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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the implied language “This invention discloses” and “This invention also provides”. The abstract of the disclosure is further objected to because of reference to purported merits and speculative applications of the invention (The method provided by this invention is simple and suitable for electro-welding and other fields, and can effectively protect human safety). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
The claims appear to be a machine translation and appropriate correction of all informalities to conform with grammatically accurate language is required. A non-exhaustive list of corrections required includes:
each claim should begin with a capital letter and end with a period;
periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations;
where a claim sets forth a plurality of steps or elements, each step or element of the claim should be separated by a line indentation;
claim sentences should maintain a consistent verb tense;
unless the word is a proper noun, words after a semicolon may not be capitalized;
a conjunction should be placed at the end of each list to connect the final item to the preceding ones and signal the end of the sequence;
“redox” should not be capitalized; and
the descriptive adjective “protective” should be placed before the purpose adjective “welding”.
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 1-10 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. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cast head" in line 3 of step 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a cast head”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the polymer melt" in lines 4-5 of step 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a polymer melt”.
The terms “stable” and “fine” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any polymer melt stream will meet the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the modified graphene oxide flame retardant polyester masterbatch obtained in step 4" in lines 1-2 of step 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as requiring “dried by a fan dryer to form a modified graphene oxide flame-retardant polyester masterbatch” at the end of step 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the graphene oxide flame-retardant polyester filament obtained in step 5" in lines 1-2 of step 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as requiring “to form a graphene oxide flame-retardant polyester filament” at the end of step 5.
The term “high-flame-retardant” in claim 1, line 4 of step 7, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-flame-retardant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any degree of flame retardance will meet the claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the glove template" in line 1 of step 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a glove template”.
The term “evenly” in claim 3, claim 4, and claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “evenly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any degree of mixing will meet the claim limitation.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the flame retardant" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the limitation is the flame retardants of claim 2 or the flame retardant in claim 1 step 7. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as limiting the flame retardants of claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the modifier" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as depending from Claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the modified dispersion solution" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a modified dispersion solution”.
The term “low vacuum” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low vacuum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any degree of vacuum will meet the claim limitation.
The term “slowly” in claim 4, claim 5, and claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any speed will meet the claim limitation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the resulting slurry" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a slurry resulting from step 2”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the air" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “air”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “the masterbatch”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the screw extruder" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a screw extruder”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the modified graphene anti-cutting polyester fiber" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a modified graphene anti-cutting polyester fiber”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the same flame retardant component in addition" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as depending from Claim 2 and the limitation will be treated as “the same flame retardants as the flame retardants in step 1”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the dipping roller" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “a dipping roller”.
The term “fully” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fully” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any degree of stirring and impregnating will meet the claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is ‘314 (JP2003193314) in view of ‘075 (CN109679075), ‘076 (CN 107189076B), and ‘650 (CN110499650A) as discussed below. Machine translations of ‘314, ‘075, ‘076, and ‘650 are attached as an English equivalent and are used in the citations below.
Regarding Claim 3, REDOX prepared graphene oxide is known in the art (CN109881286A). The claimed fire retardants and modifiers are also known in the art (CN109881286A). The prior art does not teach or suggest a method as claimed wherein the flame retardant is prepared by using diammonium hydrogen phosphate, antimony titanium complex and antimony trioxide evenly mixed according to mass ratio 1: (1-2) : (2-3); and the modifier is made of polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol and silane coupling agent uniformly mixed according to mass ratio 1: (2-3) : (3-4).
Regarding Claim 9, ‘650 teaches the fabric is immersed in a flame-retardant finishing liquid, fully impregnated through the dipping roller, extruded to remove the excess finishing liquid, and then dried by a dryer (pg. 5 last 2 para., “80 DEG C”, “press bath”; pg. 6 first para. “dried”). The prior art does not teach or suggest a method as claimed wherein in the step 7, the preparation of flame retardant finishing liquid is by selecting the same flame retardant component as in step 1, evenly dispersed in distilled water, and then fully stirred, heating to 50-80C, and the mass concentration of flame retardant in the finishing liquid is 10-30 %.
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.
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.
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, 4-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘314 (JP2003193314) in view of ‘075 (CN109679075), ‘076 (CN 107189076B), and ‘650 (CN110499650A). Machine translations of ‘314, ‘075, ‘076, and ‘650 are attached as an English equivalent and are used in the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, ‘314 teaches fire resistant gloves prepared by cutting and sewing a fire resistant fabric (Example 8). ‘341 teaches the fabric can including combinations of heat resistant materials with polyester (pg. 6 2nd full para.).
‘314 does not explicitly teach the claimed method of making the polyester composite; however, ‘075 teaches a method for preparing a modified graphene polyester composite for functional textiles (Technical Field and Background Technique), wherein the method comprises:
Step 1) selection of raw materials (Summary of the invention, para. 4-7);
Step 2) preparation of a PTA (i.e. refined terephthalic acid)/graphene oxide/ethylene glycol modified slurry (Step 1-2, pg. 3);
Step 3) esterification reaction: the slurry obtained in step 2 is added to a reactor, with repeated filling and emptying of nitrogen gas, air in the reactor is exhausted, and then nitrogen gas is filled and the temperature is raised to perform a pressurized esterification reaction (Step 3, pg. 3); and
Step 4) condensation reaction: the temperature in the reactor is continued to be raised to perform a low vacuum condensation, the pressure in the reactor is reduced, and the temperature is raised at the same time, the reaction is then allowed to stand, the cast head is opened, nitrogen gas is filled until the polymer melt forms a stable fine stream, the polymer melt is cooled by a water tank, cut into granules by a granulator, and dried by a fan dryer, and then stored for use (Step 4-5, pg. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the polyester composite fabric of ‘314 to include the polyester composite of ‘075, because it is a known polyester composite for functional textiles in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the fabric of ‘314 with a polyester composite fabric, as taught in ‘075.
The combined references do not explicitly teach the claimed method of preparing the fabric; however, ‘076 teaches a method of preparing a flame-retardant fabric by a method comprising:
Step 5) melt spinning: heated and melted, and then spun into filaments through a spinning box filter (abstract, “high speed melt-spinning”; pg. 6 8th para., “spinneret orifice”);
Step 6) fabric preparation: the graphene oxide flame-retardant polyester filament obtained in step 5 is woven into a woven fabric with a shuttle loom (pg. 3 para. 11, “woven using fly-shuttle loom”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a fabric preparation method, as taught in ‘076, because it is a known method of forming a flame-retardant fabric in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the flame resistant fabric of the combined references with a fabric preparation method, as taught by ‘076.
The combined references to not explicitly teach a post-treatment method as claimed; however, ‘650 teaches a fireproof fabric prepared by a method including: melt-spinning (pg. 3, spinning braiding, para. 8-9), weaving (pg. 4 para. 10-13), and
Step 7) post-treatment of the fabric: a flame-retardant finishing liquid is prepared, and then heated, the fabric is immersed in a flame-retardant finishing liquid, then passed through an immersion calendar to squeeze out excess finishing liquid, and then dried by a dryer to obtain a flame-retardant fabric (pg. 5 last 2 para., “80 DEG C”, “press bath”; pg. 6 first para. “dried”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a flame-retardant post-treatment, as suggested by ‘650, because it is a known fireproof textile treatment and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the flame resistant fabric of the combined references with a post treatment as suggested by ‘650.
Regarding Claim 2, ‘075 teaches by mass percentage refined terephthalic acid 60%, ethylene glycol 38.6%, graphene oxide 0.1%, flame retardants (catalyst, antimony trioxide ) 0.8%, and modifiers 0.5% (Table 1, Embodiment 2).
Regarding Claim 4, ‘075 teaches slowing adding graphene oxide to ethylene glycol and mixing with modifiers, flame retardant (antimony trioxide), and PTA. ‘075 teaches mixing uniformly and a temperature of 50-80C for 0.5-1 hour (Example 1 Step 1-2). ‘075 teaches a molar ratio of PTA/EG of 1:1 to 2.
‘075 does not explicitly teach the claimed order of mixing; however, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include any order of mixing because selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
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). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the concentrations, times, and temperatures of ‘075, including those within the claimed range, because ‘075 teaches they are all suitable concentrations, times and temperatures for use in the method and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with any of the taught concentrations, times, and temperatures.
Regarding Claim 5, ‘075 teaches in the step 3 the resulting slurry is added to the polymerization reactor, repeated filling and discharging nitrogen several times, exhaust the air in the reactor, filling nitrogen to the internal pressure of the reactor is 0.2-0.5 MPa, and then slowly heating up to the temperature range of 225-265C (Example 1 Step 3).
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). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the pressures and temperatures of ‘075, including those within the claimed range, because ‘075 teaches they are all suitable pressures and temperatures for use in the method and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with any of the taught pressures and temperatures.
Regarding Claim 6, ‘075 teaches in the step 4, the temperature in the reactor is continued to rise to 230-270C, low vacuum condensation is carried out, the pressure in the reactor is slowly reduced from normal pressure to 200-500 Pa, while the temperature is slowly increased to 280C, the reaction time is controlled to 20-60 min, the reactor stands for 15 minutes and opening the casting head (Example 1 Steps 4-5).
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). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the pressures, times, and temperatures of ‘075, including those within the claimed range, because ‘075 teaches they are all suitable pressures, times, and temperatures for use in the method and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with any of the taught pressures, times, and temperatures.
Regarding Claim 8, ‘314 does not explicitly teach a gram weight of 100-500 g/m2; however, ‘650 teaches fire resistant wearable fabric having a gram weight of 245g/m^2 (pg. 2 7th para., pg. 4 20th para.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fabric weight of the combined references to be a weight as suggested by ‘650 because it is a known fabric weight for fire resistant wearable textiles and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of the combined reference with a weight as taught in ‘650.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘314 (JP2003193314) in view of ‘075 (CN109679075), ‘076 (CN 107189076B), and ‘650 (CN110499650A) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10 above, and further in view of ‘956 (US 3516956) and ‘595 (CN 105002595 A). A machine translation of ‘595 is attached as an English equivalent and is used in the citations below.
Regarding Claim 7, ‘075 teaches blast drying and storing for later use (Example 1 Step 5). ‘075 does not explicitly teach drying temperature is controlled within the range of 80-200C, and the water content of the masterbatch after drying is less than 100 ppm; however, ‘956 teaches drying the granular blend before melting to a moisture content of no more than 0.033% (Example 5). 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). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the moisture content of the granules of the combined references to be any of the moisture contents, as taught in ‘956, including those within the claimed range, because ‘956 teaches they are all suitable granule moisture contents for melt spinning and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with any of the taught moisture contents.
‘956 is silent as to the drying temperature; however, ‘956 teaches drying the granular blend before melting to a moisture content of no more than 0.033% (Example 5). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the drying temperature of the combined references to be an optimized drying temperature in order to achieve a desired moisture content, as suggested by ‘956, and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed drying temperature.
‘075 does not explicitly teach the mixture is added to the screw extruder to heat and melt, and then spun into a bundle; however, ‘956 teaches melting in a screw extruder and spinning into a bundle (col. 1 ln. 40-col. 2 ln. 11). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the melt spinning of the combined references to include a screw extruder and yarn bundle, as suggested by ‘956, because they are known methods of melting for spinning and collecting after spinning in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the fabric of the combined references with a screw extruder and yarn bundle, as taught in ‘956.
‘076 teaches the spinning temperature is 290C, and the spinning speed is 3000 m/min. ‘076 does not explicitly teach a spinning speed of 500-1500 m/min; however, ‘595 teaches melt spinning at a speed of 500-1500 m/min (pg. 5 2nd full para.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the spinning speed of the combined references to include a speed, as suggested by ‘595, because it is a known spinning speed in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the fabric of the combined references with a speed as taught in ‘076.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712