6.5 circles to 7.5 circles, the second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers having a heating temperature of 100-140°C and a spinning speed of 1950 m/min, a draw multiple of the first pair of low-temperature hot rollers and the second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers being 2.5-3.5 times; the third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers are wound by the tow for 6.5 circles to 7.5 circles, the third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers having a heating temperature of 110-150°C and a spinning speed of 3500 m/min, a draw multiple of the second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers and the third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers being 1.5-2 times; the fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers are wound by the tow for 6.5 circles to 7.5 circles, the fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers having a heating temperature of 110-150°C and a spinning speed of 3900 m/min, a draw multiple of the third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers and the fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers being 1.1-1.3 times; and the fifth group of setting hot rollers has a heating temperature of 70-120°C and a spinning speed of 4250 m/min, a draw multiple of the fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers and the fifth group of setting hot rollers being 1.02-1.05 time.” Applicant is reminded the claims are directed to an apparatus claim and not a method. The current claim is referring to the manner of operation. MPEP 2114 states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In this case, the speed, temperature and wound up ratio are functional/the manner of operating the claims and since the combination of the prior arts of ‘583, Kim and ‘061 teach all the claim limitation of claim 3, there are therefore capable of operating under the conditions required by claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, ‘583 disclose wherein surfaces of roller shells of the splitting filament roller, the first pair of low-temperature hot rollers, the second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers, the third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers, the fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers, the fifth group of setting hot rollers are all made of ceramics (pg. 9 paragraph 10).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108642583B, herein referred to as ‘583B, in view of Kim (US2013/0267139 A) and further in view of CN 105937061, herein referred to as ‘061, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Bauer (US 20170368507 A1).
Regarding claim 5, ‘583 does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating source comprises an inductive heating source, a steam heating source or a hot air heating source; the heating source is, when comprising the inductive heating source, used to heat-set the industrial polylactic-acid fiber yarn with a setting temperature within a first preset range, the heat-setting rollers being all disposed as heat-setting rollers heated through inductive heating. However, analogous roller art, Bauer, discloses using inductive heating for the benefit of controlling each roller individually [0045]. As with the claim limitation, used to heat-set the industrial polylactic-acid fiber yarn with a setting temperature within a first preset range, the applicant is claiming the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated inductive heating, as taught by Bauer, into the device taught by ‘583 for the benefit of controlling each roller individually.
Regarding claim 6, the claim language “wherein the first preset range is greater than 110°C and less than or equal to 120°C; the second preset range is greater than 90°C and less than or equal to 110°C; and the third preset range is greater than or equal to 70°C and less than or equal to 90°C” is referring to the manner of operation. MPEP 2114 states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 11-12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108642583B, herein referred to as ‘583B, in view of Kim (US2013/0267139 A) and further in view of CN 105937061, herein referred to as ‘061, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of KR20100003249 A, herein referred to as ‘249.
Regarding claim 7, ‘583 teaches a sixth slacking guide disc (20), a porcelain guiding filament hook (21) and winding (see figure) but does not explicitly disclose a main interlacer and a winding machine which are disposed in sequence according to production process after the fifth group of setting hot rollers. However, analogous art, ‘249, discloses using interlacers (13) with winding machine (see figures) in order to stretch the material (pg. 3 last paragraph, pg. 4 first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a interlace as taught by ‘249 in order to stretch the material.
Regarding claim 9, ‘583 discloses a surface of a roller shell of the sixth slacking guide disc being made of ceramic (pg. 9 paragraphs 9-10). As for the temperature of the sixth slacking guide is zero (the temperature of the sixth slacking guide is manner of operation. MPEP 2114 states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.)
