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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/21/2025 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 5, 7 and 18-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPN 5,219,636 to Golz in view of USPN 4,500,384 to Tomioka and/or USPN 3,803,453 to Hull and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2014/0178615 to Broadway, USPN 5,932,309 to Smith, and/or USPN 3,645,819 to Fujii.
Claims 5, 22, 24, 29-31, 33 and 35, Golz discloses a multicomponent fiber/yarn comprising a plurality of filaments each filament having a uniform diameter core coated by an individual uniform thickness thermoplastic sheath wherein the filament sheath surfaces are in contact with adjacent filament sheath surfaces (see entire document including Figure 7, column 2, line 27 through column 4, line 28).
Golz discloses that the core material may be polyester (column 3, lines 33-39) but does not appear to specifically mention the core material being glass. Broadway discloses that it is known in the art to construct a woven sling with high strength fiber material such as polyester or glass (see entire document including [0030], [0032], [0039] and [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the core from any suitable reinforcing fiber material, such as glass, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Golz does not appear to mention the thermoplastic sheath thickness but Tomioka and Hull each disclose that it is known in the art to construct a multicomponent fiber with a thermoplastic sheath having a thickness within the claimed range. Tomioka discloses that such a thickness (i.e. 1.0 to 4.0 µm) results in improved strength, abrasion resistance and adhesion (see entire document including column 1, line 37 through column 2, line 45) and Hull discloses that such a thickness (i.e. at least 3 µm) provides the improved strength, heat and abrasion resistance (see entire document including column 3, line 39 through column 4, line 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the multicomponent fiber of Golz with the claimed sheath thickness, to provide improved strength, heat, abrasion resistance, and/or adhesion.
Golz illustrates the claimed fiber (core) volume fraction (Figure 7). Plus, Fujii discloses that it is known in the core/sheath fiber art for construct fibers with a core weight percentage of less than or equal to 90% based on the desire strength (see entire document including column 5, lines 31-41). The sheath and core of Fuji are made of the same polymer (paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5) therefore the disclosed weight percentages are also (essentially) volume percentages because the sheath and core would have substantially identical densities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the multicomponent fiber of Golz with the claimed core volume fraction to provide the multicomponent fiber with the desired strength.
Golz does not appear to mention the diameter of the core of the filaments but the multicomponent fiber is used to construct a sling used to lift and/or tiedown objects (column 1, lines 5-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the diameter of core, such as claimed, based on the intended use of the sling and weight of the object intended to be lifted/tiedown and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In addition, the Office takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that it is conventional in the art to construct slings with a fiber with the claimed diameter of 2 to 50 µm.
Claim 7, the fiber is a two-component fiber (column 2, lines 27-40).
Claim 18, the thermoplastic sheath is derived from monomers, oligomers, or polymers of the thermoplastic (column 3, lines 33-39).
Claim 19, the plurality of filaments comprises a first filament and a second filament, each of the first filament and the second filament having a core coated by an individual thermoplastic sheath, wherein the first filament and the second filament are consolidated (column 2, lines 41-52).
Claim 20, Golz discloses each individual thermoplastic sheath being distinct from any other individual thermoplastic sheath in the multicomponent fiber (Figure 7). Plus, Smith discloses that it is known in the core/sheath fiber art to construct each individual thermoplastic sheath distinct from the other individual thermoplastic sheaths in a multicomponent fiber to provide the desired coloration (see entire document including column 25, lines 11-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct each individual thermoplastic sheath distinct from the other individual thermoplastic sheaths to provide the desired coloration.
Claim 21, the individual thermoplastic sheath of the at least one filament is coated in a longitudinal direction of the filament (Figure 7).
Claim 23, Golz does not mention any sizing.
Claim 25, the thermoplastic sheaths are in surface contact and evenly separate the cores from each other in the multicomponent fiber (Figure 7).
Claim 26, each core has an essentially consistent diameter (Figure 7).
Claim 27, the thermoplastic sheath of each filament has a uniform layer thickness along a circumference of the filament (Figure 7).
Claim 28, the thermoplastic sheath contacts but is not polymerized with, melted into, or merged with an adjacent thermoplastic sheath prior to the sheath being melted (Figure 7).
