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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment submitted on April 28, 2026 and April 30, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1 – 4 and 11 have been cancelled. Claim 12 has been amended and no claims have been added. Therefore, the pending claims are 5 – 10 and 12 – 20. Claims 5 – 10 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is not always clear the disclosure is using the term “sea-island fiber” to reference the unsplit fiber and not the split fiber. For instance, on page 1, the disclosure states the “ultra-fine characteristics of sea-island fibers”. However, the unsplit fibers are not ultra-fine fibers, only the split fibers would be ultra-fine fibers and have characteristics of ultra-fine fibers. Further, the disclosure suggests that the sea-island fibers have improved properties
Appropriate correction is required.
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. As set forth before it is unclear if the properties are directed to the split polyamide monofilaments or the sea-island bicomponent fiber. The applicant argues that the test data shown in Table 1 must be prior to splitting because the example states that the test date is for the sea-island fibers obtained. However, the examples all include steps of forming the bicomponent fiber and then splitting the fiber which would result in microfilaments comprising only the sea components of the bicomponent fiber. And then the example states the test data is shown in Table 1.
First, it is noted that the use of the term “sea-island composite” in the disclosure is not always clearly indicating the bicomponent fiber. In the background discussion the specification states:
The ultra-fine characteristics of sea-island fibers impart them excellent properties that conventional fibers cannot achieve: 1. soft and delicate hand feel, and significantly reduced bending rigidity; 2. good softness, and improved bending rigidity; 3. soft gloss and increased diffused light; 4. high cleaning capability; and increased contact area; 5. high water and oil absorption; 6. high density in structure; 7. strong thermal insulation, and more air retained. (Specification, pages 1, Emphasis Added).
This portion of the background seems to be discussing ultra-fine properties of sea-island fibers, when the previous paragraph made clear the ultra-fine fibers with a size from 0.03 – 0.3 dtex are formed by removing the sea component from the sea-island fibers (Specification page 1). How can the bicomponent fiber have ultra-fine properties if it is not split yet. Thus, it is not clear is the disclosure is discussing the split or unsplit fiber. Further, the term “polyamide sea-island fiber” is confusing because only the islands are made from polyamide polymers, the sea component is made from other polymers such as polyethylenes, polyesters, polystyrenes, or polyurethanes. Hence, the term “polyamide sea-island fiber” suggests only the polyamide component of the fiber is described, i.e., the island filaments and not the entire bicomponent fiber.
Further, it is noted that in the disclosure the production of the sea-island fibers preferably includes the step of splitting to remove the sea components (Specification, pages 5 – 8). And the disclosed end products of imitations leathers, imitation silks, and waterproof clothing, cleaning cloths, etc. (Specification, page 8) are commonly made with filaments smaller than 1 denier, preferably ultrafine fibers significantly smaller than 1 denier. Not only does the disclosure that upon splitting such fibers can produce an extremely fine yarn which has smaller fineness, softer hand feel, and less penetration resistance (Specification, page 8), but the disclosure states:
Finally, the polyamide sea-island fiber of the present invention has a monofilament fineness of 0.01-0.2 dtex after splitting. The monofilament is finer, and the fiber has a soft and delicate hand feel. The bending rigidity is significantly reduced, and the gloss is soft. The fiber has a larger specific surface area, and the structure is of high-density. It is more suitable for use in the field of imitation wools, imitation silks, imitation leathers, imitation peach skins, imitation suedes, high-density waterproof fabrics, high-performance cleaning clothes, high-performance adsorbing and filtering materials, highly oil absorptive materials, highly water absorptive materials, thermal insulation materials, medical materials, automotive trim materials, safety shoes, protection devices for electronic products, cases, handbags, sofas and the like. (Specification, page 9).
Hence, this paragraph suggests that the desired improved properties are for the split fibers and not the unsplit fibers. In fact, this section suggests the sea-island fiber product, i.e., the end result of the process disclosed in the examples, is the polyamide monofilaments and not a split product. The improved properties are related to the split monofilaments and fabrics made therefrom. And it is the split monofilament that is more suitable for use in the various end products disclosed by the applicant not the bicomponent.
Further, while properties such as breaking strength, elongation at break, and initial modulus can be measured on either the unsplit or split fibers, other properties suggest the split ultra-fine microfilaments are being tested in Table 1. For instance, the fineness measurement is clear that the post-split filaments are being measured. The unsplit fibers are taught as having a size of 10 – 300 dtex and the split fiber is 0.01 – 0.2 dtex. The size of the tested samples are all less than 0.2 dtex. Applicant’s suggestion that this measurement was done post-split, but the other measurements were done pre-split is not supported by the disclosure (response, page 9). The end of example 1 recites “the test data of the sea-island fibers obtained were shown in Table 1” (Emphasis added). It is noted that the disclosure is an English translation of a Chinese application, so it can have some unnatural use of the English language. To the Examiner, the statement reads as the test is being done to the product obtained at the end of Example 1, i.e., the fibers after the splitting process of the sea-island fiber was completed. This is why the fiber sizes are ultra-fine filaments. If the tests were not all done on the same sample then the disclosure should have more detail about when the properties are being tested. There is nothing to suggest some properties were taken from unsplit fibers and other from split fibers. And all the examples included a splitting process into ultra-fine sea components as the final step.
Additionally, with regards to the Dye Uniformity, the test listed in the disclosure is the test method for the dyeing uniformity of polyamide filaments. Thus, the test is specific to dyes with would be absorbed by polyamide fibers and not the polymer materials in the sea component. A dye uniformity test designed for polyamide materials would not produce valuable results if done on fibers made from non-polyamide materials on the outside of the fiber. Further, while the disclosure does not state when the fiber is dyed, there is no discussion that the unsplit fiber is dyed before splitting. Nor would it make sense to dye the unsplit fiber with a polyamide type dye because the sea component would be covering the polyamide islands and prevent the dye from being absorbed into the polyamide islands. And even if the dye is absorbed by the polyamide islands, the sea component would not have a strong affinity for the polyamide dye and absorb very little of the dye. Thus, the dyeing uniformity of the bicomponent fiber would be very poor because the test is designed for polyamide fibers which are not exposed on the surface. And with the dye uptake property, it is unclear how this is measured if the polyamide island components are covered by the sea material, which is unlikely to absorb polyamide dyes. The sea component would have poor uptake and the island components cannot be seen to even judge the dye uptake. Further, the K/S Value is a test of a dyed fabric. This would imply that the split ultra-fine filaments produced in each example are then made into a fabric which is dyed and then tested for color depth value. How is this done with the unsplit fiber, if the final product of the example is the split filaments? And the soap fastness test is also done with dyes fabric samples. Again, if the examples produce split ultra-fine samples it is not clear that the test value would be on a dyed fabric made from unsplit fibers.
And there is nothing the clarifies if these tests are done on the unsplit fiber and not the split fibers since none of the examples teach making the fabric that is dyed and tested. But there is certainly nothing that states that the different tests are done on different samples. Hence if the fiber is measured as being less than 0.2 dtex, the test data suggests the tested sample would be a split material. And, given the fact that the tests are designed for dyed fabrics with polyamide filaments, one of ordinary skill in the art, would understand that the testing is done on the split filaments disclosed in the examples and not the unsplit fiber samples. Applicant’s arguments that the specification clearly states that the sea-island fiber is tested is not sufficient to evidence to prove these tests on not done on the unsplit fibers since 1) the test defines the filament size as less than 0.2 dtex, which would be split island monofilaments, and does not state that the other tests are done on different samples or at a different time in production. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and it is still unclear which form of fibers the test values in the claims are measured on.
