Detailed Action
The communications received 01/14/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-10 are pending.
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
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) 1-2, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katayama et al (US 5,954,920) hereinafter KAT.
As for claim 1, KAT teaches a fiber paper [Abstract] comprising a first fiber which comprises a polyarylester fiber (a polyethylene or polypropylene with an aryl group) [col. 9 l. 50-col. 10 l. 28; col. 11 l. 5-20] with a diameter of 0.1 to 3 um (0.5-3 um which falls within the claimed range), a length of 0.2 mm to 5mm (0.2-5 mm which is the claimed range) [col. 6 l. 10-33] and an aspect ratio of 800-1200 (800-1200 which is the claimed range) [col. 6 l. 33-40].
As for claim 2, KAT teaches claim 1 and wherein compositions of the polyarylester fiber comprise a polymer of an aromatic hydroxy carboxylic acid (such as naphthalene dicarboxylic acid and biphyldicarboxylic acid) [col. 10 l. 29-60]; and/or compositions of the polyarylester fiber comprise a copolymer of an aromatic hydroxy carboxylic acid, an aromatic dicarboxylic acid, an aromatic diol, and an aliphatic diol (such as naphthalene dicarboxylic acid and biphyldicarboxylic acid, aliphatic dicarboxylic acid) [col. 10 l. 29-60]; and /or a mass proportion of the polyarylester fiber is 5% to 100% (the pulp comprises 5-100% weight which would be used to form the paper) [Abstract].
As for claim 5, KAT teaches a method for preparing a fiber paper which is the fiber paper according to claim 1, comprising:
mixing and spinning an island component and a sea component to obtain a sea-island fiber, the island component comprising a polyarylester [col. 7 l. 35-col. 8 l. 25];
removing the sea component in the sea-island fiber to obtain pulps of polyarylester fiber [col. 7 l. 35-41];
and papermaking the pulps of the polyarylester fiber to obtain a fiber paper (wet forming the paper) [Abstract].
As for claim 6, KAT teaches claim 5 and wherein the sea component to the island component ranges from 35:65 to 80:20 (30:70 to 80:20 which falls within the claimed range) [col. 8 l. 10-25].
As for claim 7, KAT teaches claim 5 and wherein the sea component comprises at least one of a modified polyester, polyethylene, polystyrene, nylon 66 [col. 8 l. 40-55; col. 9 l. 5-15].
As for claim 8, KAT teaches claim 7, wherein the sea component in the sea-island fiber is removed by an impregnation method; and/or the sea component is the polystyrene [col. 8 l. 40-55; col. 9 l. 5-15], a solvent for the impregnation method comprising at least one of a toluene and a xylene [col. 8 l. 34-col. 9 l. 6]; and/or the sea component is the modified polyester which is an alkali-decreased polyester, a ratio of an alkali decomposition rate of the alkali-decreased polyester to that of the polyester being more than 1000 [col. 9 l. 6-30], and the solvent for the impregnation method comprising an alkali solution [col. 9 l. 6-30].
As for claim 9, KAT teaches claim 8 and wherein a raw material for the modified polyester comprises a dimethyl isophthalate-5-sodium sulfonate (dimethyl sodium 5-sulfoisophthalate) and a polyethylene glycol [col. 15 l. 35-50]; and/or a molar ratio of the dimethyl isophthalate-5-sodium sulfonate to the polyethylene glycol is (2- 4): (6 - 8).
As for claim 10, KAT teaches claim 8 and wherein a concentration of the alkali solution ranges from 2 g/L to 400 g/L (2-60 g/L which falls within the claimed range) [col. 11 l. 39-55]; and/or an impregnation temperature of the alkali solution ranges from 70 degrees Celsius to 100 degrees Celsius [col. 11 l. 55-59].
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:
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAT.
As for claim 3, KAT teaches claim 1 and further comprising a second fiber (short cut fibers) which has a diameter of 8-10 um (10-25 um which overlaps the claimed range) [col. 6 l. 61], a length of pulps of 2-30 mm (less than 5 mm which overlaps the claimed range, as the lengths of the short fibers are otherwise not disclosed they are understood to have the lengths of the overall pulp they are mixed into) [col. 1 l. 64 – col. 2 l. 5], and an aspect ratio of 130-500 (130-500 which is the range) [col. 7 l. 1-5].
As for claim 4, KAT teaches claim 3 and wherein compositions of the second fiber comprise a polyarylester (as it can be a same composition as that of the pulp) [col. 6 l. 52-58]; and/or a mass proportion of the second fiber is 25% to 75%.
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights