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 .
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.
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOCHIZUKI et al. (JP 06-264305 A).
Regarding claim 7, MOCHIZUKI et al. teach in examples 1 to 4 a melt-spun
filament comprising a copolymer having a molecular weight of about 750,000 and comprising poly-3 hydroxybutyrate and poly-3-hydroxyvalerate in a molar ratio of 94 / 6, poly - ε - caprolactam having a molecular weight of about 80,000, a nucleating agent (boron nitride), and a plasticizing agent (triacetin) in the amounts shown in Table 1. [0026 – 0027]. MOCHIZUKI et al. teach the resulting multi-filament yarn is free from fusion and produced with good spinning operability [0023].
While examples 1 to 4 discuss melt-spinning from a 0.3 mm X 36 hole spinneret and stretching the filament as particular ratio to obtain a yarn having a length of about 200d to obtain a 36f multifilament yarn, MOCHIZUKI et al. fail to teach an average value of fineness of the single filaments of 15 dtex or less.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the single filament fineness to include the claimed ranges. One would have been motivated to provide a single filament fineness within the claimed range in order to balance of desired mechanical and physical properties while still achieving the desire of minimizing fiber fusion depending on the desired end use. It has been held that, 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II). The burden is upon Applicant to demonstrate unexpected results for the claimed range.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, MOCHIZUKI et al. teach the resulting multi-filament yarn is free from fusion and produced with good spinning operability [0023]. However, MOCHIZUKI et al. fail to teach a fusion rate of 10% or less or a maximum height roughness of the single filaments is from 0.10 to 0.50 microns. It is reasonable to presume that the fusion rate and maximum height roughness are inherent to MOCHIZUKI et al. Support for said presumption is found in that MOCHIZUKI et al. also desires to minimize fiber fusion (as discussed above) and adds various components in the melt spinning process to minimize the fusion and therefore are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOCHIZUKI et al. (JP 05-093316 A).
As to claim 7, MOCHIZUKI et al. teach in Example 3 that the same combination of polymers were used as in Example 1. Example 1 teaches a melt-spun sheath-core conjugate filament made of a sheath of poly-3 hydroxybutyrate / poly-3-hydroxyvalerate (copolymerization molar ratio: about 90 / 10) having a molecular weight of about 50000 and a core of poly-ε-caprolactone having a melt flow rate of 4. MOCHIZUKI et al. teach the melt spinning was performed at a spinning temperature of 265 C. using a spinneret having 36 spinning holes with 0. 5mm diameters such that the core-sheath composite ratio was 2 / 1, followed by cooling with air at 20 C., application of an oil solution, temporary winding at a spinning speed of 1200m / min, and then drawing at a draw ratio of 2.5 times with room-temperature rollers to obtain a 75d / 36f multifilament [0024-0028]. It should be noted that a 75 denier multifilament is equivalent to a 83.3 dtex multifilament yarn of 36 filaments resulting in each filament being 2.31 dtex. MOCHIZUKI et al. teach that the thermal fusion temperature is high for the filaments [0021-0022].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, MOCHIZUKI et al. teach the resulting multi-filament However, MOCHIZUKI et al. fail to teach a fusion rate of 10% or less or a maximum height roughness of the single filaments is from 0.10 to 0.50 microns. It is reasonable to presume that the fusion rate and maximum height roughness are inherent to MOCHIZUKI et al. Support for said presumption is found in that MOCHIZUKI et al. also desires to have heat resistance improvement and high thermal fusion and therefore are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 6 and 9 - 12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Longdon et al. (US 2020/0032437) and Yamane (US 2003/0088052) appear to be the most pertinent prior art.
Longdon et al. (US 2020/0032437) is directed to a process comprising spunbonding, comprising a die (e.g. a spinneret). The spinning chamber may have a first zone (i.e. which filaments encounter first upon traversing the spinning chamber) in which quenching air is provided at a temperature of about 20° C. to 40° C. and a second zone in which quenching air is provided at a temperature of about 15° C. to 30° C. [0026]. The fiber blend may comprise (a) polylactic acid and (b) polybutylenesuccinate, polybutylene succinate-co-adipate, polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate, polyhydroxyalkanoate and/or polycaprolactone [0070]. However, Longdon et al. does not teach or suggest the claimed temperature of the first gas is from (Tc - 45*C) to (Tc - 30*C), wherein Tc is a crystallization temperature of the poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) resin; in the-step (B2), a temperature of the second gas is higher than the temperature of the first gas, and is from (Tc - 30*C) to (Tc - 10*C) and does not specifically teach creating a multi-filament yarn.
Yamane (US 2003/0088052) is directed to stable and smooth fiber spinning of polyester produced, by microorganisms, particularly P(3HB-CO-3HH) (Abstract). Yamane teaches rapidly cooling the filament by passing through a cooling cylinder with cooled air provided below an outlet of the melt extruder to lower the temperature of at least the surface of the melted filament to at most the glass transition point in the rapidly cooling step [0034 – 0036]. Secondly, the rapidly cooled filament is passed through a hot water bath adjusted to a water temperature of at least the glass transition point [0038]. Yamane teach that the improved process helps overcome the problem of blocking [0049]. However, Yamane does not teach or suggest the claimed temperature of the first gas is from (Tc - 45*C) to (Tc - 30*C), wherein Tc is a crystallization temperature of the poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) resin; in the-step (B2), a temperature of the second gas is higher than the temperature of the first gas, and is from (Tc - 30*C) to (Tc - 10*C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights