DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 04/08/2026, claims 1 and 3-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5,and 9 are currently amended. Claim 2 is canceled, and claims 11-20 are newly added. Claims 1 and 3-4 are withdrawn. Claims 5-20 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 Objections
Claims 12 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12 and 18 should be corrected to “[[the]] a number of the individual filaments” (line 2), respectively.
Claim 19 and 20 should be corrected to “the individual filaments” (line 2), respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 11 and 19 recites the term “a coefficient of variation of the finenesses of the individual filaments of the undrawn multifilament” in lines 2-3. The term would be interpreted as the value measured as disclosed in Instant Specification ([0141-0146], as published).
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation “a mean of finenesses of individual filament of the multifilament” in line 2. It is unclear whether the underlined term of “the multifilament” means the same as (1) “an undrawn multifilament” (claim 5 lines 7-8), or (2) “a multifilament” (i.e., a multifilament after stretching) (claim 8 line 5). For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatsugu (JP H06264306 A) in view of Kikutani (US 20160230313 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Masatsugu teaches an undrawn multifilament production method for obtaining an undrawn multifilament by melt spinning ([0011]; of note, before stretching step, the melt-spun multifilament is undrawn), the method comprising:
(A) conducting the melt spinning comprising discharging a melt using a spinning nozzle having at least 30 discharge holes to obtain at least 30 raw filaments in a molten state ([0011]; [0020]: melt-spun through a 0.3 mm diameter x 36-hole spinneret; here, the disclosed numbers (i.e., 36) of discharge holes and raw filaments anticipates the recited ranges); and
(B) blowing a gas having a temperature of [from 0 to 40° C] onto the at least 30 raw filaments in the molten state to cool the at least 30 raw filaments and obtain an undrawn multifilament ([0011, 0017]: a polymer is melt-spun at 140 to 220 °C, and the melt-spun multifilament is air-cooled at 40 to 80 °C), wherein
the melt comprises a poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) resin and a nucleating agent ([0012]: poly(β-hydroxyalkanoate); [0014]: a crystal nucleating agent),
a mean of finenesses of individual filaments of the undrawn multifilament is 30 dtex or less ([0020]: Examples 1 to 5A, obtain (drawn) multifilaments of approximately 200d/36f; here, a mean finenesses of individual stretched filaments can be driven as: 200d/36 = 200/36 (g/9,000m) = 200/36*10/9 (g/10,000m) = 6.2 dtex; thus, a mean fineness of individual undrawn filaments is, for Example 1, 6.2 dtex * 2 (converting into before being stretched) = 12.4 dtex; here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range; moreover, although the Examples 1 to 5A were performed with colling with air approximately 60 °C, it is implied or at least obvious that a mean finenesses would not be different from the multifilament obtained from cooling at 40 to 50 °C (as required in this claim and taught by [0017] of Masatsugu) as dtex (linear density) does not depend on the cooling temperature of the individual filaments),
[the poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) resin comprises poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3- hydroxyhexanoate)] and
[in (B), a coefficient of heat transfer between the gas and the at least 30 raw filaments in the molten state is at least 60 W/(m2·K)].
Masatsugu does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, Kikutani teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Kikutani teaches that by spinning the polyester resin containing the poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) (P3HB3HH) at a high spinning velocity, the spinnability, productivity, and tensile strength of the polyester fiber can be improved (abstract, fig. 2). The pellet comprising P3HB3HH was extruded from a spinning die having a melt-spinning temperature of 160 to 180 °C and cooled to an atmosphere having an ambient temperature of 25 °C ([0070, 0087]).
In the same field of endeavor of manufacturing polyester multifilaments by melt-spinning a resin comprising poly(hydroxyalkanoate) (PHA) (Masatsugu: [0001]; Kikutani: abstract, fig. 2), Masatsugu also discloses that the melt-spun multifilament is air-cooled ([0001, 0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the PHA filament processing method of Masatsugu to have another known highly processible PHA of P3HB3HH with a corresponding processing cooling temperature of 25 °C as taught by Kikutani in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of manufacturing a P3HB3HH-based multifilament having improved properties such as better strength, improved flexibility/ductility, and/or reduced brittleness. Upon the modification, when the melt-spun filaments were cooled to the temperature of 25 °C, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art that the temperature of cooling blowing air of modified Masatsugu to be at least or lower than 25 °C to effectively cool the melt-spun filaments to the temperature of 25 °C within a limited production time. Although the disclosed range of temperature (i.e., at least or lower than 25 °C) does not anticipates the recited range of the temperature (i.e., from 0 to 40 °C), the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 0 and 25 °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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Upon the modification, modified Masatsugu does not specifically teach that “in (B), a coefficient of heat transfer between the gas and the at least 30 raw filaments in the molten state is at least 60 W/(m2·K).” However, modified Masatsugu further discloses that the crystallization rate of poly(β-hydroxyalkanoate) is extremely slow compared to nylon, polyethylene terephthalate, etc., and therefore fusion occurs between the filaments during melt spinning and winding, making it difficult to unwind from the package, and even if spinning is carried out under conditions that allow sufficient crystallization to proceed, ignoring productivity in order to prevent fusion, drawing becomes difficult and only low strength yarns can be obtained (Masatsugu: [0009]; Kikutani: [0005]). Thus, the heat transfer rate/coefficient between the cooling gas and the plurality of filaments in the molten is result-effective variable (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)). For example, the heat transfer rate/coefficient between the cooling gas and the plurality of filaments in the molten state is determined to have desired/optimum values so as to at least partially crystalize/solidify the plural filaments enough to prevent fusion of the filaments, but not too much cooled down in order to facilitate downstream stretching, in consideration of defined cooling conditions (e.g., temperature/flux/speed/heat capacity of cooling gas, temperature/moving speed of the filaments, surface area of the filaments, distance between a spinneret and a focusing unit, etc.), within the recited range of the coefficient of heat transfer.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the coefficient of heat transfer between the gas and the at least 30 raw filaments in the molten state in modified Masatsugu, through routine optimization and experimentation, to obtain melt-spun filaments cooled enough to prevent fusion and to be at a desired temperature for downstream process.
Regarding claim 6, modified Masatsugu teaches the undrawn multifilament production method according to claim 5, wherein in (B), the coefficient of heat transfer is at least 125 W/(m2·K) (see above, the 35 U.S. C. 103 rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, modified Masatsugu teaches a multifilament production method ([0011]) comprising:
obtaining an undrawn multifilament using the undrawn multifilament production method according to claim 5 (see above, the 35 U.S. C. 103 rejection of claim 5); and
(C) stretching the undrawn multifilament by a stretching roll unit at a stretching ratio of at least 1.5 to obtain a multifilament (Masatsugu: [0017, 0020]: then stretched between a 100 °C roller and an unheated roller at the draw ratio of 1.2 or more (e.g., as shown in Table 1); here, the disclosed stretch range have an overlapping range with the recited range in at least 1.5; see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 9, modified Masatsugu teaches the multifilament production method according to claim 8, wherein
in (B), the gas having a temperature of from 0 to 40 °C is blown onto the at least 30 raw filaments in the molten state to cool the at least 30 raw filaments to below 50° C and obtain the undrawn multifilament (Kikutani: [0070, 0087]: the pellet comprising P3HB3HH was extruded from a spinning die having a melt-spinning temperature of 160 to 180 °C and cooled to an atmosphere having an ambient temperature of 25 °C ), and
in (C), the undrawn multifilament is heated, and a heated undrawn multifilament is stretched by the stretching roll unit (Masatsugu: [0020]: then stretched between a 100 °C roller and an unheated roller at the draw ratio of 1.2 or more).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, modified Masatsugu is silent that a coefficient of variation of the finenesses of the individual filaments of the undrawn multifilament is 33% or less. In this case, the multifilament of modified Masatsugu is produced by the identical process as recited in claim 5 or 9. Thus, a prima facie case of anticipation is established to the claimed property (i.e., a coefficient of variation of the finenesses) by modified Masatsugu. 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)).
Regarding claim 20, modified Masatsugu teaches multifilament production method according to claim 19, wherein a mean of finenesses of individual filaments of the multifilament is 20 dtex or less (Masatsugu: for example, [0020]: filaments before being stretched: 12.4 dtex; filaments after being stretched: 6.2 dtex; for details, see above, the 103 rejection of claim 5).
Claims 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 19-20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatsugu (JP H06264306 A) in view of Kikutani (US 20160230313 A1) and Kim (WO 2021132768 A1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatsugu (JP H06264306 A) and Kikutani (US 20160230313 A1) as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Kim (WO 2021132768 A1).
Regarding claims 5-7, modified Masatsugu teaches an undrawn multifilament production method for obtaining an undrawn multifilament by melt spinning as recited in claim 5 (see above, the 35 U.S. C. 103 rejection of claim 5 over modified Masatsugu), but does not specifically teach that in (B), a coefficient of heat transfer between the gas and the at least 30 raw filaments in the molten state is at least 60 W/(m2·K) (claim 5), at least 125 W/(m2·K) (claim 6), and a speed of the gas blown onto the at least 30 raw filaments is at least 0.1 m/s (claim 7).
Kim teaches a method for producing polyethylene yarn, comprising a step of drawing a multifilament made of cooled melt-spun filaments ([0014-0028]). Kim teaches that a plurality of the above filaments 11 are completely solidified by being cooled in a quenching zone 300 by air cooling, and it is preferable that the cooling of the filaments 11 in the cooling unit 300 is performed to cool to 15 to 40 °C using cooling wind at a wind speed of 0.2 to 1 m/sec ([0097-0098]; fig. 1; here, the disclosed range of wind speed anticipates the recited range of the speed of the gas blown). If the cooling temperature is less than 15°C, the elongation may be insufficient due to supercooling, which may cause breakage during the drawing process, and if the cooling temperature exceeds 40 °C, the fineness difference between the filaments 11 may increase due to uneven solidification, which may cause breakage during the drawing process ([0098]; fig. 1).
Although Kim is silent about the heat transfer coefficient as recited, the heat transfer coefficient between the cooling gas and the plurality of filaments in the molten is result-effective variable (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)). For example, the heat transfer rate/coefficient between the cooling gas and the plurality of filaments in the molten state is determined to have desired/optimum values so as to solidify the plural filaments completely to prevent fusion of the filaments by quenching, but not too much cooled down in order to facilitate downstream stretching, in consideration of defined cooling conditions (e.g., temperature/flux/speed/heat capacity of cooling gas, temperature/moving speed of the filaments, surface area of the filaments, distance between a spinneret and a focusing unit, etc.), within the recited range of the coefficient of heat transfer.
Therefore, in the same field of endeavor of producing of melt-spun multifilaments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the coefficient of heat transfer between the gas and the at least 30 raw filaments in the molten state and the speed of the gas blown of modified Masatsugu, through routine optimization and experimentation, to obtain melt-spun filaments at a desired temperature as taught by Kim so as to cool the filaments enough to prevent fusion and not to be supercooled for downstream process (Kim: derived from [0097-0098]).
Regarding claims 8-9, 11, and 19-20, modified Masatsugu teaches a multifilament production method as recited in claims 8-9, 11, and 19-20 (see above, the 35 U.S. C. 103 rejection of claims 8-9, 11, and 19-20 over Masatsugu in view of Kikutani).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Masatsugu as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Matoba (US 5,997,980).
Regarding claim 10, modified Masatsugu teaches a production method comprising: obtaining a multifilament using the multifilament production method according to claim 8 (see above, the 35 U.S. C. 103 rejections of claim 8), but does not specifically teach the method further comprises cutting the multifilament to obtain a staple having a length of 20 cm or less.
Matoba teaches hollow polyester fibers and textile articles comprising the hollow polyester fibers (claim 1 lines 6-10). The fiber is cut into staple fibers of length 3 to 100 mm (col. 20 lines 39-42). Here, the disclosed length range has an overlapping range with the recited length range between 3 to 100 mm (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Therefore, in the same field of endeavor of producing of melt-spun polyester multifilament, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the method of producing a product using a multifilament of modified Masatsugu to include a known method of making a staple having a shorter length than a continuous filaments (e.g., 3 to 100 mm) as taught by Matoba in order to obtain know results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a fiber or a textile having feeling for warmth, softness, or bulk, making them ideal for a final product with desired feel, appearance, and function (Matoba: derived from col. 1 lines 6-16).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Masatsugu as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Hashimoto (JP H07310230 A).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Masatsugu as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Hashimoto (JP H07310230 A).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 18, modified Masatsugu teaches undrawn multifilament production method according to claim 5 or 7, but does not specifically teach that the number of the individual filaments in the undrawn multifilament is from 50 to 300,000 (claims 2, 18), and wherein in (B), the gas is blown onto the at least 30 raw filaments in the molten state from at least four directions with respect to each raw filament as viewed in a direction of a length of the raw filament (claim 13).
Hashimoto teaches method for producing multifilament polyester fibers suitable for industrial material applications by a spinning and drawing method ([0001]). Hashimoto teaches that the number of the individual filaments in the undrawn multifilament is from 50 to 300,000 (fig. 2, [0014]: a yarn with 200 or more filaments is spun, preferably a number of 200 to 500 filaments; here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range), and wherein in (B), the gas is blown onto the at least 30 raw filaments in the molten state from at least four directions with respect to each raw filament as viewed in a direction of a length of the raw filament (fig. 1; [0012]: annular cooling device 2 that blows cooling air from the outer circumference of the yarn towards the center; here, the cooling air blowing radially from the outer circumference of the yarn toward the center implies that there are at least four directions of blowing toward each filament located inside of the outer circumstance).
In the same field of endeavor of manufacturing polyester multifilaments by melt-spinning, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the spinneret and the cooling device of modified Masatsugu to have another known structure of a spinneret spinning a higher number of strands together and an annular cooling device that would effectively cooling the multiple strands from the spinneret as taught by Hashimoto in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of manufacturing a multifilament yarn using more numbers of strands for improved flexibility, softness, and durability of the yarn (Hashimoto: derived from [0008]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Masatsugu as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Koyama (US 20160090466 A1).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Masatsugu as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Koyama (US 20160090466 A1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Masatsugu as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Koyama (US 20160090466 A1).
Regarding claims 14-17, modified Masatsugu teaches he undrawn multifilament production method according to claim 5, 7, or 12, but does not specifically teach that the nucleating agent is a sugar alcohol compound (claims 14, 16, 17), and the nucleating agent is pentaerythritol (claim 15).
Koyama teaches a polyester resin composition including a polyester resin (A), a crystallization promoter (B), and pentaerythritol (C), which improves low crystallization rate and processability in forming a shape (abstract). Koyama teaches that in order to improve the crystallization of PHA type resins, the blend of an additive as a crystallization nucleating agent, for examples of the additive including boron nitride, titanium oxide, talc, sugar alcohol, polyvinyl alcohol, chitin, and chitosan are added ([0006]), and by blending a crystallization promoter and pentaerythritol with a polyester resin, which is slowly crystallized, the crystallization of the polyester resin can be promoted and the processability and the productivity of the polyester are improved ([0009]), and the polyester comprises polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) such as poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) (P3HB3HH) ([0016]).
In the same field of endeavor of shaping a polyester-based (in particular, PHA comprising P3HB3HH) (Masatsugu: [0001]; Kikutani: abstract; Koyama: abstract), Masatsugu also discloses that the PHA composition includes a nucleating agent such as boron nitride or titanium dioxide (Masatsugu: [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the PHA composition comprising P3HB3HH of modified Masatsugu to have another known nucleating agent of sugar alcohol or pentaerythritol as taught by Koyama in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of improving the processibility and the productivity in utilizing a P3HB3HH-based composition for manufacturing a shaped article (Koyama: derived from [0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 (which have been newly amended by the applicants) has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection have been made due to the newly added features from the applicant’s latest amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
The basis of the applicant’s argument is based upon the changes regarding the cooling temperature and the composition of the poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) resin. After further search and reconsideration, the Kikutani reference is applied to the rejection. Thus, when Masatsugu’s teaching is modified in view of Kikutani, modified Masatsugu does teach/suggest all the claimed limitations and the motivation to combine.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claim 5 remains rejected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly added claims 11-20 (which have been newly amended by the applicants) has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection have been made due to the newly added features from the applicant’s latest amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
Furthermore, the Examiner addresses response regarding the Applicant’s argument regarding unexpected results of the claimed process.
The Applicant argues (pages 8-10 of Remark) that the recited limitations (i.e., regarding the temperature of a blowing gas, the component of P3HB3HH, and the heat transfer coefficient) are not a matter of routine optimization but result in unexpected improved mechanical strength in the multifilament produced with the claimed process, and the proffered evidence supports to commensurate in scope with the claimed limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
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 multifilament, the proffered evidence as the unexpected results (Instant Specification: Table 2) does not commensurate in scope with the claimed limitations as the claimed limitation covers a broader range of the technical features than as disclosed in Instant Specification (e.g., two (2) temperature point within the claimed range and only one (1) temperature point out of the claimed range; much broader heat transfer coefficient in recited range than disclosed in Table 2; an open-ended resin composition as recited but the very specific P3HB3HH (6 mol% of HA content) is tested; how about other processing steps involving several operation parameters such as melting temperature of a resin, a number/diameter of discharge holes, a temperature of nozzle, discharge flux of a resin, a cooled temperature of a strand, duration of cooling, etc.), and the claimed ranges do not demonstrate a nexus to the alleged unexpected results.
Secondly, the proffered results do not fully resolve whether the recited limitations results in unexpected results in the multifilaments (Table 2). “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 1-7 show somewhat inferior test results in view of tensile strength than the test results of Comparative 1 or 5. However, it is not clear whether the test results of Examples 1-7 shows “a greater than the expected results” beyond the expected results.
Thus, the unexpected results of the claimed process have not been fully established.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harris (US 20090256278 A1) teaches a process and a device involving melt-spinning and cooling synthetic filaments (figs. 1 and 4, abstract, claim 1).
Noda (US 20020143116 A1) teaches environmentally degradable melt spun fibers comprising a polyhydroxyalkanoate copolymer and a polylactic acid polymer or copolymer (abstract).
Yamane (US 20030088052 A1) teaches melt-extrusion conditions and drawing process which enable to carry out stable and smooth fiber spinning of polyester produced, by P(3HB-CO-3HH) (figs. 1, 2; abstract).
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
Prosecution Insights