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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 4, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2007/064728 to Van Dun in view of JP-H07-328421 to Takeda and WO-2008/086570 to Brady.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-13 and 15-16
Van Dun teaches bicomponent synthetic textile fibers and a textile product formed from said fibers, comprising particles of natural mineral fillers such as calcium carbonate, wherein the mineral filler made of a non-fiberized natural material added to the polymer, are separate from each other and have an elongated shape wherein some of the particles run completely inside and some protrude from the surface of the synthetic fiber creating a surface roughness which improves the hand feeling of the synthetic fibers, so that they have the feel of natural fibers (Van Dun, abstract, paragraph [0006], [0015], [0042], [0092] –[0093], fig. 1-4). Van Dun teaches that the fiber may include a modifier (Id., paragraph [0039]). Van Dun teaches that bicomponent fibers may comprise the same polymer for the core and sheath components, and/or may comprise side-by-side, pie or island/sea configurations (Id., paragraph [0027], fig. 2). Van Dun teaches that the length of the fiber may be 10 times the diameter of said fiber (Id., paragraph [0017]). Van Dun teaches that the synthetic material may be a polyolefin such as propylene (Id., paragraph [0019]). Van Dun teaches said fibers are produced by spinning the mixture of the synthetic polymer and the mineral filler at 240°C (Van Dun, [0085]). Van Dun teaches using a Banbury mixer which would necessarily flow the material from at least two directions and mix the material in turbulent flows within a common space (Id., paragraph [0084]). As to the mixing time, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to select a mixing time, including 5 min., necessary to obtain a homogeneous dispersion in order to ensure mechanical resistance of the fibers.
Van Dun does not specifically recognize that the particles of the mineral filler have a width that is 25 % to 75 % of the length of said particles, which corresponds to an aspect ratio L/W or L/D between 1.3 and 4.0. However, Takeda teaches fine particles such as calcium for use in resin bodies such as fibers which are configured to provide surface irregularities in said resin bodies due to projections of the particles (Takeda, abstract, paragraph [0003], [0018]-[0021], [0026]). Takeda teaches that the particles may be sub-spherical possessing an aspect ratio of between 1.2 and 5 (width of approximately 20% to 80% of the length dimension), which provides easy dispersibility and resistance to breakage (Id., paragraph [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to select a sub-spherical particle shape as taught by Takeda, in Van Dun’s synthetic fiber composition motivated by the desire to form a conventional fiber comprising particle protrusions having improved ease of formation and resistance to breakage.
Van Dun teaches a particle size of 0.1 to 20 micrometers (Van Dun, paragraph [0041]) and Takeda discloses a particle size of 0.1 to 10 micrometers (Takeda, paragraph [0015]). Van Dun teaches that the fibers can have a fineness of 2 to 4 denier per filament (Van Dun, table 4), which corresponds to a diameter of around 20 micrometers for the PP used in the examples. It follows that the length L of the particles falls between 10% and 120% of the fiber diameter, and that the width W of the particles may be less or equal 50% of the fiber diameter. Furthermore, Van Dun teaches particles having a length of about 50 % of the diameter of the fiber (Id., Fig. 1-2).
Van Dun does not specifically recognize that the content of the natural material particles ranges from 0.5 to 45 vol.%, nor that the synthetic polymer and the natural material are mixed for at least 5 minutes. However, Brady teaches the addition of 1 to 20 wt.% of natural material particles into a synthetic polymer to produce fibers having the feel of natural fibers (Brady, [page 2, lines 7-11; page 4, line 31 - page 5, line 8; page 7, lines 17-29]). A weight percentage of 1 – 20 % will necessarily correspond to a volume percentage of 0.5 - 45% in view of the relatively similar densities of the materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to add 1 – 20 % by weight of natural particles as taught by Brady to Van Dun’s synthetic fibers when it is desired to provide said fibers with a natural feel.
Regarding Claim 5
Regarding the limitation requiring the particles to be milled particles, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is 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 Applicant to show 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 Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, 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.
Regarding Claim 14
The prior art combination is relied upon as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, said combination does not recognize that the spinning temperature is less than 200 degrees C. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize this parameter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the present invention, one would have been motivated by the desire to produce the fibers at the optimum rate and structure.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dun in view of Takeda and Brady as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-16 above, and further in view of SK-942015 to Jaroslav.
Regarding Claim 6
Considering claim 6, the combination Van Dun-Lima-Brady is relied upon as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, said combination does not recognize the use the natural materials listed in claim 6. However, Jaroslav teaches the use of cellulose particles to provide synthetic fibers with the feel of natural fibers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to add cellulose as taught by Jaroslav to Van Dun’s synthetic fibers when it is desired to provide said fibers with the feel of natural fibers.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dun in view of Takeda and Brady as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-16 above, and further in view of KR- 20020027024 to Kang.
Regarding Claim 7
Considering claim 7, the combination Van Dun-Takeda and Brady is relied upon as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, said combination does not recognize the use of zeolite as the natural material. However, Kang teaches the use of Zeolite particles to provide synthetic fibers with the feel of natural fibers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to add Zeolite as taught by Kang to Van Dun’s synthetic fibers when it is desired to provide said fibers with the feel of natural fibers.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dun in view of Takeda and Brady as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 and 12-16 above, and further in view of US 6,740,609 to Peng.
Regarding Claim 11
As set forth above Van Dun teaches that the fiber may include a modifier (Id., paragraph [0039]), but does not specifically teach the claimed modifiers. However, Peng teaches a polypropylene fiber comprising 1 to 15 percent of a modifier such as amide wax, wherein the modifier provides improved softness and hand without degradation of tensile strength or process efficiencies (Peng, abstract, column 2, lines 29-47). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to add the modifier of Peng to Van Dun’s synthetic fibers when it is desired to provide said fibers with an improved feel without degradation of properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the term “filler” means that it is not a main component, and that the filler is added to the second polymer and not the first polymer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The surface modification provided by the “filler” in Van Dun is the primary objective of the prior art, the “filler” is therefore qualified as a “main component.” As set forth above, the “second polymer” may be the same as the first polymer (Van Dun, paragraph [0027], fig. 2).
Applicant argues that no filler particle is completely inside the fiber, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Van Dun teaches filler components inside and on the outside of the fiber (Van Dun, paragraph [0042], fig. 1-2).
Applicant argues that the particles are only added to the sheath and therefore must be significantly smaller. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Van Dun teaches side-by-side, pie or island/sea configurations, including wherein the filler material is greater than approximately 30-60% of the diameter of the fiber, which overlaps the claimed size of between 30 and 80% (Id., fig. 2).
Applicant argues that Takeda is drawn to a coating composition and not a fiber product. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Takeda specifically teaches that the particle/resin mixture is useful in making fiber materials such as by melt spinning, extrusion and the like (Takeda, paragraph [0083]).
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not utilize fibers containing zinc oxide for textile. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zinc oxide is useful in reducing odors, thermal insulation and as an antimicrobial additive.
Applicant argues the length of the fibers of Brady are too large as the may be up to 100 micrometers, provide various length and width ratios, and do not protrude. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Brady is only relied upon for exemplary volume percentages and mixing properties. The rejection does not allege that the particles of Brady, or particles of the sizes disclosed by Brady are included in the fibers of Van Dun.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights