DETAILED ACTION Claims 6-13 were subject to restriction requirement on 08/20/2025. Applicant elected Group II, claims 7 and 11-13, without traverse on 09/30/2025. Claims 6-13, are pending of which claims 6 and 8-10 are withdrawn by the Examiner. Claims 7 and 11-13 are rejected. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 7 and 11-13, in the reply filed on 09/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 6 and 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/30/2025. Claim Objections Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsutori et al. (JP6699381B2) ( Matsutori ) in view of Kurouzu et al. (WO 2019163971A1) ( Kurouzu ). It is noted Matsuori et al. (JP6699381B2) ( Matsutori ) is cited in the IDS filed 01/25/2023. Citations to Matsutori may be found in the machine translation provided by the Examiner. It is noted that when utilizing Kurouzu et al. (WO 2019163971A1) ( Kurouzu ) , the disclosures of the reference are based on US 20210002790A1 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the citations with respect to Kurouzu are found in US 20210002790A1. Regarding claim 7 Matsutori teaches a polyamide multifilament having a total fineness of 100 to 250 dtex , a tenacity of 7.5 cN / dtex to 9.0 cN / dtex , an d an elongation of 20% to 30% . See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001-0002], [0011], [0019], and [0021] . Matsutori does not explicitly teach the variation coefficient of elongation at 3 cN / dtex . With respect to the difference, Kurouzu teaches a polyamide multifilament having high strength and excellent fluff quality. The sulfuric acid relative viscosity of the polyamide chips is preferably 3.7 to 3.8 in view of stability and ease in obtaining the multifilament. The sulfuric acid relative viscosity of the polyamide multifilament is preferably 3.4 to 3.6 in view of strength and good fluff quality. The sulfuric acid relative viscosity of the See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0027] and [0030-0031]. Therefore, the difference in sulfuric acid relative viscosity between the polyamide chips and the multifilament ranges from 0.1 to 0.4. Kurouzo and Matsutori are analogous art as they are both drawn to polyamide multifilament. In light of the motivation as provided by Kurouzo , it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the difference in sulfuric acid relative viscosity between the polyamide chips and the multifilament of Matsutori ranges from 0.1 to 0.4 , in order to ensure the multifilament is stably and easily obtained and possesses strength and good fluff quality, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. 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). Given that the structure and material of the multifilament of Matsutori in view of Kurouzo is substantially identical to the structure and material as used in the present invention, as set forth above, especially since the difference in sulfuric acid relative viscosity between the polyamide chips and the multifilament ranges from 0.1 to 0.4 as Applicant’s specification states decreasing the variation coefficient of elongation at 3 cN / dtex to 1.00% or less is to control a difference between sulfuric acid relative viscosity of polyamide chips and sulfuric acid relative viscosity of the polyamide multifilament to 0.3 or less (paragraphs [0021] and [0028]), it is clear that the polyamide multifilament of Matusutori in view of Kurouzo would intrinsically have a variation coefficient of elongation at 3 cN / dtex to 1.00% or less, as presently claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Regarding claim 11 Matsutori further teaches the polyamide filament possesses 5 fluffs/10 million meters or less. Paragraph [0029]. 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). Regarding claims 12-13 Given Matsutori does not teach the presence of voids, it follows the number of voids contained in a polyamide filament as a constituent of said polyamide multifilament is 0 voids/cm. Claims 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsutori et al. (JP6699381B2) ( Matsutori ) in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 2017/0311651) (Yoshioka). It is noted Matsuori et al. (JP6699381B2) ( Matsutori ) is cited in the IDS filed 01/25/2023. Citations to Matsutori may be found in the machine translation provided by the Examiner. Regarding claim 7 Matsutori teaches a polyamide multifilament having a total fineness of 100 to 250 dtex , a tenacity of 7.5 cN / dtex to 9.0 cN / dtex , an d an elongation of 20% to 30% . The polyamide resin used in the polyamide multifilament possesses a relative viscosity in sulfuric acid of 3.6 to 4.0. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001-0002], [0011], [0019], [00 20-00 21] , and [0036] . Matsutori does not explicitly teach the variation coefficient of elongation at 3 cN / dtex . With respect to the difference, Yoshioka teaches a woven fabric comprising polyamide multifilaments . The polyamide multifilament possesses a sulfuric acid relative viscosity in the range of 3.1 to 3.6 in view of producing woven fabrics having a durability at a practical level. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [ 0001] and [0025] and claim 12. Yoshioka and Matsutori are analogous art as they are both drawn to woven fabrics comprising polyamide multifilament. In light of the motivation as provided by Yoshioka , it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the sulfuric acid relative viscosity of the polyamide multifilament of Matsutori ranges from 3.1-3.6 , in order to ensure the woven fabric has practical durability , and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. The difference in sulfuric relative viscosity between the polyamide resin and the polyamide multifilament ranges from to 0 to 0.9. 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). Given that the structure and material of the multifilament of Matsutori in view of Yoshioka is substantially identical to the structure and material as used in the present invention, as set forth above, especially since the difference in sulfuric acid relative viscosity between the polyamide chips and the multifilament ranges from 0 to 0.9 as Applicant’s specification states decreasing the variation coefficient of elongation at 3 cN / dtex to 1.00% or less is to control a difference between sulfuric acid relative viscosity of polyamide chips and sulfuric acid relative viscosity of the polyamide multifilament to 0.3 or less (paragraphs [0021] and [0028]), it is clear that the polyamide multifilament of Matusutori in view of Kurouzo would intrinsically have a variation coefficient of elongation at 3 cN / dtex to 1.00% or less, as presently claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Regarding claim 11 Matsutori further teaches the polyamide filament possesses 5 fluffs/10 million meters or less. Paragraph [0029]. 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). Regarding claims 12-13 Given Matsutori does not teach the presence of voids, it follows the number of voids contained in a polyamide filament as a constituent of said polyamide multifilament is 0 voids/cm. Claims 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samant et al. (US 2003/0219595 ) (Samant) in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 2017/0311651) (Yoshioka). Regarding claim 7 Samant teaches a polyamide multifilament possessing a fineness from 16 to 460 dtex , a tenacity of at least 7.0 cN / dtex , and an elongation at break from 15 to 22%. The polyamide multifilament is used to form hosiery. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0019], [0028], [0034], [0041-0042], [0045], and [0047]. Samant does not explicitly teach the variation coefficient of elongation at 3 cN / dtex . With respect to the difference, Yoshioka teaches a polyamide multifilament for forming stockings. The difference in sulfuric acid relative viscosity between the polyamide polymer and the multifilament ranges from 0.1 to 0.4. Stockings possessing the polyamide multifilament possessing this difference in sulfuric acid relative viscosity excel in softness, durability, appearance, and quality. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0025], [0039], and Table 1-2. Yoshioka and Samant are analogous art as they are both drawn to stockings comprising polyamide multifilament. In light of the motivation as provided by Yoshioka, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the difference in sulfuric acid relative viscosity between the polyamide polymer and the polyamide multifilament of Samant ranges from 0.1 to 0.4, in order to ensure the stocking possesses excellent softness, durability, appearance, and quality, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. 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). Given that the structure and material of the multifilament of Samant in view of Yoshioka is substantially identical to the structure and material as used in the present invention, as set forth above, especially since the difference in sulfuric acid relative viscosity between the polyamide chips and the multifilament ranges from 0.1 to 0.4 as Applicant’s specification states decreasing the variation coefficient of elongation at 3 cN / dtex to 1.00% or less is to control a difference between sulfuric acid relative viscosity of polyamide chips and sulfuric acid relative viscosity of the polyamide multifilament to 0.3 or less (paragraphs [0021] and [0028]), it is clear that the polyamide multifilament of Matusutori in view of Kurouzo would intrinsically have a variation coefficient of elongation at 3 cN / dtex to 1.00% or less, as presently claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2598 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Marla McConnell can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /C.X.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789