Regarding claim 11, ‘583 discloses spinning-drawing-winding device for industrial polylactic-acid fiber (abstract), comprising a spinning device and a drawing-winding device (figure 1), wherein the spinning device comprises a screw extruder (pg. 6 paragraph 13), a melt delivering pipe (3), a spinning box (4), a spinning assembly (6), a heat-retarder (MPEP 2115 states material or article worked upon my does not limit apparatus claims; 8e), a monomer suction component (8), a combined cooling mechanism and a spinning channel component which are disposed in sequence according to a production process (pg. 6 paragraph 1 under example 1);
the drawing-winding device comprises: a double-surface oiling mechanism (11), a filament shearing-suctioning device (8), a pre-interlacer (12) and a splitting filament roller (14-16,);
583 does not explicitly disclose wherein the fifth group of setting hot rollers comprises four heat-setting rollers which are a first heat-setting roller, a second heat-setting roller, a third heat-setting roller, a fourth heat-setting roller disposed in sequence according to the production process; the tow passes through the filament entering channel and is wound through the first heat-setting roller, the second heat-setting roller, a third heat-setting roller, a fourth heat-setting roller disposed in sequence according to the production process; the tow passes through the filament entering channel and the first heat-setting roller is disposed to be higher than the second heat-setting roller, a height of the third heat-setting roller being equal to that of the first heat-setting roller, a height of the fourth heat-setting roller being equal to that of the second heat-setting roller. However, ‘061 discloses the rollers using heat settings (pg.4 paragraph 5). Further, heat settings are considered a function of the apparatus. The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have rollers with different heat settings since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art. As for the order of the height set up of the heat setting rollers, MPEP 2144.04 discloses It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
‘583 teaches a sixth slacking guide disc (20), a porcelain guiding filament hook (21) and winding (see figure) but does not explicitly disclose a main interlacer and a winding machine which are disposed in sequence according to production process after the fifth group of setting hot rollers. However, analogous art, ‘249, discloses using interlacers (13) with winding machine (see figures) in order to stretch the material (pg. 3 last paragraph, pg. 4 first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a interlace as taught by ‘249 in order to stretch the material.
Although ‘583 does not explicitly disclose drawing-winding device and the spinning device are configured as a parallel configuration, so that the tow between the spinning device and the splitting filament roller is arranged in a vertical direction and is tangential to the splitting filament roller. Kim depicts parallel configuration in in figure 2. Further, MPEP 2144.4 discloses shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated drawing-winding device and the spinning device are configured as a parallel configuration since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, ‘583 does not explicitly disclose wherein the fifth group of setting hot rollers comprises: a thermal insulation cover box, opened with a filament entering channel and a filament out channel for the tow to pass therethrough, at least four heat-setting rollers disposed in sequence according to the production process and each disposed within the thermal insulation cover box; and a heating source used to heat the tow within the thermal insulation cover box in an environment of 70-120°C
Analogous art, 061, discloses a thermal insulation box (20) (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thermal insulation cover box, as taught by ‘061, into the device taught by ‘583 for the benefit of preventing overheating.
As for the heating up of an environment of 70-120 C and heat settings, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 18, ‘583 teaches wherein the combined cooling mechanism comprises an outer ring blowing component (9), a lifting-descending component and a side blowing component which are disposed in sequence (see figure 4); the lifting-descending component comprises a telescopic hose and a lifting-descending power member (7h and 7d); a top end of the telescopic hose is communicated to the outer ring blowing component (figure 1), and a bottom end of the telescopic hose is communicated to the side blowing component (see figure 1); and the lifting-descending power member is disposed between the outer ring blowing component and the side blowing component (see figure 1); and the combined cooling mechanism is separably from the spinning assembly (see figure 1); and the lifting-descending power member is configured to drive the outer ring blowing component to approach or be away from the spinning assembly (the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities).
Regarding claim 19, ‘583 does not explicitly teach wherein the spinning assembly, the heat-retarder and the monomer suction component are relatively fixedly disposed; an outer ring blowing component of the combined cooling mechanism is separably from the monomer suction component; and the lifting-descending power member of the combined cooling mechanism drives the outer ring blowing component to approach or be away from the monomer suction component. However, MPEP 2144.04 states since it have been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art.
Regarding claim 20, ‘583 doesn’t explicitly disclose herein the double-surface oiling mechanism comprises a plurality of pairs of oil nozzles; each pair of oil nozzles comprises two oil nozzles respectively located on two sides of a tow to be oiled along a radial direction; each pair of oil nozzles are configured to be close to one another in a direction from top to bottom to form a spinning state; and each pair of oil nozzles are configured to be away from one another in the direction from top to bottom to form a threading state. However, MPEP 2144.04 VI states In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have double-surface oiling mechanism comprises a plurality of pairs of oil nozzles; each pair of oil nozzles comprises two oil nozzles respectively located on two sides of a tow to be oiled along a radial direction; each pair of oil nozzles are configured to be close to one another in a direction from top to bottom to form a spinning state; and each pair of oil nozzles are configured to be away from one another in the direction from top to bottom to form a threading state since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108642583B, herein referred to as ‘583B, in view of Kim (US2013/0267139 A) and further in view of CN 105937061, herein referred to as ‘061, , and further in view of KR20100003249 A, herein referred to as ‘249 as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Bauer (US2017/0368507 A1).
Regarding claim 13, ‘583 does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating source comprises an inductive heating source, a steam heating source or a hot air heating source; the heating source is, when comprising the inductive heating source, used to heat-set the industrial polylactic-acid fiber yarn with a setting temperature within a first preset range, the heat-setting rollers being all disposed as heat-setting rollers heated through inductive heating. However, analogous roller art, Bauer, discloses using inductive heating for the benefit of controlling each roller individually [0045]. As with the claim limitation, used to heat-set the industrial polylactic-acid fiber yarn with a setting temperature within a first preset range, the applicant is claiming the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated inductive heating, as taught by Bauer, into the device taught by ‘583 for the benefit of controlling each roller individually.
Regarding claim 14, “wherein the splitting filament roller is wound by the tow for 1 circle, the splitting filament roller having a heating temperature of zero and a spinning speed of 550-650 m/min; the first pair of low-temperature hot rollers are wound by the tow for 6.5 circles to 7.5 circles, the first pair of low-temperature hot rollers having a heating temperature of 65-90°C and a spinning speed of 605 m/min, the splitting filament roller and the first pair of low-temperature hot rollers maintaining a speed ratio of 1:1.01; the second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers are wound by the tow for 6.5 circles to 7.5 circles, the second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers having a heating temperature of 100-140°C and a spinning speed of 1950 m/min, a draw multiple of the first pair of low-temperature hot rollers and the second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers being 2.5-3.5 times; the third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers are wound by the tow for 6.5 circles to 7.5 circles, the third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers having a heating temperature of 110-150°C and a spinning speed of 3500 m/min, a draw multiple of the second pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers and the third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers being 1.5-2 times; the fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers are wound by the tow for 6.5 circles to 7.5 circles, the fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers having a heating temperature of 110-150°C and a spinning speed of 3900 m/min, a draw multiple of the third pair of high-temperature drawing hot rollers and the fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers being 1.1-1.3 times; and the fifth group of setting hot rollers has a heating temperature of 70-120°C and a spinning speed of 4250 m/min, a draw multiple of the fourth pair of drawing-setting hot rollers and the fifth group of setting hot rollers being 1.02-1.05 time.” Applicant is reminded the claims are directed to an apparatus claim and not a method. The current claim is referring to the manner of operation. MPEP 2114 states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In this case, the speed, temperature and wound up ratio are functional/the manner of operating the claims and since the combination of the prior arts of ‘583, Kim and ‘061 teach all the claim limitation of claim 3, there are therefore capable of operating under the conditions required by claim 14.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108642583B, herein referred to as ‘583B, in view of Kim (US2013/0267139 A) and further in view of CN 105937061, herein referred to as ‘061, , and further in view of KR20100003249 A, herein referred to as ‘249 as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Bauer (US25017/0368507 A1) and Lee (US2022/0126481 A1).
Regarding claim 15, 583 teaches wherein the screw extruder comprises a threaded sleeve and a threaded rod penetrating in the threaded sleeve; the threaded rod comprises a feed section, a compression section and a metering section which are disposed in sequence; the threaded sleeve comprises: a gas collection chamber opened and disposed on an inner wall at a junction of the compression section and the metering section; and an exhaust hole being in communication with the gas collection chamber; wherein the threaded sleeve is mounted with an on-off valve to open and close the exhaust hole.
One ordinary skill in the art would look to conventional art to find the structure of the screw extruder. Analogous art Lee, discloses the screw extruder comprises a threaded sleeve (10) and a threaded rod (31) penetrating in the threaded sleeve; the threaded rod comprises a feed section (20), a compression section (30A) and a metering section which are disposed in sequence (claim 8); the threaded sleeve comprises: a gas collection chamber opened and disposed on an inner wall at a junction of the compression section and the metering section (claim 13); and an exhaust hole (40) being in communication with the gas collection chamber; wherein the threaded sleeve is mounted with an on-off valve to open and close the exhaust hole [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the screw extruder comprises a threaded sleeve and a threaded rod penetrating in the threaded sleeve; the threaded rod comprises a feed section, a compression section and a metering section which are disposed in sequence; the threaded sleeve comprises: a gas collection chamber opened and disposed on an inner wall at a junction of the compression section and the metering section; and an exhaust hole being in communication with the gas collection chamber; wherein the threaded sleeve is mounted with an on-off valve to open and close the exhaust hole, as taught by Lee into the combination taught by ‘583 for the benefit of providing a sealing membrane and to prevent backflow of moisture discharged from the raw material.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108642583B, herein referred to as ‘583B, in view of Kim (US2013/0267139 A) and further in view of CN 105937061, herein referred to as ‘061, , and further in view of KR20100003249 A, herein referred to as ‘249 as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Bauer (US25017/0368507 A1) and CN2793105Y, herein referred to as ‘105.
Regarding claim 16, 583 discloses wherein the spinning box comprises: a metering pump (abstract), a pump plate (9f) and a pump base (pg. 9 paragraph 3) connected in sequence (MPEP 2144.04 states It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.); a box pipe (8a), used for communicating the pump plate and the pump base; and a melt sealing gasket (pg. 7 last paragraph)
‘583 does not explicitly disclose an anti-corrosion sealing gasket wherein the pump plate, the melt sealing gasket, the anti-corrosion sealing gasket and the pump base are stacked in sequence ; the melt sealing gasket and the anti-corrosion sealing gasket are both disposed with through holes for the box pipe that communicates the pump plate and the pump base to penetrate therein. However, analogous art, ‘105, discloses the use of anti corrosion sealing gaskets (last paragraph of pg 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an of anti-corrosion sealing gaskets as taught by ‘105 into the combination of ‘583 for the benefit of preventing corrosion. As for the sequence of the structures, MPEP 2144.04 states It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 would be allowable since 583 does not explicitly disclose wherein the spinning assembly comprises an assembly body; a gland, a melt distribution body, a multi-layer sieve and a spinneret which are sequentially disposed in an inner channel of the assembly body; and a ball layer, a filter layer and a distribution plate which are sequentially disposed in an inner channel of the melt distribution body along a flow direction of melt, the ball layer comprising a plurality of balls placed on the filter layer
Analogous art, CN108707987 A, herein referred to as ‘987 discloses an assembly body (3c); a gland (4b), a melt distribution body (3b), a multi-layer sieve (filter) and a spinneret which are sequentially disposed in an inner channel of the assembly body (see figure 2); but does not disclose a ball layer, a filter layer and a distribution plate which are sequentially disposed in an inner channel of the melt distribution body along a flow direction of melt, the ball layer comprising a plurality of balls placed on the filter layer. It is the combination of the claim as whole that makes the claim allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
FARAH N. TAUFIQ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754