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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 21, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the above identified application.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 4,447,489 to Linhart, optionally as evidenced by “Nanofriction and Nanowear of Polypropylene, Polyethylene Terephthalate, and High-Density Polyethylene during Sliding” to Cho and “Friction and Wear Behaviour of Unfilled Engineering Thermoplastic” to Unal, in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0161994 to Arora and US Pub. No. 2010/0055437 to Fink.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 13, 18, and 20, Linhart teaches a filament yarn composed of multicomponent fiber (thread) of a matrix/segment type that are split to form segmented components, such as polyester including polyethylene terephthalate (at least one second fiber), separated from the matrix component (first fiber), such as polyamide 6 (Linhart, abstract, col. 2 lines 12-col. 3 line 23, Figure). As the segment components are separated from the matrix, there would necessarily be space between the groove of the matrix and the segment (second fiber). Linhart teaches the yarn being subjected to a shrinkage treatment (Id., col. 2 lines 40-65), indicating that segment is capable of generating a potential by external energy. As the segment components are split from the multicomponent fiber and their removal form the groove in the matrix, the shape of the groove of the first fiber would correspond to a shape along a surface of the second fiber (claim 3) and the opening width of the groove would match a diameter of the second fiber (claim 8). Linhart teaches the presence of segments of varying denier results in variation in relaxation and shrinkage behavior (Id., col. 5 lines 16-19). Examiner would like to note that “potential” has not been defined and is being given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore there is the potential to create additional space or shrinkage based on the application of heat energy for either fiber (claim 18). The cross section is not taught as change and therefore the groove would be parallel to the length direction of the matrix (first fiber) (claim 20).
Linhart does not does not explicitly teaches the polyester comprising a piezoelectric polymer.
However, Arora teaches a splitable multicomponent fiber comprising polyester such as polylactic acid (piezoelectric polymer, claim 10) (Arora, abstract, para 0032, 0064). Fink teaches a fiber formed of materials including polyester, poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), biodegradable polymeric material such as polylactic acid (PLA) (piezoelectric polymer, claim 10), and combinations thereof (Fink, abstract, para 0006, 0017). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the yarn of Linhart, wherein the polyester is polylactic acid as taught by Arora and Fink motivated by the desire of using conventionally known polyester materials predictably suitable for use in splitable fibers and by the desire to use material that exhibits biodegradability.
Examiner would like to note that the limitation “constructure to itself generate a potential by an external mechanical force, the generated potential producing an antifungal effect” is a limitation with regards to the intended use of the thread and property associated with the intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As the yarn contains a fiber comprising PLA that is a piezoelectric polymer, the yarn would be capable of being acted upon by a mechanical force, such as stretching or movement.
Regarding the claimed generated potential and antifungal effect, although the prior art does not disclose this feature, 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 yarn contains fibers of a piezoelectric polymer, specifically polylactic acid, that would engage with a first fiber having grooves, as claimed. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches the matrix is polyamide 6 (first fiber) and the segments (second fiber) comprising polyethylene terephthalate in combination with PLA (Linhart, abstract, col. 2 lines 12-col. 3 line 23, Figure; Fink, para 0006, 0017). PET has been shown to have a friction coefficient of 0.07 as evidence by Cho (Cho, Fig. 4, p. 20) and nylon 6 has been shown to have a coefficient of friction of about 0.1 as evidence by Unal (Unal, Fig. 7 p. 185), reading on the first fiber having a higher coefficient of friction that the second fiber. Additionally, the instant invention teaches the first fiber being nylon and the second fiber being polylactic acid. As the prior art combination teaches the same combination of materials, the claimed relative properties of the first fiber having a higher coefficient of friction that the second fiber seems to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art combination as having a substantially similar structure. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches the fibers being twisted into the yarn (Linhart, abstract), reading on the first fiber and the second fiber being twisted together.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/11817 to Ando in view of EP 3376549 to Mitsui.
NOTE: US Pub. No. 2019/0038787 to Ando is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-16 and 18-20, Ando teaches an antibacterial (antifungal) fiber in the form of a yarn (multifilament yarn) comprising a plurality of charge generation fibers, such as a fiber obtained by twisting together piezoelectric fibers made of a piezoelectric polymer, including polylactic acid (claim 10) (Ando, abstract, para 0011-0018, 0027-0031, 0035, 0038), reading on a thread comprising a first fiber and at least one second fiber comprising a piezoelectric polymer. Ando teaches the cross-sectional shape of the piezoelectric fiber is not limited to any circular shape (Id., para 0034). Ando teaches that even in the case of partially including antibacterial fibers that differ in cross-sectional shape, for example a circular antibacterial fiber and a polygonal antibacterial fibers, the spaces between the plurality of the piezoelectric fibers are not uniform (Id., para 0061), reading on a space being present between a first fiber and a second fiber. Ando also teaches fibers that differ in thickness or partially differ in cross-section result in spaces between the plurality of piezoelectric fiber that are not uniform and result in a strong electric field formed locally (Id., para 0062). Ando teaches that upon expanding and contracting (mechanical force), the antibacterial fiber generates electric charges (Id., para 0041-0042, 0073, 0018, 0021, 0032-0033), reading on the fiber being constructed to itself generate a potential by an external mechanical force. Ando teaches that the proliferation of fungi can be inhibited by an electric field and the antibacterial fiber directly exerts an antibacterial effect with an electric field that is formed in the vicinity of the antibacterial fiber (Id., para 0038-0039), reading on the generated potential producing an antifungal effect.
Ando does not explicitly teach cross-sectional shape of a first fiber having at least one groove extending in a length direction thereof.
However, Mitsui teaches a piezoelectric substrate, such as a multifilament yarn, comprising a piezoelectric material, such as polylactic acid, having various cross-sectional shapes, including four-leafed shape and star shape (claim 15) (Mitsu, para 0272-0278, 0023-0038), reading on the fiber having at least one groove extending in a length direction thereof (claim 1) and the at least one groove being parallel to the length direction of the first fiber (claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for form the fiber (thread) of Ando, wherein the cross-section shape is the four-leafed shape and star shape of Mitsu, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known cross-sectional shape predictably suitable for use in piezoelectric multifilament yarns, by the desire to use a non-circular cross sectional shape as taught by Ando as predictably suitable, and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Ando based on the totality of the teachings of Ando. Having a star or leaf cross section would results in the polylactic acid fiber being disposed in a region corresponding to a groove of another polylactic acid fiber such that a space is between the groove of the first fiber and the second fiber and would necessarily be smaller than a cross section of the space between the first fiber and the second fiber smaller than a cross section of the thread in order to generate the charge (claim 2) and based on the teachings of Ando (Ando, Fig. 1B-C, 5A, 6B-C).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, when the cross-section of the fibers are all star cross section, the shape of the groove of the first fiber would correspond to a shape along a surface of the second fiber (claim 3) and the second fiber would have at least one protrusion extending in the length direction thereof with the second fiber being disposed such that the protrusion engages with the groove of the first fiber (claim 5), such as shown in Fig. 7 of the instant invention.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the fiber diffing in shape (Ando, para 0055, 0061), reading on a shape of the groove of the first fiber not corresponding to a shape along a surface of the second fiber.
Regarding claim 6-7, Ando teaches some of the plurality of piezoelectric fiber comprising uniaxially stretched polylactic acid (Ando, claim 4), reading on the presence of different piezoelectric fibers and therefore would have different properties, including modulus and friction. Examiner would like to note that any difference is within the scope of the claim. Additionally, Ando teaches the a dielectric covering the piezoelectric fiber and is not indispensable to cover all of the fibers (Id., para 0064), therefore the covered fiber and non-cover fiber would have different properties including elastic modulus and friction.
Regarding claims 8-9, the prior art combination teaches the fiber differing in diameter (Ando, para 0055, 0057-0059, Fig 6A-C). Regarding the opening width of the groove relative to a diameter of the second fiber. The relationship has three options, the opening width being smaller, larger, or the same (matching), and therefore a finite number of identified, predictably solutions. The invention of Ando requires the spaces between the plurality of piezoelectric fibers to be not uniform in order to generate a strong electric field (Ando, para 0059), which can predictably result from any of the three options as long as the groove and protrusion do not exactly match. This would result is the cases when the start cross section is used with the opening width of the groove matching the diameter of the second fiber or being larger than a diameter of the second fiber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have formed the fiber of the prior art combination wherein the piezoelectric fiber size are selected such that the opening width of the groove matching the diameter of the second fiber or being larger than a diameter of the second fiber from the predictably, finite number of relationships and in order to ensure the spaces between the plurality of piezoelectric fibers is not uniform in order to generate a strong electric field.
