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 without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 22 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 4 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.
Specifically, the phrase “the reeling temperature” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further, the phrase “may be” is unclear. Is the temperature range optional?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al (20200199787).
In regards to Claim 1, Ito teaches a reeling manufacturing method of an elastic fiber, comprising:
providing an elastic fiber material (polyacetal fiber), the elastic fiber material having a core portion (center of filament) and a skin portion (outer surface of filament), the skin portion covering the core portion;
performing a first extending, to have the elastic fiber material passing a first guiding roller (pre-drawing roller), the speed of the first guiding roller being 500-1500 m/min (Example 31, rate of pre-drawing roller: 660 m/min);
performing a second extending, to have the elastic fiber material passing a second guiding roller (first drawing roller), the speed of the second guiding roller being 1200-2400 m/min (Example 31, rate of drawing roller in first stage: 1700 m/min); and
performing a third extending (second drawing roller), to have the elastic fiber material passing a third guiding roller, the speed of the third guiding roller is 1300-2600 m/min (Example 31, rate of drawing roller in second stage: 1870 m/min).
In regards to Claim 2, Ito teaches the speed of the first guiding roller is 550-1300 m/min, the speed of the second guiding roller is 1300-2000 m/min, the speed of the third guiding roller is 1350-2500 m/min (Example 31).
In regards to Claim 3, Ito teaches a winding step, to have the elastic fiber material passing a winding roller for winding, the speed of the winding roller being 1250-2250 m/min (Example 31, winding rate: 1850 m/min).
In regards to Claim 4, Ito teaches the reeling temperature of the elastic fiber material may be 160-240°C (Paragraph 18).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al.
In regards to Claim 5, while Ito essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the temperature of the first, second, and third guiding rollers are 10-75°C. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the temperature of the guiding rollers as necessary, based on the desired heat treatment for the material being processed. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be more than capable of determining what temperature to operate the guiding rollers at, with the basic knowledge of how heat affects fibers being drawn. It should be noted, Applicant provides no criticality or unexpected results arising from the claimed temperature range, and as such, the range is considered an obvious choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Specifically, at least Bumgardner (20060201129) Figure 2 teaches elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732