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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 20, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on November 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 4 and 11 have been canceled. Claims 5, 8, 12 – 15, 17, and 18 have been amended and no new claims have been added. Claims 5 – 10 and 12 – 20 are pending. Claims 5 – 10 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The amendment to claim 12 is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection over JP 2011-021292A is withdrawn since the rejection does not teach the claimed viscosity range. However, a new rejection based on JP 2011-021292A is set forth below.
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 – 20 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 is indefinite. The polyamide sea-island fiber in claim 12 is considered to be describing the bicomponent fibers including both the island and sea components prior to splitting the structure. It is unclear if the initial modulus property recited in claim 12 is for the bicomponent fiber before it is split or the island components after splitting has occurred. In reviewing the values in Table 1, it appears that the properties are being found for the split monofilament (i.e., the island component only). For instance, Example is split to form the 0.05 dtex monofilament and the testing data is recorded in Table 1. It seems that the initial modulus is for the split monofilaments and not the pre-split bicomponent fiber. Additionally, the Example does not appear to dye the fiber prior to splitting so the dye uptake and dye uniformity would be for the island monofilaments and not the sea-island fiber. Thus, it is unclear if the claimed modulus and dye uptake are determined for the bicomponent fiber or the split monofilaments. Since the term “sea-island fiber” has been used to describe the island sea bicomponent it is unclear if the applicant is claiming the bicomponent fiber itself or the monofilament fibers formed after splitting. Claims 18 and 19 are similarly rejected. Claims 13 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 12.
The applicant argues that it is obvious that measurement of the initial modulus dye uptake and K/S value in claim 12 is for the bicomponent fiber. However, the Example is clear that the final steps includes a splitting process and the test data was obtained. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the testing describe in Table 1 would be for the samples produced by the full process described in the examples. First, if the testing occurred prior to the completing the full process described in each example then one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that to be pointed out. If the test is preformed on an intermediate product and not the split product then at what point are the initial modulus, dye uptake, and K/S Value tested. And at what point is the bicomponent fiber dyed before the splitting process. If these measurements are actually preformed during the processing and not on the finished product then the disclosure should expressly state at what point the testing occurs. In step 3, the bicomponent yarn is cooled, oil pick-up occurred, then the yarn was placed on a hot drawing roller for drawing, followed by the splitting process. Step 3 is described as a continuous process resulting in split fibers. The examples and the rest of the disclosure does not specify a point before splitting where the bicomponent fibers are tested for the claimed properties. The properties of the fiber would change due to the cooling process, drawing, process, and even the splitting process. Thus, the examples suggest that the properties are of the material produced in the example, which would be split microfilaments.
Further, why would one of ordinary skill in the art want to dye a fiber before the splitting process. The final product is disclosed as being made up of the split microfilaments and not the bicomponent or sea component materials. Thus, the dye uptake of the bicomponent would be strongly influenced by the sea component properties and would not be indicative or of importance to the properties of the final product made up of only the island microfilaments. It is not even true that the island components on the interior of the fiber would receive much dye material if the fiber has not been split since the dye would need to penetrate through the entire shell of sea component materials to get the individual island components. Further, the modulus of the bicomponent fiber would be unduly influenced by the modulus of the sea component and not truly represent the modulus of the split filaments in the final product. Additionally, the K/S property of the bicomponent fibers would also be strongly influenced by the sea material, since the outer surface is made up of only sea materials, which would be absorbing or scattering light, the island materials would have practically no influence on the K/S value of the bicomponent structure. Hence, the relevant fiber properties would be the properties of the split microfilaments used in the final product and not the properties of the bicomponent which would be significantly modified once the bicomponent fibers are split. Thus, it is considered that one of ordinary skill in the split fiber art would interpret that the measurements shown in Table 1 are for the filaments produced by step 3 of the process and not the bicomponent fibers produced earlier in the process. Thus, the referencing these properties as properties of the bicomponent fiber and not the split microfilament in the claims makes the properties indefinite since it would not be known at which point during processing to test the bicomponent fibers to determine the claimed properties.
The phrase “polyamide sea-island fiber has an break strength of 2.0-5.05 cN/dtex” in claim 17 is indefinite. It is unclear if this property is describing the bicomponent island sea fiber structure or just the island component as discussed above. Claims 18 and 19 are similarly rejected.
As set forth above, it is felt that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the Table discloses the properties of the split filaments produced by the examples and not an intermediate bicomponent fiber at an unknown point during processing. Thus, the rejection is maintained for the reason set forth above.
The phrase “polyamide sea-island fiber has an elongation at break of 30-80%” in claim 17 is indefinite. It is unclear if this property is describing the bicomponent island sea fiber structure or just the island component as discussed above. Claims 18 and 19 are similarly rejected.
As set forth above, it is felt that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the Table discloses the properties of the split filaments produced by the examples and not an intermediate bicomponent fiber at an unknown point during processing. Thus, the rejection is maintained for the reason set forth above.
The phrase “polyamide sea-island fiber has dyeing uniformity (grey scale) of grade 3.5 or more” in claim 17 is indefinite. It is unclear if this property is describing the bicomponent island sea fiber structure or just the island component as discussed above. Claims 18 and 19 are similarly rejected.
As set forth above, it is felt that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the Table discloses the properties of the split filaments produced by the examples and not an intermediate bicomponent fiber at an unknown point during processing. Thus, the rejection is maintained for the reason set forth above.
The phrase “polyamide sea-island fiber has a soap fastness for fading of grade 3.0 or more” in claim 17 is indefinite. It is unclear if this property is describing the bicomponent island sea fiber structure or just the island component as discussed above. Claims 18 and 19 are similarly rejected.
As set forth above, it is felt that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the Table discloses the properties of the split filaments produced by the examples and not an intermediate bicomponent fiber at an unknown point during processing. Thus, the rejection is maintained for the reason set forth above.
The phrase “polyamide sea-island fiber has a soap fastness for staining of grade 3.0 or more” in claim 17 is indefinite. It is unclear if this property is describing the bicomponent island sea fiber structure or just the island component as discussed above. Claims 18 and 19 are similarly rejected.
As set forth above, it is felt that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the Table discloses the properties of the split filaments produced by the examples and not an intermediate bicomponent fiber at an unknown point during processing. Thus, the rejection is maintained for the reason set forth above.
The term “application or addition of a composition or material comprising one or more polyamide sea-fibers” in claim 20 is indefinite. Does this mean that the sea-island fibers are formed into a composition or material or that a composition or additional material is added to the sea-island fibers? What is being done to form the article? Is any modification of the sea-island fibers required?
As set forth above, it is felt that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the Table discloses the properties of the split filaments produced by the examples and not an intermediate bicomponent fiber at an unknown point during processing. Thus, the rejection is maintained for the reason set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-021292A in view of Yamashita (WO 2015/151220 A1).
JP 2011-021292A is drawn to an artificial leather substrate. The leather is made with polyamide 56 ultrafine fibers (paragraph 1). Polyamide 56 is preferred since it is an eco-friendly and has excellent dyeing characteristics, lightfastness, heat resistance, and flexibility (paragraph 1). The ultrafine polyamide 56 fibers are produced using islands in the sea fibers to create an ultrafine structure (paragraph 44). The islands and placed in a larger fiber with a sea component that is later dissolved (paragraphs 45 – 48). The sea component can be chosen from dissolvable polymers such as copolymerized polyester, polypropylene, polystyrene, a polyethylene glycol, or polylactic acid (paragraph 47).
However, JP 2011-021292A fails to teach the relative viscosity of the polyamide 56 fiber. Yamashita is drawn to manufacturing polyamide bicomponent fibers including polyamide resin as component 2 (abstract). Yamashita discloses that the polyamide component can include polyamide 6, 12, or 66 or the like (page 3, paragraph 5). Further Yamashita discloses that the relative viscosity of component 2 can preferably be chosen from 2.3 to 3, from the viewpoint of maintaining a high elongation rate and heat shrinkage stress (page 3, paragraph 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose polyamide polymer for the sea component of JP 2011-021292A with a relative viscosity of 2.3 – 3.0, as taught by Yamashita, to maintain high elongation and heat shrinkage stress.
With regards to K/S property, the Table of JP 2011-021292 A includes the testing data for samples produced in the examples. The properties listed in the table include K/S (paragraphs 72 – 73). When K/S is 100 the dyeing is judged to be excellent. The seventh row of the Table lists the K/S values being between 73 and 120. Thus, JP 2011-021292 A discloses K/S values of greater than 15, greater than 20, and greater than 25.
Although the limitations level of resin brightness, relative viscosity, breaking strength, elongation at break, initial modulus, K/S value, dye uptake, dyeing uniformity, soap fastness for fading, and soap fastness for staining, are not explicitly taught by JP 2011-021292A and Yamashita it is reasonable to presume that said limitations would be met by the combination of the two references. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e., polyamide 56 ultrafine fibers) and in the similar production steps (i.e., making the ultrafine fibers from a sea-islands fiber wherein the sea component is dissolved) used to produce the ultrafine structure. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. Thus, claim 12 and 13 are rejected.
With regards to claim 14, item (i), (ii), and (iii) are listed in the alternative. Thus, the prior art only needs to teach one feature. Specifically, Yamashita discloses that the relative viscosity is between 2.3 – 3.0 which overlaps with item (ii). Thus, claim 14 is rejected.
With regards to claim 15 the claim, item (iv) recites any combination of the foregoing, which would mean only one of (i), (ii), and (iii) are required to meet the claims limitation. Specifically, Yamashita discloses that the relative viscosity is between 2.3 – 3.0 which overlaps with item (ii). Thus, claim 15 is rejected.
With regards to claim 16, JP 2011-021292A discloses that the examples include island-sea fibers with 16 islands (Example 3) and 36 islands (Examples 1) configurations. Further, JP 2011-021292A discloses that the sea-island composite fibers are desirably to produce uniform ultrafine fibers (paragraph 46). Thus, the fibers are considered to be of uniform size and therefore from a figured sea-island fiber. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected.
With regards to the properties listed in the Table of JP 2011-021292A, the eight row discloses that fastness to light described in the disclosure as a grayscale from change in color (paragraph 4). The samples includes test values of 4.0 and 4.5. Thus, the fabrics have a grade of 3.5 or greater. Claims 17 – 19 all recite multiple properties of the polyamide sea-island fiber and states that any combination of the list of properties is allowed. Thus, the claims only require that one property is taught by the prior art. Since JP 2011-021292A teaches that desired colorfastness level, claims 17 – 19 are rejected.
Further, JP 2011-021292A discloses that the nonwoven sheet is useful in artificial leather (abstract) and can also be used in other goods such as garments, industrial materials, wiping cloths, and abrasive cloths (paragraph 66). Thus, the prior art teaches using the fibers in similar end products as listed in claim 20. Further, the fibers are made into a nonwoven fabric and treated to split the fibers and add polyurethane to the fabric to produce an artificial leather material. Thus, claim 20 is rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 - 20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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 at (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.
jlj
January 24, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789