Regarding claim 11-12, as all the fibers of piezoelectric fibers, any fiber can map to the first fiber and the second fiber when having a star or leaf cross section. The first fiber being longer than the second fiber (claim 11) and the first fiber being shorter than the second fiber (claim 12) encompasses any different in length. Since the either fiber can be the first fiber, there are two option, the fibers are the same or different. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have formed the fiber of the prior art combination wherein the piezoelectric fiber sizes are different from the predictably, finite number of relationships. Additionally, as the fibers are twisted into a yarn (Ando, 0044-0045, 0055, Fig. 3A-C, 6A-C), the exterior fibers have a longer path and therefore would likely have a different length, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 13-14, the prior art combination teaches the fiber being twisted (claim 13) (Ando, para 0044-0045, 0055, Fig. 3A-C, 6A-C). When the cross section of the fibers are star, the resultant structure would have a first fiber with a plurality of groove extending in the length direction thereof and a plurality of second fibers, a respective second fiber of the plurality of second fibers being disposed in a region corresponding to a respective groove of the plurality of groves of the first fiber (claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art combination teaches that even in the case of partially including antibacterial fibers that differ in cross-sectional shape, for example a circular antibacterial fiber and a polygonal antibacterial fibers, the spaces between the plurality of the piezoelectric fibers are not uniform (Ando., para 0061), reading on a star cross-section (polygonal) and a cross section of the at least one groove being V-shaped, and a circular cross-section and a cross section of the at least one second fiber being circular.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art combination teaches the a plurality of piezoelectric fiber, such as polylactic acid (Ando, para 0029-0031), reading on both the first fiber and the second fiber being constructed to themselves generate a potential by the external mechanical force.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art combination teaches the fibers may differ in thickness or cross-sectional shape (Ando, para 0062, Fig. 6), encompassing the first fiber and the second fiber having the same sectional shape.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/11817 to Ando in view of EP 3376549 to Mitsui, as applied to claims 1-16 and 18-20 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2006/0099866 to Leonard.
NOTE: US Pub. No. 2019/0038787 to Ando is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art combination teaches a plurality of piezoelectric fibers twisted together into a multifilament yarn with a specific embodiment comprising 7 fibers (Ando, para 0035, 0050), therefore is open to additional fibers. The prior art combination teaches the fiber being use in beddings (Id., para 0040).
The prior art combination does not explicitly teach a plurality of fiber first fibers and a plurality of the second fiber arranged to surround the plurality of first fibers.
However, Leo teaches a yarn for use in bedding having a star-shaped fiber cross section formed of a polyester that is antibacterial (Leo, abstract, para 0012, 0015, 0025, 0031 Fig. 2). The yarn has may star-shape fibers (Id., Fig. 2), reading on a plurality of first fiber surrounded by a plurality of second fibers. Leo teaches the cross-sections forming wicking channels along the fiber surface for moisture transfer (Id., para 0031). Leo teaches a specific embodiment comprising 48 or 36 filaments (Id., para 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the multifilament yarn of the prior art combination, wherein the yarn contains 36 or 48 star-shaped filaments as taught by Leo, motivated by the desire of using conventionally know polyester yarn structure comprising star-shaped cross section fibers predictably suitable for use in bedding and benefiting from antibacterial properties and provide wicking channels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive with regards to the application of Linhart, Arora and Fink. Applicant argues thar the thermal shrinkage treatment of Linhart has nothing to do with generating a potential. Examiner does not disagree. However, the limitation requires the at least one second fiber to be constructed to itself generate a potential by an external mechanical force and the generated potential producing an antifungal effect. This a limitation with regards to the intended use. The combination of Linhart, Arora, and Fink teaches a central fiber with grooves and external polylactic acid polyester fibers that would be disposed in the grooves. The claimed functionality appears to associated with the use of polylactic acid. As the prior art combination teaches the claimed structure, the claimed intended use and associated properties would flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art combination since products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Applicants has provide no evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
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