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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/25 and 02/26/26 have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/075803 A 1 issued to Shin-ho et al.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Shin-ho et al., who teach a method for manufacturing the polyethylene yarn [see working example 1] which comprises at least the steps of:
providing a melt containing polyethylene having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 340.000 g/mol and a melt index (190 °C, load: 2.16 kgf) of 1.8/10 min,
extruding the melt through a spinneret to obtain filaments,
cooling the filaments,
drawing a multi-filament composed of the cooled filaments, and winding the drawn multi-filaments.
the filaments formed while being discharged from the nozzle holes of the nozzle were sequentially cooled in a cooling unit consisting of three sections. ln the first cooling section, it was cooled to 50°C by the cooling wind at a wind speed of 0.9 m/sec, and in the second cooling section, it was cooled to 35°C by the third cooling unit at a wind speed of 0.5 m/sec by the cooling wind of 0.4 m/sec. Then finally cooled to 25°C by the cooling wind of the wind speed of m/sec.
after cooling, the multifilament yarn was bundled by a collector.
Claim 1 requires a polyethylene yarn defined by an equation relating the melting heat values obtained from a first and a second DSC (differential scanning calorimetry) run. The melting heat value measured during the first run reflects both the intrinsic properties of the material and the degree of crystallinity present in the fiber. ln contrast, the melting heat value obtained during the second run is attributable solely to the polymer itself. This is because, following the first heating cycle, the original crystalline structure of the yarn is irreversibly altered or lost, such that the subsequent measurement corresponds essentially to the behavior of the polymer in a predominantly amorphous state formed upon controlled cooling.
Consequently, the relationship between the melting heat values of the first and second runs provides a combined indication of (i) the material characteristics, in particular the polymer composition, and (ii) the processing history, which determines the initial crystalline structure of the yarn.
As such, these parameters inherently reflect both the starting material and the manufacturing process employed. Therefore, a polyethylene yarn produced according to the process defined in claim 7 necessarily exhibits the specified relationship between the first and second melting heat values. As a result, such a yarn is considered to implicitly fulfil all the features of claim 1, even if not explicitly stated by Shin-ho et al.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the polyethylene yarn according to claim 1, wherein the polyethylene yarn has a melting temperature (Tm) of 128 ° C to 145 °C; Applicant is directed to working example 1, where the melting temperature is 135 °C which must implicitly provide the second Tm.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the polyethylene yarn according to claim 1, wherein the polyethylene yarn has a melting temperature (Tm) of 130 ° C to 145 °C at the first temperature rise, and a melting temperature (Tm) of 128 °C to 135 0C at the second temperature rise; Applicant is directed to working example 1, where the melting temperature is 135 °C which must implicitly provide the second Tm.
Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the polyethylene yarn according to claim 1, wherein the polyethylene yarn has a melt index (190 °C, load: 2.16 kgf) of 0.3 g/10 min to 5.0 g/10 min; Applicant is directed to
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the polyethylene yarn according to claim 1, wherein the polyethylene yarn has a crystallinity of 60% to 80%; Applicant is directed to Table 1, example 1, where the instant reference teaches that the crystallinity is 75%.
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the polyethylene yarn according to claim 1, wherein the polyethylene yarn has an L* value (lightness value in the L*a*b* (CIE LAB) color system measured using a spectrophotometer on a sample made from the polyethylene yarn) of 85.5 to 92.0; Applicant is directed to working example 1, which discloses a polyethylene yarn which implicitly provides the said lightness value.
Alternatively, the measured lightness value of a polyethylene yarn derived from the instant reference would be the same or almost the same as the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the
Examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses
properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the Examiner has
basis for shifting the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205
USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112-2112.02.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the method for manufacturing the polyethylene yarn according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of cooling sections are set to have a temperature gradient that gradually decreases toward the discharge part from the introduction part of the filaments in a temperature range of 15 ° C to 80 ° C; Applicant is directed to working example 1, wherein the plurality of cooling sections are set to have a temperature gradient that gradually decreases toward the discharge part from the introduction part of the filaments in a temperature range of 15.
Regarding Claim 9, where Applicant seeks that the method for manufacturing the polyethylene yarn according to Claim 7, wherein the quenching zone has two to five cooling sections; Applicant is directed to example 1 where there is 3 cooling zones wherein the first zone is 50 °C and the second one is 25 °C.
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the method for manufacturing the polyethylene yarn according to Claim 7 wherein: the quenching zone has first and second cooling sections disposed toward the discharge part from the introduction part of the filaments, and the first cooling section is set to a temperature selected in the range of 45 ° C to 80 ° C, and the second cooling section is set to a temperature selected in the range of 15 °C to 40 °C; Applicant is directed to example 1 where there is 3 cooling zones wherein the first zone is 50 °C and the second one is 25 °C.
Regarding Claim 11, where Applicant seeks that the method for manufacturing the polyethylene yarn according to claim 7, wherein: the quenching zone comprises first to third cooling sections disposed toward the discharge part from the introduction part of the filaments, and the first cooling section is set to a temperature selected in the range of 45 ° C to 80 °C, the second cooling section is set to a temperature selected in the range of 30 *C to 50 0C, and the third cooling section is set to a temperature selected in the range of 15 °C to 30 °C; It is the position of the Office that this is merely an alternative method as Applicant hasn’t shown any criticality or unexpected results a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the invention would have easily sought an alternative method, without inventive skill or a leap of inventiveness to modify the cooling step, to include a number of cooling zones. This constitutes a routine optimization and is therefore obvious.
Regarding Claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the method for manufacturing the polyethylene yarn according to Claim 7, wherein: the quenching zone comprises first to fourth cooling sections disposed toward the discharge part from the introduction part of the filaments, and the first cooling section is set to a temperature selected in the range of 45 ° C to 80 °C, the second cooling section is set to a temperature selected in the range of 35 ° C to 55 ° C, the third cooling section is set to a temperature selected in the range of 20 ° C to 40 °C, and the fourth cooling section is set to a temperature selected in the range of 15 °C to 25 °C; It is the position of the Office that this is merely an alternative method as Applicant hasn’t shown any criticality or unexpected results a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the invention would have easily sought an alternative method, without inventive skill or a leap of inventiveness to modify the cooling step, to include a number of cooling zones. This constitutes a routine optimization and is therefore obvious.
Regarding Claim 13, where Applicant seeks that the method for manufacturing the polyethylene yarn according to the method for manufacturing the polyethylene yarn according to wherein: cooling air is supplied to the plurality of cooling sections, and the wind velocity of the cooling air is set to have a wind velocity gradient that decreases toward the discharge part from the introduction part of the filaments; Applicant is directed to example 1, it was cooled to 50°C by the cooling wind at a wind speed of 0.9 m/sec, and in the second cooling section, it was cooled to 35°C by the third cooling unit at a wind speed of 0.5 m/sec by the cooling wind of 0.4 m/sec. and then finally cooled to 25°C.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 10-1996-0006931 B1 (submitted by Applicant) discloses a polyethylene yam having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 50,000 to 600,000 g/mol and a melt index of 0.3 to 3 g/10 min [see claims 1-18].
KR 10-1996-0006931 B1 discloses a method for manufacturing a polyethylene yam, comprising: a step of providing a melt containing a polyethylene having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 50,000 to 600,000 g/mol and a melt index of 0.3 to 3 g/10 min; a spinning step of obtaining filaments by extruding the melt through a spinneret; a cooling step of cooling the filaments; a step of drawing a multifilament composed of the cooled filaments; and a step of winding the stretched multifilament [see claims 10 and 12].
KR 10-1996-0006931 B1 differs from claim 1 and 7, which pertain to a polyethylene yarn satisfying equation 1. However, said difference is merely a value expressed by measuring the physical properties of the polyethylene yam, and when the physical properties of the polyethylene yarn obtained by KR 10-1996-0006931 B1 are measured in the same manner, it is expected that numerical values in the same range as the measured values set forth in claim 1 could be obtained.
Claim 7 further differs from KR 10-1996-0006931 B1 in that cooling is performed in a cooling part having a plurality of cooling sections divided by the temperatures of the sections, and the plurality of cooling sections are set to have a temperature gradient that gradually decreases in the direction from an introduction part to a discharge part of the filaments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
