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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/2/2025 has been entered.
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 1-8, 10, 11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2009/0317584 to Ivanoff in view of JP 2011246823A to Noishiki and USPN 3,634,163 to Lamb and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2011/0250425 to Lightman, WO 01/88266 to Rose, and/or USPAP 2003/0056916 to Horenziak.
Claim 1, 8, 11 and 18, Ivanoff discloses a yarn comprising 50 and 70 wt% of plant based natural non-regenerated cellulose (e.g. cotton) fibers and between 30 and 50 wt% of man-made cellulosic (e.g. modal or lyocell) fibers, wherein at least a portion of the natural cellulose fibers and/or the man-made cellulosic fibers are interlocked together to form the monofilament (see entire document including [0020]-[0032]). Regarding at least a portion of the cotton fibers and modal/lyocell fibers being mechanically interlocked together, Ivanoff discloses that the yarn may be twisted or in a variety of other mechanically interlocked fibers yarn constructions [0021]. Regarding chemical interlocking, since the yarn fibers of Ivanoff are cellulosic fibers, the fibers inherently have a natural affinity to each other by normally-occurring hydrogen (chemical) bonds. It is noted that the current specification discloses that cellulosic fibers inherently experience hydrogen bonding (paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14).
Ivanoff does not appear to explicitly mention the yarn being a fibrous monofilament (defined on page 4, lines 10-12 of the current specification as a continuous length yarn) or having a diameter of 20-400 microns, but Ivanoff discloses that the yarn can be used to make assorted woven or knitted household products ([0029]-[0032]). The examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that continuous length yarns of 20-400 microns in diameter are conventionally used to make the woven and knitted household products listed in Ivanoff. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the yarn of Ivanoff in the claimed monofilament (continuous length yarn) form and with the claimed diameter to construct the woven and/or knitted household products of Ivanoff.
Ivanoff does not appear to mention the (50 wt% to 70 wt%) cotton fibers being microfibrillated (defined on page 6, lines 3-6 of the specification as nanocellulose) but Noishiki discloses that microfibrillated cellulose fibers have improved physical properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability (see entire document including abstract and [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use microfibrillated cellulosic fibers as the (50 wt% to 70 wt%) cotton fiber component in the yarn of Ivanoff to improve properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability. Regarding the claimed monofilament including between 0.01 to 30 wt% (or 0.05 to 20 wt% in claim 11) of an additive (e.g. nanocellulose additive), as explained above, the applied prior art teaches microfibrillated (nanocellulose) present in an amount of 50 wt% to 70 wt%. Therefore, 50 wt% of the nanocellulose may be considered the claimed at least 50 wt% plant based natural cellulose fibers and the remaining wt% nanocellulose may be considered the claimed 0.01 to 30 wt% (or 0.05 to 20 wt% in claim 11) nanocellulose additive.
Ivanoff does not appear to mention the yarn fibers being permanently interlocked together but Lamb discloses that it is known in the art to construct a yarn (fibers oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction) such that the fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers to produce a fabric with improved wrinkle resistance (see entire document including column 1, line 51 through column 2, line 16 and Example 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the yarn of Ivanoff such that that the fibers are oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction and adhered permanently to the other fibers to produce a fabric with improved wrinkle resistance. Regarding the yarn being substantially free of substructures (e.g. fiber ribbons or strips) because Lamb teaches that the yarn fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers (see Lamb Figure) it is clear that the yarn is free of substructures because all the yarn fibers are adhered permanently together forming a single unitary structure.
Claims 2 and 3, Ivanoff discloses that the yarn may comprise between 1 and 30 wt% of man-made cellulosic (e.g. Lyocell) fibers ([0022]-[0026]).
Claims 4-6, 13, 17, 19 and 21, Ivanoff does not specifically recognize that the cellulose fibers are recycled from pre-consumer textiles. However, recycling defines a product production process and it is the examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. Plus, Lightman teaches (see entire document including [0025]) a cotton regeneration process, wherein many of yarn preparation processes and machines do a combination cleaning, opening and/or blending of the fibers from the waste cotton material as well as any other fibers, such as virgin cotton fiber, or synthetic fibers such as polyester (considered capable of thermobonding), rayon, or the like. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to select recycled fibers as the cellulose fibers in Ivanoff when it is desired to optimize costs in the production of the yarn.
Claims 5, 13, 17 and 19, Ivanoff discloses that the claimed thermobonding/thermoplastic fibers may be included [0029].
Claim 7, Ivanoff discloses that the fibers may have a yarn count between 0.7 and 7 dtex [0013]. Plus, Rose teaches (see entire document including the abstract) a non-woven porous, fibrous tissue comprises lyocell fibers to improve transparency. Further, the lyocell fibers have a length of 2-18 (preferably 4-6) mm. The lyocell is 1.4-4.4 (preferably 2.6-3) dtex. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to select Rose’s lyocell fibers for Ivanoff’s yarn when it is desired to provide the yarn with some transparency.
Claims 10 and 22, Ivanoff discloses that cellulose fibers are mechanically and chemically (inherently hydrogen bonding) interlocked ([0021] and [0029]). Plus, Horenziak teaches (see entire document including [0025]) that both hardwood pulps and softwood pulps may be employed. The terms hardwood pulps as used herein refers to fibrous pulp derived from the woody substance of deciduous trees (angiosperms): wherein softwood pulps are fibrous pulps derived from the woody substance of coniferous trees (gymnosperms). Also applicable to the present invention are low-cost fibers derived from recycled paper, which may contain any or all of the above categories as well as other non-fibrous materials such as fillers and adhesives used to facilitate the original paper making. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to construct the yarn as claimed when it is desired to use renewable sources. Said fibers are expected to have the claimed chemical interlinking because of its production method.
Claim 14-16 and 20, Ivanoff does not appear to mention the claimed density and linear mass for the filament. However, these properties are expected to be inherently present in the filament suggested by the prior art. Support for said expectation is found in the fact that the diameter of the claimed filament and the diameter of the filament suggested by the prior art overlap significantly. In addition, the chemical composition of the fibers present in the filament (plant derived cellulosic fibers, Lyocell fibers, and thermoplastic fibers, such as polyester) is the same in both cases.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2007/0093162 to Holcombe in view of JP 2011246823A to Noishiki and USPN 3,634,163 to Lamb and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2011/0250425 to Lightman, WO 01/88266 to Rose, and/or USPAP 2003/0056916 to Horenziak.
Claim 1, 8, 11 and 18, Holcombe discloses a yarn comprising at least 50 wt% of plant based natural non-regenerated cellulose (e.g. cotton) fibers and at most 50 wt% of man-made cellulosic (e.g. lyocell) fibers, wherein at least a portion of the natural cellulose fibers and/or the man-made cellulosic fibers are interlocked together to form the monofilament (see entire document including [0028]-[0031] and [0070]-[0078]). Regarding at least a portion of the cotton fibers and modal/lyocell fibers being mechanically interlocked together, Holcombe discloses that the yarn may have a spun yarn construction [0086] and by definition a spun yarn is a yarn wherein the fibers are twisted (mechanically interlocked) together. Regarding chemical interlocking, since the yarn fibers of Holcombe are cellulosic fibers, the fibers inherently have a natural affinity to each other by normally-occurring hydrogen (chemical) bonds. It is noted that the current specification discloses that cellulosic fibers inherently experience hydrogen bonding (paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14).
Holcombe discloses that the yarn is continuous [0088] which is by definition a fibrous monofilament (defined on page 4, lines 10-12 of the current specification as a continuous length yarn). Holcombe does not appear to explicitly mention the yarn having a diameter of 20-400 microns but Holcombe does disclose that the yarn can be used to make assorted woven or knitted garments ([0073] and [0116]). The examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that yarns of 20-400 microns in diameter are conventionally used to make the woven and knitted garments . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the yarn of Holcombe with the claimed diameter to construct the woven and/or knitted garments of Holcombe .
