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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 29, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 12-15, 17-19, 21-24 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim Interpretation
The term “average interfiber space distance” and “space structure” in claim 17 and “space proportion” in claim 18 are interpreted as described in the originally filed disclosure para 0117 and 0118, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “[a] multifilament comprising one or more core components of a core-sheath composite fiber, wherein the core-sheath composite fiber comprises the core component and a sheath component….wherein the sheath component surrounds the core component completely, with a maximum thickness Smax and a minimum thickness Smin of the sheath component having a Smax/Smin ratio of 5.0 or more… wherein the multifilament is made by removing substantially all of the sheath component by dissolution.” It is unclear if the sheath of the core-sheath composite fiber is present in the claimed multifilament. The claimed multifilament comprises one or more core components of a core-sheath composite fiber and defines the structure of the sheath component of the core-sheath fiber but then recite the multifilament be made by its removal. It appears the core-sheath composite fiber and correspond claimed structure is directed towards an intermediate that is used in the formation of the claimed multifilament. It is also unclear the scope of “substantially all.” It is unclear how much of the sheath needs to be removed in order to be considered “substantially all” and if full removal is encompassed. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the core component” in lines 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “One or more core components” has been previously recited. It is unclear if the core component of line 3 refers to the one or more core components, one of the one or more core components, or another core component. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 12 as encompassing the core-sheath composite fiber being an intermediate used in the formation of the multifilament and full removal of the sheath being within the scope of substantially all of the sheath component removed. Examiner will also interpret the core component as referring to at least one of the one or more core component previously recited.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the core component of a multilobar shape has a groove existing at the apex of each convex portion and extending toward a center of gravity of the core component, and a ratio of GN/GM between distance GM from the center of gravity of the core component to a bottom M of the groove and a distance GN from the center of gravity of the core component to an apex N of the convex portion is 1.1 to 1.5.” Claim 12, upon which claim 13 depends, recites the limitation :wherein the core-sheath composite fiber has a cross section containing one or more core components, each possessing a multilobar shape with three or more convex portions.” It is unclear if claim 13 refers to the core-sheath composite fiber one or more core components, one of these core components, or a different core component. If referring to the one or more core components of the core-sheath composite fiber, claim 13 would be directed towards an intermediate that is further processed to form the claimed multifilaments. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 13 as encompassing referring at least one of the one or more core components of the core-sheath composite fiber.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein two or more core components are separated by the sheath component, and each of the separated core components has a multilobar shape.” It is unclear if claim 14 intends to limited the core components within the finally formed and claimed multifilament or intends to limit the structure of an intermediate, such as the core-sheath composite fiber, prior to removing substantially all of the sheath component. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 14 as being directed towards a structure of the intermediate, such as the core-sheath composite fiber prior to removing substantially all of the sheath component.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein core components are separate by the sheath component.” It is unclear which core components are being referenced. Claim 14, upon which claim 15 depends, recites two or more core components are separated by the sheath component.” If referencing the same core components, the limitation is redundant. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 15 as referring to the separated core component of claim 14.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein an average interfiber space distance is 5 to 30 micron, having a space structure in which the interfiber space with distance of less than 5 micron account for 10% to 50%.” It is unclear what is reference by the 10% to 50%. Is the claimed referring to that amount of space between fibers within the multifilament that is less than 5 micron is between 10 to 50% of the space?
Claim 19 recites the limitation “comprising two or more types of crimped fibers formed of polymers having different melting points.” It is unclear what “type” is intended to refer to, for example any difference? Different composition? Different shape? It is unclear if the polymers having different melting points are intended to be in the same crimped fibers or within the two or more types of fibered fibers. Claim 19 also recites the limitation “wherein the crimped fibers coexist uniformly” It is unclear what is meant by this limitation? For the purpose of prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 19 as encompass the present of at least two distinct crimped fibers and the crimp fibers collective having at least two different melting points.
Claim 23 recite the limitation “high order processing”. “High order” is a relative term. It is unclear what the intended scope of “high order processing.” Claim 23 recites the limitation “the core-component” in line 6. However, “two or more core-components” has been previously recited. It is unclear if the core component recited in line 6 with regards to being completely surrounded by a sheath component refers to one of the two or more core component, the two or more core component, or another core component. Claim 23 additional recites “removing the sheath component by dissolution to yield a multifilament comprising the core component, substantially free of the sheath component. It is unclear if the finally formed multifilament requires only a single core component or two or more core component previously part of the core-sheath composite fiber.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “wherein the high order processing is either weaving or knitting.” However, the claim is directed towards a multifilament. It is unclear if the claimed multifilament has to be in a woven or knitted form, i.e. a woven or knitted fabric, or merely intends weaving or knitting being part of the formation process but only the multifilament, for example, the multifilament could be removed and separated for another material and is not required to be in woven or knitted form. As a multifilament is claimed and not a fabric, Examiner will interpret claim 24 as encompassing the multifilament being subjected to the claimed weaving or knitting process but not required to be in that form. It is also unclear the scope of “substantially all.” It is unclear how much of the sheath needs to be removed in order to be considered “substantially all” and if full removal is encompassed. Claim 24 will interpret
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /103
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.
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 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2013/133056 to Funakoshi.
NOTE: The English machine translation is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 22-24, Funakoshi teaches a multifilament formed from a composite fiber comprising a sea component (sheath component) and multiple islands (one or more core components), including islands having a multilobal cross section such as Y-shape, cross or star shown as separated by the sheath, or sea (Funakoshi, abstract, Fig. 4a-4c, 14a-14d, p. 14-17), reading on a multilobar shape with three or more convex portions. Funakoshi teaches the island being 2 to 10,000 (Id., p. 15). Funakoshi teaches the composite fiber having a cross section in which two or more different polymers are perpendicular to the fiber axis (Id., p. 15), reading on the island (mutually adjacent core component, claim 15) being formed of different polymer (polymers having different melting points). As the polymers are different, they would necessarily have a different melting point. Examiner would like to note that any difference in the temperature is within the scope of the claim. Funakoshi teaches the multifilament consisting of ultrafine fiber formed by precipitation of the island component by removing the sea by elution (Id., p. 16), reading on the multifilament being made by removing substantially all of the sea (sheath component) by dissolution and the sea (sheath) component comprising a polymer that dissolves faster in solvents than the island (core components). Funakoshi teaches the use of sea-island type fiber being use to form smaller fibers used in woven fabric (Id., p. 2), reading on a fiber product containing the multifilament (claim 22) and high order processing that is weaving (claims 23-24).
The limitation “wherein the core-sheath composite fiber comprises the core component and a sheath component, wherein the sheath component comprises a polymer that dissolves faster in solvent than the core component, and wherein the core-sheath composite fiber has a cross section containing one or more core component, each possessing a multilobar shape with three or more convex portions and wherein the sheath component surrounds the core component completely, with a maximum thickness Smax and a minimum thickness Smin of the sheath component having a Smax/Smin ratio of 5.0 or more, the cross section being a circle or an ellipse; wherein the multifilament is made by removing substantially all of the sheath component by dissolution” is interpret as 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. The necessarily resultant structure appears to be a multifilament comprising one or more core components, at least one core component having a generally multilobar shape. 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. The necessarily resultant structure for the product-by-process limitation appears to be a multifilament comprising one or more core components. While the core component within the composite fiber has been defined as being multilobar shape, the dissolution process that removes the sheath component could potentially remove portions of the core component.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 23, the limitations “wherein two or more core components are separated by the sheath component; and each separated core components has a multilobar shape” (claim 14), “wherein core component are separated by the sheath component, and mutually adjacent core component are polymers having different melting points” (claim 15), and “[a] multifilament made by the process of: forming the multifilament by high order processing from a core-sheath composite fiber, wherein the core-sheath composite fiber comprises two or more core-components, each possessing a multilobar shape with three or more convex portions; and a sheath component, wherein the sheath component surrounds the core component completely, with a maximum thickness Smax and a minimum thickness Smin of the sheath component having a Smax/Smin ratio of 5.0 or more, the cross section of the sheath component being a circle or an ellipse; wherein the core-component and sheath component comprises different polymers such that the sheath component dissolves faster in solvent than the core component; and removing the sheath component by dissolution to yield a multifilament comprising the core component, substantially free of the sheath component” appear to be limitations with regards to the intermediate core-sheath composite fiber and therefore 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 necessarily resultant structure appears to be a multifilament comprising one or more core components, at least one core component having a generally multilobar shape for claim 23, specifically with two or more core components (claim 14) that contain two different polymers having different melting points (claim 15). 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 17 and 18, Funakoshi teaches the multifilament consisting of ultrafine fiber formed by precipitation of the island component by removing the sea by elution (Funakoshi, p. 16). While the prior art combination is silent with regards to the average interfiber space distance and space structure, specifically the average interfiber space distance being 5 to 20 micron and having a space structure in which the interfiber space with distance of less than 5 micron account for 10% to 50%, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a multifilament yarn formed from composite fiber having multilobar core components surrounded by a sheath component that is dissolved. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/133056 to Funakoshi, as applied to claims 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 22-24 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0335498 to Hansen.
Regarding claims 19, Funakoshi teaches composite fiber include side-by-side and sea-island fiber and the side-by-side makes it possible to express crimpability (Funakoshi, p. 2, 7-8). Funakoshi teaches the composite fiber comprising two or more kinds of polymers (Id., p. 14), reading on the use of two types of polymers forming the island (core components).
Funakoshi does not explicitly teach the multifilament comprising two or more types of crimped fibers formed of polymers having different melting points, wherein the crimped fibers coexist uniformly.
However, Hansen teaches the formation of crimped fiber having a multilobal arrangement with a first and second component in side-by-side arrangement having different melting properties that results in soft and bulky textile characteristics (Hansen, abstract, para 0019, 0024, 0043, 0092-0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the yarn of Funakoshi, wherein the filaments are crimped filaments as taught by Hansen containing two different melting points, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known multilobal arrangement predictably suitable for use in fiber and by the desire to impart soft and bulky characteristics to the yarn and fabrics formed from the yarns. Absent evidence to the contrary, the crimped fibers would coexist uniformly as being formed from filaments having the same cross section, sheath removed, and formed into yarns.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/133056 to Funakoshi, as applied to claims 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 22-24 above, in view of USPN 3,367,100 to Hughley and USPN 3,388,547 to Koga.
Regarding claims 17-18, in the event that the average interfiber space distance and space structure is not inherent to Funakoshi, Hughley teaches a multifilament yarn that is bulky and therefore has greater covering power and warmth due to enhanced lateral spacing of the filaments (Hughley, abstract, col. 9 line 54- col. 10 lines 10). Hughley teaches the yarns having an X-shaped, Y-shaped, or multilobal shaped cross section (Id., col. 9 lines 44-53). Koga teaches that heat-insulating properties of a yarn owe much to the amount of air trapped in the interfiber space (Koga, col. 2 lines 14-23). Therefore, Hughley and Koga establish the interfiber spacing is a result effective variable with regards to the covering power and heat-insulating properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the interfiber spacing in order to predictably influence the covering power and heat insulating properties as taught Hughley and Koga, such as arriving at the claimed values, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 12-14, 17-18, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,876,650 to Burlone in view of USPN 3,367,100 to Hughley.
Regarding claims 12-14, 17-18, and 22-24, Burlone teaches a fiber (core-sheath composite fiber) produced having at least two component that have different solubility characteristics with a cross section having three lobes (core component having multilobar shape) and a grove at the apex of each lobe (claim 13) with a easily dissolved sheath (Burlone, abstract, Fig. 1E, 2E col. 1 lines 33-62), reading on the core-sheath composite fiber comprising a core component and sheath component, the core-sheath composite fiber having a cross section containing one core component possessing a multilobar shape with three convex portion and a groove existing at the apex of each convex portion (claim 13). Burlone teaches the inner core remains as the final fiber (Id., col. 3 lines 33- col. 4 line 4), reading on the filament being made by removing substantially all of the sheath component by dissolution. Burlone teaches the fiber cross sections can enhance tactile and comfort properties, alter luster, enhance covering power, enhance absorptivity and wicking power, and alter bend modulus (Id., col. 3 lines 33-42). Burlone teaches formation of composite filaments and the use in yarn as well as processed into final goods, such as woven or knitted fabric (claims 22, 24), that can then be treated with solvent to remove the soluble component (Id., col. 3 lines 14-42). Burlone teaches the fiber can be processed using conventional techniques including texturing (Burlone, col. 3 lines 28-32).
Burlone does not explicitly teach the yarn being a multifilament yarn.
Hughley teaches a multifilament yarn that is bulky and therefore has greater covering power and warmth due to enhanced lateral spacing of the filaments (Hughley, abstract, col. 9 line 54- col. 10 lines 10). Hughley teaches the yarns having an X-shaped, Y-shaped, or multilobal shaped cross section (Id., col. 9 lines 44-53). Hughley teaches the bulky yarn impart numerous and desirable effect in woven and knitted fabrics made therefrom (Id., col. 10 lines 4-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the yarn of Burlone, wherein the yarn is a multifilament yarn containing multiple multilobar filaments as taught by Hughley, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known yarns containing multilobar shaped cross sections predictable suitable for use in woven and knitted fabric and by the desire to impart bulk and warmth.
The limitations “wherein the core-sheath composite fiber comprises the core component and a sheath component, wherein the sheath component comprises a polymer that dissolves faster in solvent than the core component, and wherein the core-sheath composite fiber has a cross section containing one or more core component, each possessing a multilobar shape with three or more convex portions and wherein the sheath component surrounds the core component completely, with a maximum thickness Smax and a minimum thickness Smin of the sheath component having a Smax/Smin ratio of 5.0 or more, the cross section being a circle or an ellipse; wherein the multifilament is made by removing substantially all of the sheath component by dissolution” (claim 12), “wherein the core component of a multilobar shape has a groove existing at the apex of each convex portion and extending toward a center of gravity of the core component, and a ratio of GN/GM between distance GM from the center of gravity of the core component to a bottom M of the groove and a distance GN from the center of gravity of the core component to an apex N of the convex portion is 1.1 to 1.5” (claim 13), “wherein two or more core components are separated by the sheath component; and each separated core components has a multilobar shape” (claim 14), and “[a] multifilament made by the process of: forming the multifilament by high order processing from a core-sheath composite fiber, wherein the core-sheath composite fiber comprises two or more core-components, each possessing a multilobar shape with three or more convex portions; and a sheath component, wherein the sheath component surrounds the core component completely, with a maximum thickness Smax and a minimum thickness Smin of the sheath component having a Smax/Smin ratio of 5.0 or more, the cross section of the sheath component being a circle or an ellipse; wherein the core-component and sheath component comprises different polymers such that the sheath component dissolves faster in solvent than the core component; and removing the sheath component by dissolution to yield a multifilament comprising the core component, substantially free of the sheath component” are interpret as 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. The necessarily resultant structure appears to be a multifilament comprising one or more core components, at least one core component having a generally multilobar shape (claim 12, 23), multilobar core component shape with convex portion on the apex (claim 13), and a multifilament comprising two or more core components (claim 14). 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. The necessarily resultant structure for the product-by-process limitation appears to be a multifilament comprising one or more core components. While the core component within the composite fiber has been defined as being multilobar shape, the dissolution process that removes the sheath component could potentially remove portions of the core component.
Regarding claim 17 and 18, the prior art combination teaches the multifilament being formed by removing the easily dissolve component and include after formation of good (Burlone, col. 3 lines 14-42). While the prior art combination is silent with regards to the average interfiber space distance and space structure, specifically the average interfiber space distance being 5 to 20 micron and having a space structure in which the interfiber space with distance of less than 5 micron account for 10% to 50%, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a multifilament yarn formed from composite fiber having multilobar core components surrounded by a sheath component that is dissolved. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,876,650 to Burlone and USPN 3,367,100 to Hughley, as applied to claims 12-14, 17-18, and 22-24 above, further in view of USPN 3,388,547 to Koga.
Regarding claims 17-18, in the event that the average interfiber space distance and space structure is not inherent to Funakoshi, the prior art combination teaches a multifilament yarn that is bulky and therefore has greater covering power and warmth due to enhanced lateral spacing of the filaments (Hughley, abstract, col. 9 line 54- col. 10 lines 10). Hughley teaches the yarns having an X-shaped, Y-shaped, or multilobal shaped cross section (Id., col. 9 lines 44-53). Koga teaches that heat-insulating properties of a yarn owe much to the amount of air trapped in the interfiber space (Koga, col. 2 lines 14-23). Therefore, Hughley and Koga establish the interfiber spacing is a result effective variable with regards to the covering power and heat-insulating properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the interfiber spacing in order to predictably influence the covering power and heat insulating properties as taught Hughley and Koga, such as arriving at the claimed values, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,876,650 to Burlone, USPN 3,367,100 to Hughley, and, optionally, USPN 3,388,547 to Koga, as applied to claims 12-14, 17-18, and 22-24 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2002/0106509 to Figuly.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art combination teaches a fiber produced having at least two component that have different solubility characteristics with a cross section having three lobes and a grove at the apex of each lobe (Burlone, abstract, Fig. 1E, col. 1 lines 33-62). The prior art combination teaches the fiber cross sections can enhance tactile and comfort properties, alter luster, enhance covering power, enhance absorptivity and wicking power, and alter bend modulus (Id., col. 3 lines 33-42).
The prior art combination does not appear to explicitly teach the groove at the apex of each convex portions and extending toward a center of gravity of the core component, and a ratio of GN/GM between distance GM from the center of gravity G of the core component to a bottom M of the groove and a distance GN from the center of gravity G of the core component to an apex N of the convex portion is 1.1 to 1.5.
However, Figuly teaches a composite fiber containing a groove having an outer radius of the core to an inner radius of the core greater than about 1.2 to about 2.0 and a lower ratio, delamination can occur (Figuly, abstract, Figure 1, para 0011, 0037), reading on a ratio GN/GM ratio of 1.2 to 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the fiber inner core component contains the groove at the apex of each lobe having the ratio as taught by Figuly, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known composite fibers having a multilobal inner core component and groove dimensions predictably suitable in composite fibers and by the desire to enhance the tactile and comfort properties, alter the luster, enhance covering power, and alter bend modulus while ensuring adhesion of the components during process. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 1.1 to 1.5, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the ratio, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 4,292,799 teaches a textured polyester yarn comprising polyester multifilaments having multilobar cross sections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789