Claim 31, Golz does not appear to mention the thermoplastic sheath thickness but Tomioka and Hull each disclose that it is known in the art to construct a multicomponent fiber with a thermoplastic sheath having a thickness within the claimed range. Tomioka discloses that such a thickness (i.e. 1.0 to 4.0 µm) results in improved strength, abrasion resistance and adhesion (see entire document including column 1, line 37 through column 2, line 45) and Hull discloses that such a thickness (i.e. at least 3 µm) provides the improved strength, heat and abrasion resistance (see entire document including column 3, line 39 through column 4, line 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the multicomponent fiber of Golz with the claimed sheath thickness, to provide improved strength, heat, abrasion resistance, and/or adhesion. Since the sheaths of Golz are in contact (Figure 7), adjacent filament cores are inherently separated by a distance equal to twice the sheath thickness.
Claim 32, the cores are, from the perspective of a cross-section perpendicular to a length of the multicomponent fiber, evenly distributed along the length of the multicomponent fiber (Figure 7).
Claim 34, each of the sheaths are set (Figure 7). Regarding the sheaths being set before being placed into contact with adjacent sheaths, 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. It is noted that if the applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show non-obviousness, the applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art. Plus, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). MPEP 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Golz discloses a polyester core material and fails to teach or suggest a core formed of glass, basalt, ceramic or metal. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because although Golz does not mention the core material being glass, Broadway discloses that it is known in the art to construct a sling with high strength fiber material such as polyester or glass (see entire document including [0030], [0032], [0039] and [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the core from any suitable reinforcing fiber material, such as glass, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
In response, the applicant asserts that Broadway fails to teach or suggest the claimed core size, core volume fraction or sheath thickness. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the current rejection. Broadway is not relied upon to teach core size or core volume fraction or sheath thickness. Rather, Broadway is cited to teach the claimed core material.
The applicant also asserts that the prior art teaches away from the substitution of glass for polyester because one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success in forming a bicomponent fiber with a glass core and a thermoplastic sheath. The applicant asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would encounter “an insurmountable technical conflict” because a person of ordinary skill in the art would allegedly not know how to manufacture a bicomponent fiber with a glass fiber core and a thermoplastic sheath. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because at least four different references of record demonstrate that it is well known to one having ordinary skill in the art how to make a bicomponent fibers comprising a glass core and a thermoplastic sheath. For example, see USPN 6,032,454 to Damour (see entire document including column 1, lines 26-37, column 3, lines 41-48 and column 4, lines 1-43), USPAP 2006/0088263 to Tanaka (see entire document including [0002], [0033], and [0070]), USPAP 2015/0083659 to Bansai (see entire document including [0003], [0018]-[0020] and [0032]-[0035]), and USPAP 2015/0352021 to Matsubayashi (see entire document including [0021], [0032] and [0034]). As explained by the cited prior art, producing a bicomponent fiber comprising a glass core and a thermoplastic sheath is well-known and as simple as coating or extruding or immersing thermoplastic material onto a glass fiber.
The applicant also asserts that Broadway does not disclose bicomponent yarns and therefore the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest bicomponent yarns wherein the core fibers are made of glass. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Golz already discloses the claimed bicomponent yarn construction. Therefore, Broadway is not relied upon to teach the claimed yarn construction. Rather, Broadway is relied upon for disclosing that it is known in the art to substitute polyester fibers with glass fibers. In totality, the applied prior art teaches bicomponent yarns wherein the fiber material of said yarns is glass. In response, the applicant argues that if one skilled in the art were to combine the teachings of Golz and Broadway the entire bicomponent fiber of Golz would be substituted with the glass fiber of Broadway. In other words, the applicant agrees that the references are combinable, and that Broadway does indeed teach that polyester fibers and glass fibers are prima facie obviousness substitutable, but the applicant asserts that one skilled in the art would eliminate the thermoplastic sheath of the fiber. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Golz requires the thermoplastic sheath by explicitly stating that the thermoplastic sheath provides improved resistance to wear/abrasion/cutting (column 2, lines 27-52 and column 3, lines 40-52). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not eliminate the thermoplastic sheath because the thermoplastic sheath is required to improve resistance to wear/abrasion/cutting.
The applicant also asserts that Golz teaches away from the substitution of glass fibers for the polyester fibers because then the bicomponent fiber would allegedly have a different modulus of elasticity than the synthetic fiber in the main body. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Golz does not require the bicomponent fibers have the same modulus of elasticity as the yarns of the main body. Rather, Golz simply prefers that the bicomponent fibers have “at least as great a modulus of elasticity” as the main body yarns (see dependent claim 6). The applicant admits that bicomponent fibers comprising a glass core would have a greater modulus of elasticity (page 4 of the response filed 11/15/2024). Therefore, the applied prior art teaches bicomponent yarns having at least as great a modulus of elasticity as the main body yarns. Plus, Golz discloses that the sling fiber material may be polyester (column 3, lines 33-39) but does not appear to specifically mention the fiber material being glass. Broadway discloses that it is known in the sling art to construct a woven fabric with high strength fiber material such as polyester or glass (see entire document including [0030], [0032], [0039] and [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make all the fiber material (the main body yarns and the bicomponent yarn cores) of Golz from any suitable known reinforcing fiber material, such as glass, because it has been held to be 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 fails to teach or suggest that the use of glass as the material of both the main body yarns and the bicomponent yarn cores would result in any substantial difference in modulus of elasticity between the main body yarns and the bicomponent yarns. On the contrary, the applicant admits that the core is “the major component of the bicomponent fibers” (page 4 of the response filed 11/15/2024) so the two yarns would have substantially similar modulus of elasticity.
The applicant also asserts that Golz fails to teach or suggest the claimed core volume fraction and asks which reference teaches a high volume core. Golz illustrates the claimed core high volume fraction (Figure 7). Plus, Fujii discloses that it is known in the core/sheath fiber art for construct fibers with a core weight percentage of less than or equal to 90% based on the desire strength (see entire document including column 5, lines 31-41). The sheath and core of Fuji are made of the same polymer (paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5) therefore the disclosed Fuji weight percentages are also (essentially) volume percentages because the sheath and core would have substantially identical densities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the multicomponent fiber of Golz with the claimed core volume fraction to provide the multicomponent fiber with the desired strength.
The applicant also asserts that Golz fails to teach or suggest the claimed core diameter and asks why one skilled in the art would adjust the diameter of the core. The multicomponent fiber of Golz is used to construct a sling used to lift and/or tiedown objects (column 1, lines 5-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the diameter of core, such as claimed, based on the intended use of the sling and weight of the object intended to be lifted/tiedown and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In addition, the Office took official notice (see page 3 of the Office Action mailed 4/26/2024) that it is conventional in the art to construct slings with a fiber with the claimed diameter range of 2 to 50 µm. In applicant’s subsequent response filed 7/26/2024 the applicant did not traverse the statement of official notice and therefore in the next Office Action the examiner clearly indicated that the statement of official notice is now considered admitted prior art (page 3 of the Office Action mailed 8/15/2024). The applicant now (suddenly) disagrees with the statement of official notice and asserts that documentary evidence is now required. The examiner respectfully disagrees. If an applicant adequately and timely traverses an examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. See MPEP 2144.03 and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2). In the current instance, the applicant failed to adequately and timely traverse the official notice because the applicant failed to address the official notice at all in the response filed 7/26/2024 and certainly failed to include a statement why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. To adequately traverse an official notice an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See MPEP 2144.03 and 37 CFR 1.111(b). Therefore, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art.
The applicant also asserts that Golz fails to teach or suggest the claimed sheath thickness and asks which reference describes filaments with the claimed sheath thickness. Although Golz does not appear to mention the thermoplastic sheath thickness, Tomioka and Hull each disclose that it is known in the art to construct a multicomponent fiber with a thermoplastic sheath having a thickness within the claimed range. Tomioka discloses that such a thickness (i.e. 1.0 to 4.0 µm) results in improved strength, abrasion resistance and adhesion (see entire document including column 1, line 37 through column 2, line 45) and Hull discloses that such a thickness (i.e. at least 3 µm) provides the improved strength, heat and abrasion resistance (see entire document including column 3, line 39 through column 4, line 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the multicomponent fiber of Golz with the claimed sheath thickness, to provide improved strength, heat, abrasion resistance, and/or adhesion.
In response, the applicant asserts that Tomioka fails to teach or suggest the claimed core size or core volume fraction. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the current rejection. Tomioka is not relied upon to teach core size or core volume fraction. Rather, Tomioka is cited to teach the claimed sheath thickness. The applicant also asserts that since Tomioka teaches eventually melting the sheaths together Tomioka has a different (core and sheath) arrangement than that claimed. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Tomioka discloses forming a web of core/sheath fibers prior to applying heat treatment to melt the sheaths (see abstract). The applicant also asserts that Hull fails to teach or suggest the claimed core size or core volume fraction. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the current rejection. Hull is not relied upon to teach core size or core volume fraction. Rather, Hull is cited to teach the claimed sheath thickness.
Regarding claim 20, the applicant asserts that Smith fails to teach or suggest the claimed core size, core volume fraction or sheath thickness. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the current rejection. Smith is not relied upon to teach core size or core volume fraction or sheath thickness. Rather, Smith is cited to teach that it is known in the core/sheath fiber art to construct each individual thermoplastic sheath distinct from the other individual thermoplastic sheaths in a multicomponent fiber to provide the desired coloration.
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