Holcombe does not appear to mention the (50 wt% or more) cotton fibers being microfibrillated (defined on page 6, lines 3-6 of the specification as nanocellulose) but Noishiki discloses that microfibrillated cellulose fibers have improved physical properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability (see entire document including abstract and [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use microfibrillated cellulosic fibers as the (50 wt% or more) cotton fiber component in the yarn of Holcombe to improve properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability. Regarding the claimed monofilament including between 0.01 to 30 wt% (or 0.05 to 20 wt% in claim 11) of an additive (e.g. nanocellulose additive), as explained above, the applied prior art teaches microfibrillated (nanocellulose) present in an amount of 50 wt% to 70 wt%. Therefore, 50 wt% of the nanocellulose may be considered the claimed at least 50 wt% plant based natural cellulose fibers and the remaining wt% nanocellulose may be considered the claimed 0.01 to 30 wt% (or 0.05 to 20 wt% in claim 11) nanocellulose additive.
Holcombe does not appear to mention the yarn fibers being permanently interlocked together but Lamb discloses that it is known in the art to construct a yarn (fibers oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction) such that the fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers to produce a fabric with improved wrinkle resistance (see entire document including column 1, line 51 through column 2, line 16 and Example 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the yarn of Holcombe such that that the fibers are oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction and adhered permanently to the other fibers to produce a fabric with improved wrinkle resistance. Regarding the yarn being substantially free of substructures (e.g. fiber ribbons or strips) because Lamb teaches that the yarn fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers (see Lamb Figure) it is clear that the yarn is free of substructures because all the yarn fibers are adhered permanently together forming a single unitary structure.
Claims 2 and 3, Holcombe discloses that the yarn may comprise between 1 and 30 wt% of man-made cellulosic (e.g. Lyocell) fibers [0029].
Claims 4-6, 13, 17, 19 and 21, Holcombe does not specifically recognize that the cellulose fibers are recycled from pre-consumer textiles. However, recycling defines a product production process and it is the examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. Plus, Lightman teaches (see entire document including [0025]) a cotton regeneration process, wherein many of yarn preparation processes and machines do a combination cleaning, opening and/or blending of the fibers from the waste cotton material as well as any other fibers, such as virgin cotton fiber, or synthetic fibers such as polyester (considered capable of thermobonding), rayon, or the like. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to select recycled fibers as the cellulose fibers in Holcombe when it is desired to optimize costs in the production of the yarn.
Claims 5, 13, 17 and 19, Holcombe discloses that the claimed thermobonding/thermoplastic fibers may be included [0087].
Claim 7, Holcombe does not appear to mention fiber length or yarn count but Rose teaches (see entire document including the abstract) a non-woven porous, fibrous tissue comprises lyocell fibers to improve transparency. Further, the lyocell fibers have a length of 2-18 (preferably 4-6) mm. The lyocell is 1.4-4.4 (preferably 2.6-3) dtex. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to select Rose’s lyocell fibers for Holcombe’s yarn when it is desired to provide the yarn with some transparency.
Claims 10 and 22, Holcombe discloses that cellulose fibers are mechanically and chemically (inherently hydrogen bonding) interlocked [0086]. Plus, Horenziak teaches (see entire document including [0025]) that both hardwood pulps and softwood pulps may be employed. The terms hardwood pulps as used herein refers to fibrous pulp derived from the woody substance of deciduous trees (angiosperms): wherein softwood pulps are fibrous pulps derived from the woody substance of coniferous trees (gymnosperms). Also applicable to the present invention are low-cost fibers derived from recycled paper, which may contain any or all of the above categories as well as other non-fibrous materials such as fillers and adhesives used to facilitate the original paper making. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to construct the yarn as claimed when it is desired to use renewable sources. Said fibers are expected to have the claimed chemical interlinking because of its production method.
Claim 14-16 and 20, Holcombe does not appear to mention the claimed density and linear mass for the filament. However, these properties are expected to be inherently present in the filament suggested by the prior art. Support for said expectation is found in the fact that the diameter of the claimed filament and the diameter of the filament suggested by the prior art overlap significantly. In addition, the chemical composition of the fibers present in the filament (plant derived cellulosic fibers, Lyocell fibers, and thermoplastic fibers, such as polyester) is the same in both cases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
IVANOFF
The applicant asserts that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest yarns containing fibers that are mechanically and chemically interlocked. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ivanoff discloses that the yarn may be twisted or in a variety of other mechanically interlocked fibers yarn constructions [0021]. Twisting results in cellulose fibers that are forced together. Regarding chemical interlocking, since the yarn fibers of Ivanoff are cellulosic fibers, the fibers inherently have a natural affinity to each other by normally-occurring hydrogen (chemical) bonds. For example, see the current specification which discloses that cellulosic fibers inherently experience hydrogen bonding (paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14) and see the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 of USPN 4,259,958 to Goodbar. Goodbar specifically states: “As is well understood by those with ordinary skill in the art, cellulosic fibers have a natural affinity to each other by normally-occurring hydrogen bonds between the cellulosic fiber molecules when pressed or forced together.” It is noted that a specific amount of chemical interlocking is not claimed therefore any amount of cellulose fiber hydrogen bonding reads on the claimed chemical interlocking.
The applicant also asserts that Ivanoff fails to teach or suggest microfibrillated cellulose. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection. Ivanoff does not appear to mention the (50 wt% to 70 wt%) cotton fibers being microfibrillated (defined on page 6, lines 3-6 of the specification as nanocellulose) but Noishiki discloses that microfibrillated cellulose fibers have improved physical properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability (see entire document including abstract and [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use microfibrillated cellulosic fibers as the (50 wt% to 70 wt%) cotton fiber component in the yarn of Ivanoff to improve properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability.
The applicant also asserts that the microfibrillated cellulose fibers of Noishiki cannot be used in the “conventional” (spinning) yarn making method disclosed by Ivanoff. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Ivanoff does NOT require the yarn be made by spinning. Rather, Ivanoff discloses that the yarn may (optionally) be a spun yarn [0021]. Specifically, Ivanoff mentions a non-limiting laundry list of different yarn making methods that includes both spun yarns and non-spun yarns [0021] without any teaching or suggest that the yarn must be made by any of the disclosed example methods and certainly no requirement that the yarn must be made by spinning. Ivanoff is simply disclosing examples methods of making the yarn. Ivanoff does NOT limit the yarn production method in any way.
The declaration filed 11/12/2024 states that “I understand that the claims of the ‘098 application have been rejected, in part, based on the allegation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a microfibrillated cellulose fiber in the preparation of a conventional yarn, which would include spun yarns…it is totally impossible to spin yarns directly from microfibrillated cellulose fibers” (pages 1-2). The declaration statement, regarding it being impossible to spin yarns directly from microfibrillated cellulose fibers, is not disputed but the statement is not relevant to the current rejection because the statement ignores the clear teaching of Ivanoff which is that Ivanoff does NOT require the yarn be a “conventional yarn” (made by spinning). Rather, Ivanoff discloses that the yarn may (optionally) be a spun yarn [0021]. Specifically, Ivanoff mentions a non-limiting laundry list of different methods that includes both spun yarns and non-spun yarns [0021] without any teaching or suggest that the yarn must be made by any of the disclosed example methods and certainly no requirement that the yarn must be made by spinning. Ivanoff is simply disclosing examples methods of making the yarn. Ivanoff does NOT limit the yarn production method in any way. If the applicant is suggesting that one skilled in the art would not know how to make a yarn from microfibrillated cellulose fibers, they are mistaken. One skilled in the art would clearly know how to make the microfibrillated cellulose fibers of Noishiki into a yarn because Noishiki explicitly discloses said method. Specifically, Noishiki discloses that it is known in the art to make a microfibrillated cellulose fiber yarn via water-based suspension (abstract and [0006]) and the current specification similarly discloses that the claimed microfibrillated cellulose fiber monofilament (yarn) is to be made via aqueous suspension (page 5, lines 13-28). In fact, paragraph 5 of the declaration even admits that Noishiki discloses a (aqueous suspension) method of making a microfibrillated cellulose yarn.
The applicant also asserts that the Office fails to provide motivation to construct the yarn of Ivanoff in the claimed monofilament (continuous length yarn) form and with the claimed diameter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ivanoff does not appear to explicitly mention the yarn being a fibrous monofilament (defined on page 4, lines 10-12 of the current specification as a continuous length yarn) or having a diameter of 20-400 microns, but Ivanoff discloses that the yarn can be used to make assorted woven or knitted household products ([0029]-[0032]). The examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that continuous length yarns of 20-400 microns in diameter are conventionally used to make the woven and knitted household products listed in Ivanoff. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the yarn of Ivanoff in the claimed monofilament (continuous length yarn) form and with the claimed diameter to construct woven and/or knitted household products and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
The applicant also asserts that there is no motivation to use microfibrillated cellulosic fibers as the (50 wt% to 70 wt%) cotton fiber component in the yarn of Ivanoff. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ivanoff does not appear to mention the (50 wt% to 70 wt%) cotton fibers being microfibrillated (defined on page 6, lines 3-6 of the specification as nanocellulose) but Noishiki discloses that microfibrillated cellulose fibers have improved physical properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability (see entire document including abstract and [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use microfibrillated cellulosic fibers as the (50 wt% to 70 wt%) cotton fiber component in the yarn of Ivanoff to improve properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability. The applicant suggests that microfibrillated cellulosic fibers would destroy the invention of Ivanoff but the applicant provides no evidence to support this assertion. It is well-established that unsupported attorney arguments do not constitute evidence necessary to resolve a disputed question of fact. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence” and cannot rebut other admitted evidence.); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (“Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the record.”’).
Regarding the yarn fibers being permanently interlocked together and substantially free of substructures, Lamb discloses that it is known in the art to construct a yarn (fibers oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction) such that the fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers to produce a fabric with improved wrinkle resistance (see entire document including column 1, line 51 through column 2, line 16 and Example 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the yarn of Ivanoff such that that the fibers are oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction and adhered permanently to the other fibers to produce a fabric with improved wrinkle resistance. Regarding the yarn being substantially free of substructures (e.g. fiber ribbons or strips) because Lamb teaches that the yarn fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers (See Lamb Figure) it is clear that the yarn is free of substructures because all the yarn fibers are adhered permanently together forming a single unitary structure. In response, the applicant asserts that Lamb fails to teach that the fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lamb specifically discloses that the yarn filaments “adhere permanently” (column 2, lines 11-16). It is noted that the current specification defines the claimed inability to be disassembled as “permanent” (page 13, lines 13-17). The applicant also asserts that Ivanoff requires a soft product and that the process of Lamb would result in a product that is stiff. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Lamb discloses that the product is suitable for garments (column 1, line 33) and Lamb specifically discloses that undue stiffening is avoided (column 2, lines 60-75).
HOLCOMBE
The applicant asserts that Holcombe fails to teach or suggest microfibrillated cellulose. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Holcombe does not appear to mention the (50 wt% or more) cotton fibers being microfibrillated (defined on page 6, lines 3-6 of the specification as nanocellulose) but Noishiki discloses that microfibrillated cellulose fibers have improved physical properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability (see entire document including abstract and [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use microfibrillated cellulosic fibers as the (50 wt% or more) cotton fiber component in the yarn of Holcombe to improve properties such as strength, rigidity and dimensional stability. Regarding the claimed monofilament including between 0.01 to 30 wt% (or 0.05 to 20 wt% in claim 11) of an additive (e.g. nanocellulose additive), as explained above, the applied prior art teaches microfibrillated (nanocellulose) present in an amount of 50 wt% to 70 wt%. Therefore, 50 wt% of the nanocellulose may be considered the claimed at least 50 wt% plant based natural cellulose fibers and the remaining wt% nanocellulose may be considered the claimed 0.01 to 30 wt% (or 0.05 to 20 wt% in claim 11) nanocellulose additive.
The applicant also asserts that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest yarns containing fibers that are mechanically and chemically interlocked. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Holcombe discloses that the yarn may have a spun yarn structure [0086] and by definition a spun yarn is a yarn wherein the fibers are twisted (mechanically interlocked) together. Twisting results in cellulose fibers that are forced together. Regarding chemical interlocking, since the yarn fibers of Holcombe are cellulosic fibers, the fibers inherently have a natural affinity to each other by normally-occurring hydrogen (chemical) bonds. For example, see the current specification which discloses that cellulosic fibers inherently experience hydrogen bonding (paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14) and see the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 of USPN 4,259,958 to Goodbar. Goodbar specifically states: “As is well understood by those with ordinary skill in the art, cellulosic fibers have a natural affinity to each other by normally-occurring hydrogen bonds between the cellulosic fiber molecules when pressed or forced together.” It is noted that a specific amount of chemical interlocking is not claimed therefore any amount of cellulose fiber hydrogen bonding reads on the claimed chemical interlocking.
Regarding the yarn fibers being permanently interlocked together and substantially free of substructures, Lamb discloses that it is known in the art to construct a yarn (fibers oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction) such that the fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers to produce a fabric with improved wrinkle resistance (see entire document including column 1, line 51 through column 2, line 16 and Example 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the yarn of Holcombe such that that the fibers are oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction and adhered permanently to the other fibers to produce a fabric with improved wrinkle resistance. Regarding the yarn being substantially free of substructures (e.g. fiber ribbons or strips) because Lamb teaches that the yarn fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers (See Lamb Figure) it is clear that the yarn is free of substructures because all the yarn fibers are adhered permanently together forming a single unitary structure. In response, the applicant asserts that Lamb fails to teach that the fibers are adhered permanently to the other fibers. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lamb specifically discloses that the yarn filaments “adhere permanently” (column 2, lines 11-16). It is noted that the current specification defines the claimed inability to be disassembled as “permanent” (page 13, lines 13-17).
The applicant and declaration also state that microfibrillated cellulose fibers cannot be used in the preparation of “conventional yarns” wherein the phrase refers to spun yarns. The applicant therefore asserts that microfibrillated cellulose fibers cannot be used to produce the yarn of Holcombe. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Holcombe does not limit the method that may be used to produce the yarn [0086]. Holcombe does not require the yarn be spun or that the yarns must be made by any particular method. Noishiki discloses that it is known in the art to make a yarn via water-based suspension (abstract) and the current specification similarly discloses that the claimed fibrous monofilament (yarn) may be made via aqueous suspension (page 5).
The applicant also asserts that the microfibrillated cellulose fibers of Noishiki cannot be used in the “conventional” (spinning) yarn making method disclosed by Holcombe. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Holcombe does NOT require the yarn be made by spinning. Rather, Holcombe discloses that the yarn may (optionally) be a spun yarn [0086]. The declaration filed 11/12/2024 states that “I understand that the claims of the ‘098 application have been rejected, in part, based on the allegation that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a microfibrillated cellulose fiber in the preparation of a conventional yarn, which would include spun yarns…it is totally impossible to spin yarns directly from microfibrillated cellulose fibers” (pages 1-2). The declaration statement, regarding it being impossible to spin yarns directly from microfibrillated cellulose fibers, is not disputed but the statement is not relevant to the current rejection because the statement ignores the clear teaching of Holcombe which is that Holcombe does NOT require the yarn be a “conventional yarn” (made by spinning). Rather, Holcombe discloses that the yarn may (optionally) be a spun yarn [0086]. If the applicant is suggesting that one skilled in the art would not know how to make a yarn from microfibrillated cellulose fibers, they are mistaken. One skilled in the art would clearly know how to make the microfibrillated cellulose fibers of Noishiki into a yarn because Noishiki explicitly discloses said method. Specifically, Noishiki discloses that it is known in the art to make a microfibrillated cellulose fiber yarn via water-based suspension (abstract and [0006]) and the current specification similarly discloses that the claimed microfibrillated cellulose fiber monofilament (yarn) is to be made via aqueous suspension (page 5, lines 13-28). In fact, paragraph 5 of the declaration even admits that Noishiki discloses a (aqueous suspension) method of making a microfibrillated cellulose yarn.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights