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 1-6 and 12-18) in the reply filed on 08/19/2024 is acknowledged.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2019/0368075 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a process of producing a multi-filament by melt-spinning a composition containing a thermoplastic polyurethane (see [0012]-[0016][0039][0045]-[0131]; Fig. 1, 2, 5c), the process comprising: (a) passing the composition in a molten state through a spinneret, to obtain an extruded filament ([0045][0040]), (b) passing the extruded filament through a set of godet rollers ([0045]-[0046]; Fig. 1 item 4 and 5 as godet rollers), and (c) winding the extruded filament from step (b) onto a bobbin through a winder with a winding speed of 2000-5000 m/min (see Fig.1 item 7 -winder; [0046]-[0047), wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane has a Shore hardness measured according to DIN ISO 7619-1 of 68D-90D (see [0016][0047][0070]).
As for claim 6, Suzuki further teaches wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane comprises a reaction product of: (A) a polyol; (B) a diisocyanate; and (C) a chain extender, wherein the polyol is selected from the group consisting of polyether polyols, polyester polyols, and any mixture thereof (see [0014][0061]-[0094] discloses identical mixtures as claimed).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2019/0368075 A1) in view of Yin et al. (WO 2020/169417 A1; the Examiner uses equivalent translation provided by US 2022/0145496 A1).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 12-18 Suzuki et al. teach all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above including wherein the winding speed is 2100 -2900 m/min and the shore hardness is 80 D ([0070][0016][0047]), however, fails to teach higher shore hardness (81D -87D) as claimed and the combination of roller speeds (first, second, and third sets) as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to producing polyurethane fiber, Yin et al. teach wherein the set of godet rollers in step (b) comprises a first godet roller, a second godet roller, and a third godet roller positioned in series ([0020]), wherein the first a first godet roller, a second godet roller, and a third godet roller positioned in series, wherein: the first godet roller operates at a speed of 1000-4000 m/min, the second godet roller operates at a speed of 2000-5000 m/min, and the third godet roller operates at a speed of 2000-5000 m/min ([0027]-[0030] discloses overlapping ranges for the first, second and third sets of godet roller); and further discloses the first godet roller operates at a surface temperature of 30 -120 oC; the second godet roller operates at a surface temperature of 60-170 oC; the third godet roller operatives at a surface temperature of 30 – 120 oC (see [0027]-[0030] also discloses overlapping temperature range).
Yin et al. further discloses the hardness of the TPU is measured in accordance with DIN ISO 7619-1, which is generally Shore 80 A to Shore 80 D, preferably Shore 80 A to Shore 74 D, and more preferably Shore 90 A to Shore 70 D (see [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing of the applicant’s invention was made to modify the process of forming polyurethane fiber as taught by Suzuki with controlling godet roller(s) speed and temperature, in forming polyurethane fiber, as taught by Yin et al. for the benefit of obtaining fiber with low shrinkage and high tenacity ([0012][0011]). Claim limitation pertaining to setting second roller speed faster than the first and third and optimized temperature are within the scope of Yin et al. and could be easily optimized accordingly, for the purpose of achieving the functional properties of having low shrinkage and high tenacity in the fiber produced (see [0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach oiling the extruded filament with a spinning oil before step b.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to polyurethane fiber, Yin et al. teach fiber may be oiled, the oiling lubricate the fiber and reduce friction between the fiber and the metallic ceramic parts of the spinning line (see [0033]) and allow dissipation of the static charges generated due to contact of fiber with the machine parts and keeps the fiber together ([0033]) and suggest that fiber may be oiled by any conventional spinning oil ([0033]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to modify the process of producing polyurethane fiber (filament) as taught by Suzuki with further including treatment agent such as oil to the polyurethane fiber, as taught by Yin et al., for the benefit of reducing static charges and friction as discussed above ([0033]) thereby producing polyurethane fiber having low-shrinkage and high tenacity (see [0011]-[0012]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2020/0017996 A1 - a method for producing a polyurethane elastic fiber. That is, the present invention relates to a method for producing a polyurethane elastic fiber exhibiting extremely reduced scum formation and further having a superior heat setting property, and a superior dyeability and color fastness.
US 2019/0226123 A1 – The invention pertains to melt spun multifilament based on thermoplastic polyurethane, their production and the use of said melt spun multifilament’s.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights