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 § 102/103
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 –
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.
Claims 15-22, 25-26 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Brunner et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0204536) or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0204536) in view Borade et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0139711).
Regarding claims 15 and 31, Brunner et al. teach a spun fiber [0060] consisting of from 60-99 wt% of a polymer base resin wherein the polymer based resin comprises a chemical upcycled polybutylene terephthalate component which was derived from a post-consumer recycled polyester and from 0.1 wt% to 40 wt% of a reinforcing filler (including talc) wherein the combined weight percent value of all components does not exceed 100wt% and all weight percent values are based on the total weight of the fiber [Abstract, 0079, 0081, 0158 and 0173]. The claimed tensile stress and tensile modulus is inherent to the fiber of Brunner et al. as Brunner et al. teach fiber which is drawn and it is known that a drawn fiber would have a much higher tensile stress than an injection molded article and therefore the tensile stress and tensile modulus would be in the claimed range in the fiber of Brunner et al. because drawn fibers have much higher tensile properties than injection molded items. Further, Brunner et al. teach such similar fibers made of such similar materials including filler in the claimed amount which is taught to improve tensile properties, the claimed properties are necessarily inherent to Brunner et al. In the alternative, Borade et al. teach a tensile modulus of greater than 1950 MPa when tested in accordance with ISO 527 in order to provide improved tensile properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the tensile modulus of Borade et al. in Brunner et al. in order to improve tensile properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
It is noted the stabilizer and epoxy impact modifier are not required by the claim language.
Regarding claim 16, the polyester is recycled from polyethylene terephthalate waste [0079].
Regarding claims 17, the fiber has a diameter in the claimed range [0168].
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Brunner et al. teach multifilaments, but also teaches monofilaments have a larger diameter with multifilaments having certain advantages and it is known in the art as Brunner et al. teaches certain applications call for multifilaments and certain application call for monofilaments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a monofilament, for example, as in an instance were stiffness was required and in the claimed diameter.
Regarding claim 19, the reinforcing filler has an average particle D98 of less than 10um [0155] and therefore D958 is in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20, the reinforcing filler comprises talc, wollastonite, glass fibers, carbon fibers or a combination thereof [0158].
Regarding claim 21, the reinforcing filler have an average particle size distribution D50 of less than 1.5 um [0030].
Regarding claim 22, the reinforcing filler consists of talc [0158].
Regarding claims 26 and 32, Brunner et al. teach a method of forming a plurality of spun polymer fibers with the method consisting of forming a melt mixture consisting of from 60-99 wt% of a polymer base resin wherein the polymer based resin comprises a chemical upcycled polybutylene terephthalate component which was derived from a post-consumer recycled polyester and from 0.1 wt% to 40 wt% of a reinforcing filler (including talc) wherein the combined weight percent value of all components does not exceed 100wt% and all weight percent values are based on the total weight of the fiber [Abstract, 0079, 0081, 0158 and 0173], extruding the melt mixture through a spinneret to form a plurality of filaments and allowing the plurality of filaments to solidify (cooling is taught) to form the plurality of polymer fibers [Abstract, 0217]. The claimed tensile stress and tensile modulus is inherent to the fiber of Brunner et al. as Brunner et al. teach fiber which is drawn and it is known that a drawn fiber would have a much higher tensile stress than an injection molded article and therefore the tensile stress and tensile modulus would be in the claimed range in the fiber of Brunner et al. because drawn fibers have much higher tensile properties than injection molded items. Further, Brunner et al. teach such similar fibers made of such similar materials including filler in the claimed amount which is taught to improve tensile properties, the claimed properties are necessarily inherent to Brunner et al. In the alternative, Borade et al. teach a tensile modulus of greater than 1950 MPa when tested in accordance with ISO 527 in order to provide improved tensile properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the tensile modulus of Borade et al. in Brunner et al. in order to improve tensile properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 29-30, Brunner teaches average particle size of the reinforcing filler is in the claimed range [0030]. Bruner et al. teach D98 less than 10 and therefore D95 is in the claimed range. Further, given the teachings of Bruner et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed D95 in order to ensure uniform particle size and thus uniform properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0204536) in view of Son (US Pat. 4,326,063) or over Brunner et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0204536) in view Borade et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0139711) in view of Son (US Pat. 4,326,063).
Regarding claim 24, Brunner et al. and the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed UV stabilizer. However, Son inclusion of a UV stabilizer in a fiber in order to provide UV stabilization that is also immobile in the fiber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the UV stabilizer of Son in Brunner et al or the previous combination in order to provide UV stabilization that is also immobile in the fiber and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/07/2026 over Gopal et al. have been fully considered, but are moot as Gopal is not used in the present rejection.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789