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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because it recites limitations “a roving belt that is positioned to be partially disposed within the distal gap and is adapted and configured to decouple the nanofiber from the first face and the second face while the majority of the fiber is flat and in contact with the roving belt” lacks support in the original specification which filed 07-24-2024; therefore such lack of detailed support in the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
Claim 10 is rejected because it recites limitations “disposing the nanofiber from the first face and the second face to a flat surface of a roving belt within the distal gap, such that a majority length of the nanofiber is in contact with the surface of the roving belt” lacks support in the original specification which filed 07-24-2024; therefore such lack of detailed support in the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being 4. unpatentable over Smit (WO 2015/075658) in view of Kim (2009/0189318).
Regarding claim 1, Smit teaches a system for producing nanofibers, the system comprising:
an automated track system (fig 1) comprising:
a first track having a first face; and a second track having a second face facing the first face of the first track (members B), wherein:
the first track and the second track are positioned to define a proximal gap and a distal gap (the two ends between members B); and
the first track and the second track are adapted and configured to transfer a nanofiber coupled to the first face and the second face from the proximal gap to the distal gap (page 1, lines 33-39 and page 2, lines 1-13); and
a collector that is positioned to be partially disposed within the distal gap and is adapted and configured to decouple the nanofiber from the first face and the second face (member D) while the majority of the fiber is flat and in contact with the roving belt .
It is noted that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this instant case, Smit teaches an apparatus, as presently claimed, that would be capable to use with flat fiber.
Smit does not teach a collector in form of a roving belt.
Kim teaches a nanofiber system device having a collector in form of a roving belt (fig 1, member 7, para 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the system of Smit by using the roving belt of Kim since they both function equivalent to collect and transfer the fiber.
Regarding claim 2, the modified system Smit-Kim discloses the roving belt is configured and adapted to transfer the nanofiber external to the distal gap (Smit and Kim, fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified system Smit-Kim discloses the roving belt is adapted and configured to intermittently actuate (page 11, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 6, the modified system Smit-Kim discloses the portion of the roving belt disposed in the distal gap is parallel to a length of the nanofiber (Smit, fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified system Smit-Kim discloses the roving belt is adapted and configured to collect a second nanofiber, wherein a length of the second nanofiber at least partially overlaps a length of the nanofiber when coupled to the roving belt (Smit, page 11, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 8, the modified system Smit-Kim discloses the roving belt is adapted and configured to transfer the nanofiber to a yarn spinner (Smit, abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the modified system Smit-Kim discloses a portion of the roving belt disposed in the distal gap is perpendicular to a length of the nanofiber (Smit, page 11, lines 4-14).
Regarding claim 10, Smit teaches a method for producing nanofibers (fig 1), comprising: coupling a first end of a nanofiber to a first face of a first track and a second end of the nanofiber to a second face of a second track (members B),
wherein the first track and the second track are positioned to define a proximal gap and a distal gap, wherein the coupling occurs in the proximal gap (the two ends between members B);
translating the first face and the second face such that the nanofiber travels from the proximal to the distal gap (fig 1);
disposing the nanofiber from the first face and the second face to a surface of a collector within the distal gap, such that a majority length of the nanofiber is in contact with the surface of the collector (fig 1, all of the fiber will be in contact the collector); and
translating the roving belt such that the nanofiber travels out of the distal gap (page 11, col 4-25).
Kim teaches a method having a collector in form of a flat roving belt (fig 1, member 7, para 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the method of Smit by using the flat roving belt of Kim since they both function equivalent to collect and transfer the fiber.
Regarding claim 11, the modified method Smit-Kim discloses the disposing includes heating a portion of the nanofiber (Kim, para 0102).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 5. Smit (WO 2015/075658) and Kim (2009/0189318) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rubenack (2005/0198783).
Regarding claims 3-4, the modified system Smit-Kim teaches all claims limitations except the roving belt is configured and adapted to actuate at a speed independent of a speed of the first track and the second track, wherein the speed of the roving belt is less than the speed of the first track and the second track.
Rubenack teaches a device having the roving belt is configured and adapted to actuate at a speed independent of a speed of the first track and the second track, wherein the speed of the roving belt is less than the speed of the first track and the second track (para 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the device of Smit by using the independent speeds for the tracks and belt, as taught by Rubenack, in order to improved delivery from the feed device, or improved takeover by the downstream transport device, and to allow trouble free operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, date 12-16-2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §102 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented and they have been address as analyzed above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4pm.
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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732