Additionally, the applicant states that it is industry practice to perform performance tests on the finished fiber product to verify its properties (response, page 10). The Examiner agrees this is true. However, the finished fiber product of the examples are the split island monofilaments, which are less than 0.2 dtex in size, which is why those are the fibers being measured. Further, it is the split monofilaments that are disclosed in the specification as having the soft and delicate hand, reduced bending rigidity, soft gloss, and other improved properties (page 9). And the dye properties would be the properties of the polyamide monofilaments not the unsplit fiber because the remaining components in the split fiber product are only the polyamide monofilament components. Additionally, the background section discusses specifically the properties of ultra-fine fibers and describes similar prior art references which are drawn to a split fiber product that produces ultrafine fiber end products, CN106987923A and CN106435821A (pages 2 – 3), suggesting that the invention is directed to the split ultra-fine fiber and not the unsplit intermediate product. For the reason that the tests are usually done on the finished product to verify properties and done to demonstrate improvements over prior art, i.e., the ultra-fine products discussed in the background, it is unclear as to why the test properties would be on the unsplit fibers which remove the entire sea component to create ultra-fine monofilaments with improved properties. Shouldn’t the applicant also be testing the improved properties of the ultra-fine fibers and the dye properties of the polyamide ultra-fine monofilaments, not only the bicomponent fibers if these properties are representative of the unsplit fibers and fabrics made from the unsplit fabrics?
Hence, it is unclear if the properties are from tests of the claimed unsplit fiber as opposed to the split monofilaments. Depending on what material is tested then the weight given to the properties with respect to the claimed bicomponent fiber would be different. While the applicant is within its right to claim the unsplit fibers, the disclosure and claim must be clear that the properties being recited are the properties of the unsplit fibers and not the split monofilaments. Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to clarify beyond doubt that the test data in Table 1 is drawn to the unsplit fibers since the fiber size is within the ultra-fine fiber range and as pointed out by the applicant, it is standard practice to preform tests on the finished fiber which is suggested by the examples and the background, and improved properties to be the ultra-fine monofilament fibers and not the unsplit sea-island fibers.
Additionally, the applicant argues that when the fiber is dyed is irrelevant to the claims and it shows that fiber product has excellent dyeability. However, when the dye test is done is critical to the dyeability. The applicant suggests that the unsplit fiber is tested at some point prior to splitting. However, it is not clear what point the applicant is referencing since if the example is not testing the split fibers it does not define what fibers product is tested. The stretching and heating will impact the crystalline properties which will impact the dye uptake. Further, as pointed out above, the dye test is directed to polyamide fibers. The sea material will not respond well to polyamide friendly dyes. But the split polyamide island filaments will be more responsive to polyamide dyes if the surface is exposed directly to the dyes. Therefore, the bicomponent fiber could have the potential to have the claimed property if processed a certain way, but without knowing the exact process that was used to treat the fiber prior to testing it is not definite that the claimed bicomponent fiber is in the same state as the tested sample.
The applicant further argues that the claim is directed to the “polyamide sea-island fiber” product and the claimed properties characterize that product. The phrase “polyamide sea-island fiber” itself is unusual since the unsplit fiber includes polyester or another non-polyamide polymer as the sea component. If the claim is directed to the desired final product why is the size of the split island fibers recited in the independent claim and not the size of the bicomponent fibers. If the fiber is not being split and the final products being tested are using the unsplit bicomponent fiber then why is the size of the split filaments recited multiple times in the claims?
Again, it is noted that this application is a translation and can have awkward language as a result. The only polyamide fiber would be the monofilament fibers formed by dissolving the sea component to remove all non-polyamide portions. Hence, describing the fiber as polyamide when only the island portion is a polyamide and not both components is unusual. Also, the Examiner’s reading of the disclosure and textile knowledge in the split bicomponent art, suggests that the product of the method taught by the applicant is the ultra-fine fibers and not the unsplit fibers. The splitting step is a specific part of the method of making, and each example ends by splitting the sea-island fiber to produce a final product of ultra-fine polyamide monofilaments. The differences between the unsplit and split fibers are numerous and none of the claimed properties would be the same for the split fibers as the unsplit fibers. Thus, it is important to defined if these properties were found using the unsplit fiber or the split fiber. Without knowing what samples were tested it is unclear what scope is being claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite since the properties are not clearly from the split fibers or unsplit fibers. Claims 13 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 12.
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, the polyamide component is only the island portion of the bicomponent fiber. And the Table data suggests that the properties recited therein are related to the split filaments produced by the examples and not an intermediate bicomponent fiber at an unknown point during processing, since the tested fiber size is in the ultra-fine fiber range. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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.
13. 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?
The applicant argues that it is obvious how the sea-island fibers are incorporated into a composition of material to become an article (response, page 12 – 13). Applicant doesn’t provide any further arguments or evidence. Would a material made from the spilt fibers, where the sea component is completely dissolved read on the claimed products? Would a product that includes partially dissolved bicomponent fibers read on the claimed product. Would products that change the structure of the bicomponent sea-island fibers in any manner be excluded from the claimed products or read on the claimed products. The claim does not define how the sea-island fiber is required to be processed. What would qualify as application or addition? Must the fibers maintain the original form when the material is applied or added to and thereby becomes a part of an article. Many of the recited articles are desirably made from ultra-fin fibers having sizes of less than 0.2 dtex, and not larger sizes of the bicomponent fiber. Applicant should be more clear about what structure or method steps is required. It does not seem that the current claim excludes methods which split the fibers and make fabrics from the ultra-fine fibers of the split bicomponent fibers.
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.
JP 2011-021292A discloses in the example that the spinning process uses an island/sea mass ratio of 40/60 (page 11).
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 filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. First, the applicant argues that Yamashita (WO 2015/151220), doesn’t apply because the reference is not drawn to sea-island fibers. However, Yamashita is not relied on to teach the sea-island fiber structure. This feature is found in the primary reference, JP 2011-021292A. Yamashita is drawn to various bicomponent fibers which include polyamide components. Further, the components can be made from different types of polyamide components including polyamide 6, polyamide 66, polyamide 12 or the like. Thus, Yamashita was relied on to provide a general teaching that the preferred relative viscosity for various types of polyamide materials is 2.3 – 3.0 when making a bicomponent fiber. Further, Yamashita does discloses that the relative viscosity is preferably 2.4 or more, and more preferably exceeds 2.7 for component 2 (page 3, paragraphs 6 – 8). Yamashita suggests this is preferred for better spinning operability. This, is general knowledge which is relevant to spinning operability of polyamide fibers. Thus, the teaching of Yamashita would provide general teachings on what relative viscosity is likely to provide better spinning properties and therefore, better fibers in the end product even if the end product is a different configuration of bicomponent fiber. Further, the fact that applicant shows improved properties only reinforce the teaching of Yamashita that various polyamide polymers have preferred sinning operability in the claimed range. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Further, while the applicant argues that the reference is to a different shape bicomponent fiber, both references are to bicomponent fibers and thus considered to be related prior art. Further, the applicant has not provided any evidence the shape of the bicomponent fiber would strongly influence the choice of relative viscosity choice for the polymer. If the shape was so impactful, as the applicant argues then why does Yamashita suggest the applicant’s claimed range. Applicant suggests that certain technical problems are solved by using the range of 2.7 – 3.0 (response, page 14). However, this is not persuasive since the applicant has not provided evidence of these concerns. Further, the applicant’s own disclosure suggest that the invention includes a viscosity range of 2.4 to 3.0 and does not specify that greater than 2.7 is needed to overcome special technical problems. Evidence of these problems for island-sea fibers would need to be provided to support the arguments. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Additionally, the applicant argues that Yamashita is specific to the 2.7-3.0 range itself (response, pages 14 – 15). While Yamashita does state a broad range of 2.3 to 3.0, Yamashita also teaches that greater than 2.7 is more preferable (page 3, paragraphs 6 – 7). Similar, to the applicant’s own disclosure which suggests that a wider relative viscosity range, 2.4 – 3.0, can be used to make the claimed invention. Thus, Yamashita discloses special preference to greater than 2.7, which would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the range between 2.7 – 3.0.
Further, the applicant argues that the invention is drawn to bio-based polyamides and those are different from traditional polyamides. However, the polymer chain makes up almost all of the polymer chain. The end groups on the chains and possible impurities would be the only potential differences in the polyamide materials made from bio-based polyamide polymers and traditional polyamide polymers. The polymer chain for a polyamide 56 polymer is the same regardless of the starting materials. The applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the choice of starting materials has any significant impact on the polymer structure or the properties of the final product. Thus, the starting material is not considered to produce a patentably different polymer product, nor would the rheological properties be significantly different since the polymer chain structure would have the most impact on the rheological properties.
Additionally, the applicant provided a chart showing details of further testing done on additional samples (response, page 15 - 16). First, it is noted that the applicant suggests these tests have been done similar to Example in the disclosure. As set forth above, it is not clear what structures are being tested. Nor was this evidence provided in a declaration discussing the exact steps and the exact structure of the tested samples. Therefore, the evidence is not sufficient to show unexpected results. Further, the range applicant argues has improved properties is the same range taught by the prior art. How can the materials and the structure be so unique and distinct from Yamashita, that the teachings are not related, but also suggest a very similar relative viscosity range would be preferred?
Additionally, An argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. MPEP § 716.01(c) discloses examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. Thus, the table provided by the applicant which was not taken from the applicant’s disclosure needs to be presented in a declaration to be relied on as evidence of unexpected results.
Applicant argues that the K/S values shown in JP 2011-21292 are not relevant because the nonwoven fabric has been treated with a polymer coating to make an artificial leather substrate. However, as described in the JP 2011-21292 reference the test for K/S is done on a tubular knitted fabric dyed under certain dyeing conditions. Further, the test is showing how well the fabric is dyed. Thus, the prior art suggests that the fibers used to make the artificial leather material would also have similar K/S values since if the fibers didn’t have good dyeing properties then the products made from the fibers wouldn’t have good dyeing properties. While the references might be dyeing and testing the fibers in different fabric structures, the results still suggest that the fibers of JP 2011-21292 would have the claimed property. And, further, the applicant’s disclosure fails to details the exact fabric structure which is tested to directly compare. Further, it is noted that the K/S property was also rejected since the prior art is using similar materials to make the bicomponent fibers and are considered to have similar properties in the final product. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The component ratio has been addressed above. JP 2011-21292 teaches a 40/60 ratio which is within the claimed range.
The applicant argues that the claimed product is the sea-island fibers and the prior art uses the sea-island fiber to make other products. First, applicant also teaches in their disclosure and examples that the sea-island fiber is desirable to be split into ultra-fine fibers, less than 0.2 dtex. Further, the prior art teaches making the sea-island fiber. Even if the sea-island fiber is used to create a different final product, the intermediate product is sufficient to read on the sea-island fiber claims. Thus, the rejection is maintained. With regards to claim 20, it is not clear that the open claim language restricts the sea-island fiber from being modified in the process of making the final product. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that the tested materials in fact are made from the bicomponent fibers. There is not evidence in the disclosure that the non-polyamide sea components would readily absorb the polyamide dyes used in the test procedures disclosed by the applicant. As set forth above it is not clear that the tests shown in the disclosure are not done on the ultra-fine filaments produced by splitting the bicomponent in the final test of each example. The tests are taught as being done on fabrics and nowhere in the disclosure does the applicant state what materials are used to make the fabric that is tested.
Applicant further suggests that bicomponent fibers have poor dyeability. The applicant has not provided any evidence of this. There is no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art can not dye a bicomponent fiber with different components to have desirable dye properties. In fact, the dye properties of the island components do not have any influence on the dye properties of the fibers since the surface of the fibers are what are dyed and what are seen in the final product. Applicant’s arguments of unexpected results are not supported by any evidence or showing that dyeing these fibers was traditional difficult.
Further, the bio-based starting materials have not been shown to have any direct impact on the claimed product. These materials are important to how the polymer chain is made but it has not been shown that the polymer chain is significantly different in fiber form than traditional polymers. Thus, the rejections are maintained. And it is reiterated that the applicant must provide evidence in the form of affidavits or declarations to establish unexpected results, long felt need or commercial success. Otherwise the arguments will not be persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
August 7, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights