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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-18 and 20-24 are pending in the application. Claims 7-8, 13 and 19 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 14 and 20 recite the limitation “wherein the mesh sheet is heat treated and formed into a three dimensional hemispherical shape having a curved surface.” However, the Specification does not provide support for the mesh sheet being formed into a three dimensional hemispherical shape in a manner that is commensurate with the scope of the claim. Although Examples 1-6 disclose mesh sheets being heat treated and formed into hemispherical shapes, these examples do not disclose a melting point of a component for forming the sheath portion being lower by 20°C or more than a lower one of a melting point of a component for forming the core portion and a melting point of the first fibers. Claims 3-6, 9-12, 15-18 and 21-24 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1, 2, 14 and 20.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 14-18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 2009/0241783 A1) in view of Woodward (US 2014/0048979 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Kitagawa teaches:
A mesh sheet for curved surface formation (a filter for extracting one's favorite drink constituted of a polyester based monofilament and having a woven fabric construction or a knitted fabric construction, Abstract), wherein
a warp and a weft are formed by arranging first fibers which are made of a single component and second fibers which each have a structure with at least two layers, comprising a core portion and a sheath portion covering a surface of the core portion (a woven fabric in which a polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape and a non-flat polyester based monofilament are alternately arranged for a warp and/or a weft of the woven fabric, [0034]; It is preferable that the foregoing polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape is formed of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting point in the range of from 255 to 265° C., see [0015]); It is preferable that a polyester based monofilament having a round sectional shape has a core/sheath structure, [0016] and [0033]),
a melting point of a component for forming the sheath portion being lower by 20°C or more than a lower one of a melting point of a component for forming the core portion and a melting point of the first fibers (as a polyester based monofilament having a round sectional shape, it is preferable that a core component thereof is formed of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting point in the range of from 255 to 265° C., whereas a sheath component thereof is formed of polyethylene terephthalate having isophthalic acid copolymerized therewith and having a melting point in the range of from 170 to 240° C., [0033]),
wherein the first fibers and the second fibers are monofilaments (the polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape ([0015]); the polyester based monofilament having a round sectional shape [0033]),
and wherein a volume ratio of the core portion in the second fiber is not less than 50% vol and not more than 75% volume of the second fiber (a volume ratio of the core part and the sheath part falls within the range of from 80/20 to 20/80, preferably within the range of from 70/30 to 30/70, and more preferably within the range of from 60/40 to 40/60 in terms of a ratio of the former to the latter, [0033]),
both the warp and the weft include at least ones of the second fibers, and interlaced portions of the second fibers constituting the warp and the second fibers constituting the weft are thermally fusion-bonded on the sheath portion, a fusion-bonding rate for the interlaced portions of the second fibers in all of the interlaced portions in the warp and the weft is not less than 10% and not more than 45% (a polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape and a non-flat polyester based monofilament are alternately arranged for a warp and/or a weft of the woven fabric, [0034]; With respect to fusion in the point of intersection of filaments, all points of intersection may be fused, or the point of intersection may be fused in a prescribed pattern such as a crosswise lattice, an oblique lattice, and a stripe, [0039]; As calculated by the examiner, when the flat monofilaments and the non-flat monofilaments are alternately arranged in both the warp and the weft and all points of intersection are fused, the fusion-bonding rate for the interlaced portions of the non-flat monofilaments {i.e., the claimed second fibers} in all of the interlaced portions in the warp and the weft would be 25%; In other words, the interlaced portions of the non-flat filaments constituting the warp bonded to non-flat filaments constituting the weft would account for 25% of all of the interlaced portions. At the same time, the interlaced portions of the non-flat filaments bonded to the flat filaments would account for 50% of the interlaced portions, and the interlaced portions of the flat filaments and the flat filaments would account for 25% of the interlaced portions).
Kitagawa does not explicitly wherein the mesh sheet is heat treated and formed into a three dimensional hemispherical shape having a curved surface.
However, Woodward teaches the manufacture of formed thermoplastic, in particular to form infusion packets such as tea bags having a pre-determined three-dimensional shape, and in particular, shapes having sharp features ([0001]). The thermoplastic material can be made form a wide variety of materials, however polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and poly lactic acid (PLA) are preferred ([0031]). The process is capable of generating three-dimensional shapes which can then be used as infusion packet material ([0032]). For example, shapes such as tetrahedral, pyramidal, parallelepipeds, prisms, cones and the like are possible ([0032]). In an embodiment, with reference to FIG. 1, Woodward teaches a process in which, at a point, a sheet of porous polylactic acid 10 has been formed into a first formed hemispherical shape 20 ([0040]-[0042]). The examiner notes that the sheet 10 is heated before it is formed into the first formed hemispherical shape, and is eventually formed into a final shape such as a tetrahedral shape having a sharp vertex ([0040] and [0047]; also see [0029]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the mesh sheet of Kitagawa into a first formed hemispherical shape as a first step in a process in which the mesh sheet can ultimately be successfully formed into shapes having sharp features, such as a tetrahedral shape, for use as an infusion packet such as a tea bag, as suggested by Woodward ([0001], [0031]-[0032] and [0040]-[0043]).
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Kitagawa in view of Woodward remains similarly as applied above to claims 1 and 14. Kitagawa further teaches wherein:
the number of the second fibers constituting the warp and the weft to a sum of the numbers of the first fibers and the second fibers constituting the warp and weft is not less than 33% and not more than 70% (a polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape and a non-flat polyester based monofilament are alternately arranged for a warp and/or a weft of the woven fabric, see [0034]; The examiner notes that when the flat and non-flat monofilaments are alternately arranged in both the warp and the weft, the number of non-flat monofilaments {i.e., the claimed second fibers} would account for 50% of the sum of the numbers of the flat monofilaments and the non-flat monofilaments).
Regarding claims 3-5, 9-11, 15-17 and 21, Kitagawa in view of Woodward remains as above.
Kitagawa in view of Woodward does not explicitly disclose the claimed arrangements of first and second fibers.
However, Kitagawa teaches that, in the filter for extracting one's favorite drink, the filter may have a woven fabric construction or a knitted fabric construction, and its weave or knit construction is not particularly limited ([0034]). For example, a woven fabric in which a woven fabric construction is employed and the foregoing polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape is arranged for a warp and a weft of the woven fabric; a woven fabric in which the foregoing polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape is arranged for either one of a warp or a weft of the woven fabric and a non-flat polyester based monofilament is arranged for the other; and a woven fabric in which the foregoing polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape and a non-flat polyester based mono filament are alternately arranged for a warp and/or a weft of the woven fabric are suitable ([0034]). Though a mixing ratio of the foregoing polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape is not particularly limited, what the subject mixing ratio is higher is preferable because a filter for extracting one's favorite drink which has a soft feeling and from which a one's favorite drink powder hardly leaks is obtained ([0032]). The subject mixing ratio is preferably 30% by weight or more, more preferably 50% by weight or more, and most preferably 100% by weight ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included the first and second fibers in the fabric of Kitagawa in view of Woodward in various arrangements, such as by varying the spacing of both types of fibers in alternating arrangements in one or both of the warp and weft directions, in order to vary the mixing ratio of the fibers and to thereby balance various properties of the tea bag, including the degree of fusion of the filaments thereof, the shape retention thereof, the soft feeling thereof and/or the tendency of a drink powder to not leak therefrom, depending on the kind of tea and powder used (Kitagawa: see [0001], [0032], [0034]-[0036] and [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Kitagawa teaches a warp density in the range of from 30 to 300 yarns/2.54 cm and a weft density in the range of from 30 to 300 yams/2.54 cm ([0018]).
Regarding claims 22-24, Kitagawa teaches it is preferable that the foregoing (e.g., the flat) polyester based monofilament has a single yarn fineness in the range of from 10 to 60 dtex ([0014]-[0015]). Kitagawa also teaches that, in particular, it is preferable that a polyester based monofilament having a round sectional shape and having a single yam fineness in the range of from 10 to 60 dtex is contained ([0016]).
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 14-18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 2009/0241783 A1) in view of Woodward (US 2014/0048979 A1), further in view of Chang (US 2010/0317248 A1).
Regarding claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-18 and 20-24, Kitagawa in view of Woodward remains as applied above, teaching the claimed limitations, including first fibers which are made of a single component (Kitagawa: wherein a polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape is formed of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting point in the range of from 255 to 265° C., see [0015]).
In the alternative, in the event that Kitagawa in view of Woodward is found to not teach first fibers which are made of a single component, Chang is applied below as teaching this limitation.
Chang teaches a fabric that includes a regular fiber and a low-melting fiber (Abstract and [0005]). The fabric can be produced by weaving or knitting the regular fiber with the low-melting fiber according to a predetermined design ([0037]). As non-limiting examples of the low-melting fiber, there may be used sheath-core type conjugate fibers and split type conjugate fibers ([0031 ]). The fabric may include the regular fiber and the low-melting fiber in a weight ratio of 50:50 to 75:25 ([0037]). The examiner notes that Chang’s teaching of regular fibers meets the claimed limitation regarding first fibers made of a single component (also see Chang’s use of the term “regular” in Example 1 in [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included the flat polyester based monofilament of Kitagawa in view of Woodward in the form of a flat regular polyester fiber (i.e., as a single component polyester fiber, as opposed to a sheath-core type conjugate fiber) in order to vary and optimize the properties of the woven fabric, and in particular to simultaneously satisfy both flexibility and stiffness properties of the fabric for use in industrial materials, as suggested by Chang (Abstract, [0005], [0011] and Example 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “Based on the explicit disclosure in the specification, it is unequivocally shown that in order for the mesh sheet to be formed into a three dimensional hemispherical shape having a curved surface according to the claimed embodiments, the mesh sheet comprises second fibers with components having a melting point of a component for forming the sheath portion being lower by 20°C or more than a lower one of a melting point of a component for forming the core portion and a melting point of the first fibers.”
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that, while applicants Examples 1-6 disclose mesh sheets that are formed into hemispherical shapes, these examples do not disclose the specific materials or melting points used for the first fiber or for the core portion of the second fiber. In addition, hemi-spherical shapes are only disclosed in these examples. Therefore, the specification does not provide support for sheets as claimed being formed into a hemispherical shape.
Applicant contends the following: “Kitagawa neither teaches nor suggests that core-sheath structured fibers (corresponding to the claimed second fibers) should be included in both the warp and the weft. Moreover, there is nothing in Kitagawa that discloses or suggests that the flat monofilaments correspond to the claimed first fibers, or that the non-flat monofilaments correspond to the claimed second fibers.”
Regarding this contention, Kitagawa teaches a woven fabric in which a polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape and a non-flat polyester based monofilament are alternately arranged for a warp and/or a weft of the woven fabric ([0034]). It is preferable that the polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape is formed of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting point in the range of from 255 to 265° C ([0015]. For instance, in an embodiment, there is an example of a flat section-shaped polyester based monofilament made of a single component in [0050] in Example 1 (also see [0049]). Therefore, the polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape, which may comprise a single component, meets the claimed “first fibers” limitation. The polyester based monofilament not having a flat shape is preferably a polyester based monofilament having a round sectional shape, and it is preferable that a polyester based monofilament having a round sectional shape has a core/sheath structure ([0016] and [0033]). As a polyester based monofilament having a round sectional shape, it is preferable that a core component thereof is formed of polyethylene terephthalate having a melting point in the range of from 255 to 265° C., whereas a sheath component thereof is formed of polyethylene terephthalate having isophthalic acid copolymerized therewith and having a melting point in the range of from 170 to 240° C. ([0033]). Therefore, the non-flat polyester based monofilament meets the claimed “second fibers” limitation.
Applicant contends the following: ‘Furthermore, there is absolutely no explicit or implicit disclosure in Kitagawa the discloses setting the fusion-bonded interlaced portions to be more than 10% and not more than 45%, nor any indication of how such a configuration could be achieved. Kitagawa only discloses that "all intersections may be fusion-bonded or fusion-bonded in a predetermined pattern.” ’
Regarding this contention, Kitagawa teaches that all points of intersection may be fused, or the point of intersection may be fused in a prescribed pattern such as a crosswise lattice, an oblique lattice, and a stripe ([0039]). As noted above, Kitagawa also teaches that the polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape and the non-flat polyester based monofilament may be alternately arranged for a warp and/or a weft of the woven fabric ([0034]). As calculated by the examiner, when the polyester based monofilament having a flat sectional shape and the non-flat polyester based monofilament are alternately arranged for both a warp and a weft, and all points of intersection are fused, the fusion-bonding rate for the interlaced portions of the non-flat monofilaments (i.e., the claimed second fibers) in all of the interlaced portions in the warp and the weft would be 25%, which falls within the claimed range of not less than 10% and not more than 45%.
Applicant contends the following: “The Examiner holds that Woodward describes a process in which the material is once press-formed into a spherical shape. However, the invention disclosed therein merely provides the conditions for forming a tetrahedral or at most a conical shape, and contains no disclosure or suggestion whatsoever regarding the conditions of a sheet suitable for forming a spherical body. Furthermore, Woodward provides virtually no disclosure regarding the structure of sheet 10. That is, it is entirely unclear whether sheet 10 is a woven fabric, a knitted fabric, or simply a sheet with perforations. Woodward only discloses that the sheet 10 is made of a thermoplastic material such as PET or PLA, and has a thickness in the range of 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm. Even if a person skilled in the art were to review Woodward, given such limited disclosure, they would never reasonably consider applying the teachings of Woodward to Kitagawa. In fact, they would not even be able to understand whether the technical matters described in Woodward could be implemented based on the disclosed content. Therefore, there is a lack of suggestion to combine Kitagawa with Woodward.”
Regarding this contention, Woodard teaches a process for forming a sheet of thermoplastic material into three-dimensional shapes such as tetrahedral, pyramidal, parallelepipeds, prisms, cones and the like, wherein the sheet may first be formed into a hemispherical shape (Abstract, [0032] and [0045]). The sheet of thermoplastic material may comprise filaments of thermoplastic material in a fabric form ([0024]). The thermoplastic material can be made form a wide variety of materials, with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polylactic acid (PLA) being preferred ([0031]). Woodard does not limit the type of fabric. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that the thermoplastic fabric of Kitagawa could be formed into the shapes disclosed by Woodward, including hemispherical shapes, and would have done so as a convenient way to ultimately form infusion packet tea bags with shapes having sharp features, such as a tetrahedral shape.
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 Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789