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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahm (KR-20170088151) in view of Kurihara (JP-H08260233) and Matsui (US-2009142595), using the applicant provided original documents and attached translations.
Regarding claim 1, Hahm teaches:
A method of manufacturing a high-strength sheath-core type synthetic fiber ([0001] and [0052]), the method comprising:
forming a fiber by melt-spinning a thermoplastic polymer of a sheath component and a core component, through a spinning pack including a sheath-core type bicomponent spinning nozzle ([0040] – [0044] and [0052]; Figs. 1-2, #4 and F);
performing a high-temperature heat treatment by allowing a molten fiber to pass through a heating zone disposed directly below the spinning nozzle during the melt-spinning ([0042] – [0048]; Fig. 1, #51);
cooling the heat-treated as-spun fiber ([0033] – [0036]; Fig. 1, #5); and
drawing the cooled as-spun fiber ([0033] – [0036]; Fig. 1, #6 and #7).
Hahm does not explicitly teach:
wherein the sheath component includes a resin including the sheath component having elongation viscosity and thermal conductivity lower than that of a resin included in the core component; and
wherein the sheath component includes a resin including the sheath component having specific heat higher than that of a resin included in the core component.
However, Kurihara, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of manufacturing a high-strength sheath-core type synthetic fiber, teaches:
wherein the sheath component includes a resin including the sheath component having elongation viscosity ([0015]) and thermal conductivity lower than that of a resin included in the core component. Hahm is silent as to the specific resins used in the core and the sheath. Kurihara describes using high density polyolefin for the core ([0014] – [0015]), which has a relatively high thermal conductivity, and gives multiple options for the sheath resin ([0015]). One of those options is polypropylene ([0015]), which has a lower thermal conductivity than high density polyolefin. Therefore Kurihara teaches the sheath component having a lower thermal conductivity than the core component ([0014] – [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the core and sheath materials of Hahm to incorporate the teachings of Kurihara and choose specific materials so that the elongation viscosity and thermal conductivity of the sheath material are lower than the core material. The purpose, as stated by Kurihara, being the substance blended with or co-extruded with ultra-high molecular weight polyolefins must be a heat-fluid substance ([0015]).
Hahm in view of Kurihara does not explicitly teach:
wherein the sheath component includes a resin including the sheath component having specific heat higher than that of a resin included in the core component.
However, Matsui, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of manufacturing a high-strength sheath-core type synthetic fiber, teaches:
wherein the sheath component includes a resin including the sheath component having specific heat higher than that of a resin included in the core component ([0036] – [0037]). While Matsui does not specifically reference specific heat, it does reference the heat added “Q” value, which is directly correlated to specific heat in the formula Q = cmΔT, where c is specific heat. Matsui describes the sheath having a higher Q value than the core, which correlates to a higher specific heat since they are being heated together, aka having the same temperature difference (ΔT). Therefore Matsui shows making a core-sheath resin fiber where the specific heat of the sheath is higher than the specific heat of the core. As a result, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art viewing the combination of Hahm in view of Kurihara above, further in view of Matsui, to take the teaching of Matsui in having a sheath with a higher specific heat than the core, and apply it to Hahm in view of Kurihara and choose a sheath material from the list of sheath options in Kurihara (Kurihara; [0015]), which has a higher specific heat than the high density polyolefin material from Kurihara. The motivation, as stated by Matsui, is that it contributes to easy extension on heat application to the fiber ([0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Kurihara further teaches:
wherein a thermoplastic polymer of the sheath component and the core component is independently selected from a group consisting of at least one polyester-based polymer selected from a group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT), polycyclohexanedimethanol terephthalate (PCT), polylactic acid (PLA), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyethylene furanoate (PEF), and polyarylate (PAR); at least one polyamide-based polymer selected from among nylon 6, nylon 6,6, nylon 4 and nylon 4,6; and at least one polyolefin-based polymer selected from a group consisting of polyethylene and polypropylene ([0014] – [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Kurihara further teaches:
wherein a difference in thermal conductivities of thermoplastic polymers between the sheath component and the core component is 0.01 J/m.s.K to 10 J/m.s.K, and a difference in specific heats therebewteen is 0.05 KJ/Kg.K to 50 KJ/Kg.K. While Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui are silent as to the exact differences in thermal conductivities and specific heats between the sheath and core components, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose materials from the list of Kurihara ([0014] – [0015]), which fit the specific criteria needed when it comes to thermal conductivity and specific heat differences through routine optimization, for the reasons shown above, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 6, Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Kurihara further teaches:
wherein thermoplastic polymers of the sheath component and the core component satisfy at least one of conditions as below: melt viscosity of 10 poise to 10,000 poise, glass transition temperature (Tg) of 5°C to 300°C, and crystallinity temperature of 5°C to 300°C. While Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui are silent as to the exact melt viscosities, glass transition temperatures, and crystallinity temperatures of the sheath and core components, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose materials from the list of Kurihara ([0014] – [0015]), which fit the specific criteria needed when it comes to melt viscosities, glass transition temperatures, or crystallinity temperatures of the sheath and core components through routine optimization, especially since the claimed ranges are so long, for the reasons shown above, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 8, Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on. Hahm further teaches:
wherein the heating zone locally heats the fiber by a heating element formed as a circular-type element or a strip-type element in a periphery of the spinning nozzle hole ([0054] and [0090] – [0093]; Fig. 4, #50).
Regarding claim 9 Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on. Hahm further teaches:
wherein a residence time of the molten thermoplastic polymer passing through each hole in the spinning nozzle is 3 seconds or less, and a flow rate is 0.01 cc/min to 10 cc/min ([0049] – [0050]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahm (KR-20170088151) in view of Kurihara (JP-H08260233) and Matsui (US-2009142595), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hahm (KR-20170105746), using the applicant provided original documents and attached translations. In the interest of clarity, Hahm (KR-20170105746) will further be referred to as Hahm-46.
Regarding claim 2, Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the fiber being an islands-in-the-sea type fiber. However, Hahm-46, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of manufacturing a high-strength sheath-core type synthetic fiber, teaches:
wherein the sheath-core type synthetic fiber includes an islands-in-the-sea type fiber ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fiber of Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui to incorporate the teachings of Hahm-46 and make it an islands-in-the-sea fiber. The purpose, as stated by Hahm-46, being that the fiber is manufactured using any one of the composite spinning nozzles selected from the group consisting of the sheath-core type, side-by-side type, and sea-island type ([0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the fiber being an islands-in-the-sea type fiber. However, Hahm-46, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of manufacturing a high-strength sheath-core type synthetic fiber, teaches:
wherein the sheath-core type synthetic fiber is an islands-in-the-sea type fiber ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fiber of Hahm in view of Kurihara and Matsui to incorporate the teachings of Hahm-46 and make it an islands-in-the-sea fiber. The purpose, as stated by Hahm-46, being that the fiber is manufactured using any one of the composite spinning nozzles selected from the group consisting of the sheath-core type, side-by-side type, and sea-island type ([0034]).
Matsui as modified by Hahm-46 further teaches:
a volume ratio between a sea component and an island component is 10:90 to 90:10 ([0041]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahm (KR-20170088151) in view of Kurihara (JP-H08260233), Matsui (US-2009142595), and Hahm (KR-20170105746), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Park (KR-20190022045), using the applicant provided original documents and attached translations. In the interest of clarity, Hahm (KR-20170105746) will further be referred to as Hahm-46.
Regarding claim 7, Hahm in view of Kurihara, Matsui, and Hahm-46 teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 7 depends on, but does not teach a specific number of island fibers in the fiber. However, Park, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of manufacturing a high-strength sheath-core type synthetic fiber, teaches:
wherein the number of island fibers in the islands-in-the-sea type fiber is in a range of 1 to 1,000,000 ([0091] – [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the island-in-the-sea fiber of Hahm in view of Kurihara, Matsui, and Hahm-46 to incorporate the teachings of Park and have a specific number of island fibers. The purpose, as stated by Park, being that this was observed to exhibit higher fiber strength ([0095]).
Claims 10-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (JP-H08260233) in view of Matsui (US-2009142595), using the applicant provided original document and attached translation.
Regarding claim 10, Kurihara teaches:
A sheath-core type synthetic fiber formed of a sheath component and a core component ([0006] – [0023]), wherein the sheath component includes a resin having elongation viscosity ([0015]) and thermal conductivity lower than those of a resin included in the core component. Kurihara describes using high density polyolefin for the core ([0014] – [0015]), which has a relatively high thermal conductivity, and gives multiple options for the sheath resin ([0015]). One of those options is polypropylene ([0015]), which has a lower thermal conductivity than high density polyolefin. Therefore Kurihara teaches the sheath component having a lower thermal conductivity than the core component ([0014] – [0015]).
Kurihara does not explicitly teach:
wherein the sheath component includes a resin having a specific heat higher than that of a resin included in the core component.
However, Matsui, in a similar field of endeavor, a sheath-core type synthetic fiber, teaches:
wherein the sheath component includes a resin having a specific heat higher than that of a resin included in the core component ([0036] – [0037]). While Matsui does not specifically reference specific heat, it does reference the heat added “Q” value, which is directly correlated to specific heat in the formula Q = cmΔT, where c is specific heat. Matsui describes the sheath having a higher Q value than the core, which correlates to a higher specific heat since they are being heated together, aka having the same temperature difference (ΔT). Therefore Matsui teaches a core-sheath resin fiber where the specific heat of the sheath is higher than the specific heat of the core. As a result, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Kurihara in view of Matsui, to take the teaching of Matsui in having a sheath with a higher specific heat than the core, and apply it to Kurihara and choose a sheath material from the list of sheath options in Kurihara (Kurihara; [0015]), which has a higher specific heat than the high density polyolefin material from Kurihara. The motivation, as stated by Matsui, is that it contributes to easy extension on heat application to the fiber ([0036]).
Regarding claim 11, Kurihara in view of Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 11 depends on. Kurihara further teaches:
wherein a difference in thermal conductivities of thermoplastic polymers between the sheath component and the core component is 0.01 J/m.s.K to 10 J/m.s.K, and a difference in specific heats therebewteen is 0.05 KJ/Kg.K to 50 KJ/Kg.K. While Kurihara in view of Matsui are silent as to the exact differences in thermal conductivities and specific heats between the sheath and core components, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose materials from the list of Kurihara ([0014] – [0015]), which fit the specific criteria needed when it comes to thermal conductivity and specific heat differences through routine optimization, for the reasons shown above, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 12, Kurihara in view of Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 12 depends on. Kurihara further teaches:
wherein thermoplastic polymers of the sheath component and the core component satisfy at least one of conditions as below: melt viscosity of 10 poise to 10,000 poise, glass transition temperature (Tg) of 5°C to 300°C, and crystallinity temperature of 5°C to 300°C. While Kurihara in view of Matsui are silent as to the exact melt viscosities, glass transition temperatures, and crystallinity temperatures of the sheath and core components, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose materials from the list of Kurihara ([0014] – [0015]), which fit the specific criteria needed when it comes to melt viscosities, glass transition temperatures, or crystallinity temperatures of the sheath and core components through routine optimization, especially since the claimed ranges are so long, for the reasons shown above, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as [spray droplet size] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 17, Kurihara in view of Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 17 depends on. Matsui further teaches:
wherein, when two or more melting point peaks are present on a DSC of the core component ([0040]), a difference in temperatures therebewteen peaks is 10°C or less ([0018] – [0034] and [0061] – [0083]; Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fiber of Kurihara in view of Matsui to further incorporate the teachings of Matsui and have two or more specific melting point. The purpose, as stated by Matsui, being that the staple fiber was analyzed for the orientation index and melting point of each constituent resin and heat extensibility ([0061]).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (JP-H08260233) in view of Matsui (US-2009142595), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hahm (KR-20170105746), using the applicant provided original documents and attached translations. In the interest of clarity, Hahm (KR-20170105746) will further be referred to as Hahm-46.
Regarding claim 13, Kurihara in view of Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 13 depends on, but does not explicitly teach using a specific fiber with particular properties. However, Hahm-46, in a similar field of endeavor, a sheath-core type synthetic fiber, teaches:
wherein the sheath-core type fiber is an islands-in-the-sea type fiber ([0034]) containing polyethylene terephthalate (PET) island yarn ([0036]) including an island component having a diameter of 10 nm to 500 μm ([0086]) and satisfying physical properties equal to or higher than strength calculated by Equation 1 below:
Equation 1: Strength (tensile strength, g/d)=15.873× intrinsic viscosity (I.V.) of PET fiber-3.841 ([0094]).
Regarding claim 14, Kurihara in view of Matsui and Hahm-46 teaches the limitations of claim 13, which claim 14 depends on. Hahm-46 further teaches:
wherein the island yarn has an intrinsic viscosity (I.V.) of 0.5 to 3.0 ([0119] – [0134]).
Regarding claim 15, Kurihara in view of Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 15 depends on, but does not explicitly teach using a specific fiber with particular properties. However, Hahm-46, in a similar field of endeavor, a sheath-core type synthetic fiber, teaches:
wherein the sheath-core type fiber is an islands-in-the-sea type fiber ([0034]) including an island component having a diameter of 10 nm to 500 μm ([0086]) and containing nylon island yarn ([0099] – [0100]) satisfying physical properties equal to or higher than strength calculated by Equation 2 below:
Equation 2: Strength (tensile strength, g/d)=8.6×relative viscosity (Rv) of nylon fiber-14.44 ([0100] – [0102]).
Regarding claim 16, Kurihara in view of Matsui and Hahm-46 teaches the limitations of claim 15, which claim 16 depends on. Hahm-46 further teaches:
wherein the island yarn has a relative viscosity (Rv) of 2.0 to 5.0 ([0100]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights