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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group IV (claims 8-10) in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (1) the inventions of each of the groups are so closely related that restriction is not required and does not place a search burden on the Examiner, and (2) a technical relationship involving the same technical feature was not taken as a whole over the prior art. This is found persuasive in part as follows:
At first, the reference (JP H06264306 A, corresponding to “X” reference on the International Search Report) still teaches both the process and product, and thus they are not contribution over the prior art.
Secondly, although there may be some overlap of the search for the inventions, there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive. Further, the examination on the merits of product claims differs from that of method claims. Therefore, the extra search and/or examination burden for addressing multiple inventions poses a serious burden to the examiner which makes the restriction requirement proper.
On the other hand, Groups I and II or Groups III and IV might have been considered as a multifilament product or a method of making a multifilament, respectively, as a whole, as a multifilament product or method of making it requires an undrawn multifilament or method of making it to make a stretched multifilament product.
Thereby, after reconsideration, the requirement is still deemed proper but Group III and IV (claims 5-10) are considered as a whole.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups I and II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/21/2025.
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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatsugu (JP H06264306 A).
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 50° 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]: the melt-spun multifilament is air-cooled at 40 to 80 °C; here, the disclosed range of the gas temperature has an overlapping range with the recited range between 40 to 50 °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)), 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), 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, but 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 ([0009]). 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 crystalize the plural filaments completely 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 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, 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, 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 ([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, Masatsugu teaches multifilament production method according to claim 8, wherein
in (B), the gas having a temperature of from 0 to 50 ° 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 ([0011]: air-cooling the spun yarn at 40 to 80 °C; [0017]: the melt-spun multifilament is air-cooled at 40 to 80 °C; here, the disclosed temperature range of the cooling air and the cooled undrawn multifilament has an overlapping range with the recited range between 40 to 50 °C; see MPEP 2144.05 I), and
in (C), the undrawn multifilament is heated, and a heated undrawn multifilament is stretched by the stretching roll unit ([0020]: then stretched between a 100 °C roller and an unheated roller at the draw ratio of 1.2 or more).
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatsugu (JP H06264306 A) in view of Kim (WO 2021132768 A1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatsugu (JP H06264306 A) in view of Kim (WO 2021132768 A1).
Regarding claims 5-7, 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 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 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, modified Masatsugu teaches a multifilament production method as recited in claims 8 and 9 (see above, the 35 U.S. C. 103 rejection of claims 8-9 over Masatsugu),
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatsugu (JP H06264306 A) in view of Matoba (US 5,997,980).
Claim 10 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatsugu (JP H06264306 A) and Kim (WO 2021132768 A1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Matoba (US 5,997,980).
Regarding claim 10, Masatsugu or 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 Masatsugu or 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).
Conclusion
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