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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed August 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are pending and under examination.
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.
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funatsu et al. (US 2010/0104870).
Regarding claim 4, Funatsu et al. teach a method for manufacturing a liquid crystal polyester multifilament (Abstract; paragraphs [0065] and [0116]) having a tensile strength/tenacity that overlaps or includes values with the claimed range of 18 cN/dtex or more (paragraphs [0051]-[0053] and [0112]) comprising subjecting a spun raw yarn of the liquid crystal polyester multifilament to heat treatment (paragraphs [0088]) wherein the spun raw yarn undergoing undergoes heat treatment under tension and while being transferred at an extension ratio that overlaps the claimed range of 1.001 times to 1.200 times (paragraphs [0088], [0092], [0093] and [0251]; Tables 3 and 4), and wherein the tension/stress applied during the heat treatment overlaps or includes values within the claimed range of 0.001 cN/dtex to 0.06 cN/dtex (Tables 3-5 (e.g. examples 12, 13 and 14); paragraphs [0092] and [0093]; 0.01cN/dtex to 0.5 cN/dtex is a preferred range in Funatsu et al. that overlaps the claimed ranged; also see paragraph [0145]).
As to claim 5, Funatsu et al. an increase of strength as claimed (paragraph [0055] Tables 2-5). Further, Funatsu et al. disclose and suggest the same claimed and disclosed method and performs the method on the same claimed and disclosed material in the same claimed and disclosed manner. As such, the same claimed effects and physical properties are expected to be present.
As to claim 6, Funatsu et al. suggest a roll-to-roll process by performing the heat treatment under tension/stress (paragraphs [0088], [0092], [0093], [0155], [0252], [0254], [0256], [0269], Tables 2-5 and 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been fully considered. The arguments are persuasive to overcome the rejections based upon Funatsu (US 2016/0340804) and Funatsu (US 2011/0318982). As such, the rejections have been withdrawn. As to the rejection based upon Funatsu ‘870, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Paragraphs [0108] and [0141] in Funatsu ‘870 teach that the solid phase polymerization process is optional. As such, the claimed heat treatment under tension and extension of the “spun raw yarn” is understood to be reasonably suggested by Funatsu ‘870. However, when the solid phase polymerization is not performed in Funatsu ‘870 the product is weak (paragraph [0292]). As such, while Funatsu ‘870 is reasonably understood to suggest the method of claim 4, the reference is not reasonably understood to suggest that the heat treatment process under tension and extension as set forth in claim 4 produces the claimed properties set forth in claim 1, which achieves the recited results directly upon the spun raw yarn. It is noted here that the modulus and tensile strength set forth in the preamble of claim 1 are not necessarily achieved by the claimed heat treatment under tension and extension of the spun raw yarn since the body of claim 4 is able to stand alone (see MPEP 2111.02). However, claim 1 positively requires “said process” (i.e. the claimed heat treatment under tension and extension) performed on the spun raw yarn produces the claimed properties in the liquid crystal polyester multifilament.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights