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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending in the application. Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1, 3 and 8, filed on 2/13/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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 1-4 and 6-10 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 1 recites the limitations “the polyamide mainly constituting the sheath component” and “the polyamide mainly constituting the core component.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In this regard, the examiner notes that the claimed limitation “eccentric sheath-core type polyamide composite fiber” is not limited to a fiber in which polyamides mainly constitute both the core and the sheath (or to a fiber with any particular weight ratio of core to sheath). Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a treatment time of 72 hours.” It is unclear what treatment this limitation refers to (e.g., if it refers to the claimed temperature and relative humidity conditions or to an additional treatment). For the purpose of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as meaning “under conditions of a temperature of 30° C. and a relative humidity of 90 RH % for 72 hours.” Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a sulfuric acid viscosity” It is unclear what viscosity this refers to. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as referring to a sulfuric acid relative viscosity.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "viscosity." It is unclear what type of viscosity is being claimed. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted as referring to a sulfuric acid relative viscosity.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ojiya (JP 2001159030 A, attached on 5/7/2025, including two translations) in view of Horiguchi (JP 2007197890 A, attached on 5/7/2025).
Regarding claims 1-2, Ojiya teaches a conjugate polyamide fiber having excellent crimpability, capable of forming a fabric having excellent feeling and soft stretchability (Abstract). The composite polyamide fiber having a laminated structure or an eccentric core-sheath structure exhibits an eccentric core-sheath structure (Abstract). One component is nylon 12 or nylon 610 ([0010]). Ojiya teaches that it should be noted that nylon 610 is a more preferable composite component that exhibits the effects of the invention at a high level ([0013]). The other polyamide is selected from the group consisting of nylon 6, nylon 66, nylon 4, nylon 610, nylon 11, nylon 12, and copolymers containing them as a main component ([0014]). It is particularly preferable that such a component is nylon 6 or nylon 66 from the viewpoint of thermal stability ([0014]). The examiner notes that, in an embodiment (Example 2), Ojiya also teaches a conjugate fiber in which one component is nylon 610 and the other component is nylon 6 (see [0024] and Table 1).
Ojiya does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is a woven or knitted fabric, wherein the yarn is a false-twist yarn, or wherein the woven or knitted fabric has a stress ratio under an environment at a temperature of 20° C and a relative humidity of 65% RH at 15% elongation in the warp direction to the weft direction of from 0.25 to 2.0 after elongation of the fabric according to JIS L 1096 8.16.1 A (2010).
However, Horiguchi teaches wherein a woven or knitted fabric for laminating with a non-woven fabric is provided to have a 15% tensile stress of 0.1 to 5.0 N/cm in at least one direction of length direction or width direction of the woven or knitted fabric for laminating the non-woven fabric (Abstract). The woven or knitted fabric has a tensile stress at 15% elongation of 0.1 N/cm or more in at least one of the warp direction and the weft direction, preferably 0.3 N/cm or more, more preferably 0.5 N/cm or more, and is 5.0 N/cm or less, preferably 3.0 N/cm or less, more preferably 2.0 N/cm or less, further preferably 1.0 N/cm or less ([0017]-[0018]). Further, when both of the stresses at 15% elongation in the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction are preferably 0.1-25.0N/cm, more preferably 0.2-20N/cm, further preferably 0.5-12N/cm, the effect is more remarkable ([0017]). The examiner notes that when the 15% tensile stress is in the range of 0.5 N/cm to 2.0 N/cm (or 0.5 N/cm to 1.0 N/cm) in both directions, the stress ratio at 15% elongation in the warp direction to the weft direction would range from 0.25 to 4 (or 0.5 to 2), which overlaps with the claimed ratio of 0.25 to 2.0. In an embodiment, a spun yarn may be produced by a two-step method in which the discharged yarn is cooled and solidified, then once wound, and then drawn or drawn and false twisted, or may be produced by a direct spinning and drawing method in which the spun yarn is taken up and then drawn as it is ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the fabric of Ojiya as a woven or knitted fabric having a 15% tensile stress of 0.5 to 2.0 N/cm (or 0.5 N/cm to 1.0 N/cm) in at least one direction of length direction and width direction (i.e., having a stress ratio at 15% elongation in the warp direction to the weft direction of 0.25 to 4, or 0.5 to 2), and to have provided the fibers in the form of false-twisted yarns, in order to obtain clothing excellent in wearing feeling and a material excellent in moldability (Horiguchi, see [0010] and [0017]).
With regard to the claimed equilibrium moisture content property, the examiner notes that applicant has provided at paragraphs [0029] and [0024]-[0026] of applicant’s published specification (US 2023/0287604 A1) specific structural examples which provide the structure and properties claimed. The examiner notes that, as applied above, Ojiya teaches an eccentric core-sheath fiber in which one component is preferably nylon 610 and the other component is preferably nylon 6 or nylon 66 ([0010] and [0013]-[0014]). The composite ratio is preferably 25/75 to 75/25 ([0017]). These are the same polyamides and ratios disclosed by applicant as providing the claimed property. Therefore, it is the position of the Office that the composition of Ojiya would have the claimed property as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach the same or substantially the same materials as those claimed, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Therefore, absent an objective showing to the contrary, the examiner expects the fibers taught by Ojiya in view of Horiguchi to have the claimed properties.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, as applied above, Ojiya teaches that one component is nylon 12 or nylon 610 ([0010]). The other polyamide is selected from the group consisting of nylon 6, nylon 66, nylon 4, nylon 610, nylon 11, nylon 12, and copolymers containing them as a main component ([0014]). The examiner notes that, in an embodiment (Example 2), Ojiya teaches a conjugate fiber in which one component is nylon 610 having a relative viscosity of sulfuric acid of 2.0 and the other component is nylon 6 having a relative viscosity of sulfuric acid of 2.6 (see [0024] and Table 1). As calculated by the examiner, the ratio of the viscosity of the nylon 6 component to the viscosity of the nylon 610 component is 1.3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used such viscosity ratios in both the laminated and core-sheath embodiments because Ojiya teaches such ratios providing good spinnability (Examples 1-3 and [0032).
Regarding claim 6, Ojiya teaches a fabric comprising polyamide fibers, which the examiner notes would read on the claimed resin layer (Abstract). In addition, or in the alternative, Horiguchi teaches a woven or knitted fabric for laminating with a non-woven fabric (Abstract). It is not limited in particular for this nonwoven fabric, but can apply to all the nonwoven fabrics expressed by various categories, such as a staple fiber nonwoven fabric, a continuous glass fiber nonwoven fabric, needle punch nonwoven fabrics and a paper-milling nonwoven fabric, a spun bond nonwoven fabric, a melt blow nonwoven fabric and an electrospinning nonwoven fabric ([0036] and [0063]). The examiner notes that, for instance, spun bond and melt-blow nonwoven fabrics comprise resins. Thus, Horiguchi teaches nonwoven fabrics that read on the claimed resin layer.
Regarding claim 7, Ojiya teaches obtaining a cloth suitable for pantyhose, tights, innerwear, sportswear, etc. for clothing ([0001]).
Regarding claims 9-10, Horiguchi teaches a woven or knitted fabric (Abstract).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ojiya (JP 2001159030 A, attached on 5/7/2025, including two translations) in view of Horiguchi (JP 2007197890 A, attached on 5/7/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dugan (US 2017/0145602 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ojiya in view of Horiguchi remains as applied above.
Ojiya in view of Horiguchi does not explicitly disclose wherein in a cross section of the polyamide composite fiber, the ratio (S/D) of the minimum thickness of the sheath component (S) to the fiber diameter (D) is from 0.010 to 0.100, and the ratio (L/M) of the distance (L) between the center of gravity of the composite fiber (CG) and the center of gravity of the core component (CGcore) to the length (M) of a cross section of the fiber cut along the line joining the CG and the CGcore is from 0.125 to 0.333.
However, Dugan teaches multicomponent fibers designed to curl in response to external stimuli such as heat or moisture (Abstract). The multicomponent fiber has a first cross-sectional center of mass and a cross-sectional periphery, the core component has a second cross-sectional center of mass; and the second cross-sectional center of mass is positioned from about 20 percent to about 70 percent of the distance from the first cross-sectional center of mass to a point on the cross-sectional periphery (Abstract and FIG. 3). Accordingly, and as illustrated in FIG. 5, for example, the cross-sectional center of mass of the core component 8 can be positioned anywhere within ring 12, which defines an area from about 20% to about 70% the length of line A, as measured from the multicomponent fiber's cross-sectional center of mass 6 to the multicomponent fiber's cross-sectional periphery ([0030]). The examiner notes that this range of 0.2 to 0.7 reads on the claimed limitation “the ratio (L/M) of the distance (L) between the center of gravity of the composite fiber (CG) and the center of gravity of the core component (CGcore) to the length (M) of a cross section of the fiber cut along the line joining the CG and the CGcore is from 0.125 to 0.333.”
Dugan further teaches that, in some embodiments, the core component can be substantially elliptically shaped, substantially D-shaped, or substantially crescent-shaped ([0010]). In certain embodiments, the multicomponent fiber can have a cross-sectional area comprising about a 40:60 to about a 90:10 ratio of the sheath component to the core component ([0010]). In some embodiments, the core component can have a second axis with a length about 1.1 to about 3.0, or about 1.3 to about 2.8, or about 1.5 to about 2.0 times the length of a first axis of the core component, such that the core component is a shorter, broader shape ([0031]). The examiner notes that for circular multicomponent fibers, when the core component has an elliptical shape (e.g., a shorter, broader shape) and accounts for up to 60% of the cross-sectional area of multicomponent fiber, positioning of the second cross-sectional center of mass of the core component within 20 percent to about 70 percent of the distance from the first cross-sectional center of mass to a point on the cross-sectional periphery would result in the claimed ratio (S/D) of the minimum thickness of the sheath component (S) to the fiber diameter (D) of from 0.010 to 0.100 being met.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the fiber cross-section of Ojiya in view of Horiguchi such that the cross-sectional center of mass of the core component is positioned from about 20 percent to about 70 percent of the distance from the cross-sectional center of mass of the multicomponent fiber to a point on the cross-sectional periphery, as measured from the multicomponent fiber's cross-sectional center of mass to the multicomponent fiber's cross-sectional periphery, and with a core having a short, broad elliptical shape (e.g., first axis/second axis = 1.1 to about 3.0) accounting for up to 60% of the cross-sectional area of multicomponent fiber, in order to a obtain a multicomponent thermoplastic self-bulking fiber that curls in response to external stimuli such as heat or moisture, wherein the degree of bulking or curling can be controlled while still maintaining fiber integrity and functionality, as suggested by Dugan ([0020]; also see Abstract [0010], [0028]-[0030] and FIGS. 3 and 5). (Also see [0017] of Ojiya).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “Applicant submits that Horiguchi only relates to polyesters and therefore any attempts to modify Ojiya (which is directed to polyamides which are structurally and chemically different from polyesters) based on Horiguchi would not be viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art as having a reasonable expectation of success, and a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to modify Ojiya's polyamides teachings by Horiguchi's polyester teachings.”
Regarding this contention, Horiguchi teaches that, preferably, fibers constituting the woven or knitted fabric is mainly a polyester side-by-side type conjugate fiber or eccentric sheath core type conjugate fiber (Abstract). However, Horiguchi is not limited to polyester fibers. Horiguchi teaches that the invention is a woven or knitted fabric having the disclosed properties ([0017] and claim 1). The fiber constituting the woven or knitted fabric is not particularly limited but may be a composite fiber in which two or more kinds of polyester-based polymers are mainly bonded in a side-by-side type along the fiber length direction ([0019]). Horiguchi further teaches that the stress at 15% elongation of the woven or knitted fabric for laminating a nonwoven fabric can be easily made to fall within the range of the invention by the fiber or woven or knitted fabric structure ([0052] and [0054]-[0056]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the disclosed properties could successfully be obtained with fibers other than polyester because Horiguchi teaches that the fibers are not limited and because Horiguchi further teaches that the properties can easily be provided by the fibers or the woven or knitted fabric structure.
Applicant contends the following: “As evidence of Horiguchi not being relevant to polyamides, the term "polyamide" does not appear anywhere in the disclosure of the English language translation of Horiguchi. All of the Examples of Horiguchi and all of the testing relate to polyesters. The test for measuring intrinsic viscosity (IV) as described in paragraphs [0084] and [0085] of Horiguchi involves the use of orthochlorophenol, which is used for measuring the relative viscosity of polyesters as opposed to polyamides. In view of the above, Applicant submits that there is no basis for the Examiner's reliance on Horiguchi's disclosure of a 15% tensile stress of 0.1 to 5.0 N/cm in at least one direction of length direction or width direction of the woven or knitted fabric for laminating the non-woven fabric or a density of 0.3 N/cm or more and 5.0 N/cm or less based on anything other than polyesters since no other polymers (such as polyamides) are disclosed, even less tested.”
Regarding these contentions, as discussed above, Horiguchi teaches that the fibers are not limited and that the disclosed properties can easily be provided by the fibers or the woven or knitted fabric structure ([0019], [0052], [0054]-[0056] and claim 1). Therefore, although Horiguchi does not explicitly disclose polyamide, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the disclosed properties could successfully be obtained, whether provided by the fibers or by the woven or knitted fabric structure, as taught by Horiguchi. In addition, although Horiguchi teaches use of polyester in the examples, and the use of materials used in testing the properties of said polyester, Horiguchi is not limited to the examples.
Applicant contends the following: “Further, paragraphs [0003] and [0004] of Horiguchi describe the stretchability and tense feeling problems associated with latent crimpable/crimped polyester fibers constituting nonwoven fabrics, while paragraph [0005] describes the problem to be solved by the invention is to provide a woven or knitted fabric that does not suffer from stretchability and tense feeling problems (such as those described in previous paragraphs [0003] and [0004]).
Regarding this contention, as discussed above, Horiguchi does not limit the invention to fabrics or fibers made from polyester. Horiguchi is directed, more broadly, to a woven or knitted fabric for laminating a non-woven fabric for obtaining a composite non-woven fabric which is excellent in stretchability and resilience, has no tense feeling, is excellent in surface quality, and is excellent in wearing feeling and moldability ([0001]-[0002]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been motivated to provide the fabric of Ojiya with the disclosed properties in order to obtain these benefits, including clothing excellent in wearing feeling and a material excellent in moldability, for woven and knitted fibers and fabrics, wherein the fibers of the fabrics are not particularly limited ([0002], [0019], and claim 1).
Applicant contends the following: “Dugan is directed to multicomponent fibers designed to curl (swell) in response to external stimuli such as heat or moisture (see, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0006], [0020] and [0057]). In contrast, the present disclosure describes fibers where swelling due to heat and moisture is minimized (see, e.g., paragraphs [0032] and [0036] of the published application). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no rationale for incorporating the features of Dugan in an attempt to arrive at the claimed invention due to their disparate objectives.”
Regarding this contention, Dugan teaches multicomponent fibers designed to curl in response to external stimuli such as heat or moisture (Abstract). Dugan does not limit the external stimuli, and Dugan teaches use of either heat or moisture as examples of external stimuli. Dugan also teaches, for instance, creating shrinkage in response to heat in order to promote curling of a multicomponent fiber ([0033] and [0038]). Therefore, Dugan is not limited to fibers that swell in response to heat and moisture.
Applicant contends the following: “Applicant notes that the Examiner appears to be relying on alleged inherency for satisfaction of the equilibrium moisture content recited in claim 1. Applicant therefore submits that the Examiner has not made a prima facie case of obviousness and has not met the burden of showing the following: (i) that any material and structure of a product of Ojiya and Horiguchi is substantially identical to those of the invention in terms of composition and processing, such that the above identified limitation of claim 1 could be viewed as allegedly inherent (in other words, prima facie inherency has not been established); and (ii) that if the above identified limitation is not present, it would have been obvious to have selected the particular polyamides employed and the particular uniformity and structure of the fibers so as to provide a product having the above identified limitation of claim 1 without undo experimentation and with a likelihood of success (in other words, prima facie obviousness of the proposed modification has not been established).”
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes the following: 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant discloses that methods of allowing the equilibrium moisture content to be within the range according to the present invention comprise, for example, using polyamides that give equilibrium moisture content within the range according to the present invention to obtain composite fibers (see [0031] of the published application, US 2023/0287604 A1). Applicant also discloses that examples of a first polyamide include nylon 6, nylon 66, nylon 4, nylon 610, nylon 11, nylon 12, and copolymers containing these as main components ([0024]). Examples of a second polyamide include preferably mainly nylon 610, or nylon 610 or a copolymer thereof ([0026]). A composite ratio of the polyamides (first polyamide:second polyamide) is preferably within a range of 6:4 to 4:6 (mass ratio) ([0029]). Applicant claims a sheath component comprising nylon 610 and a core component comprising nylon 6 or nylon 66 in a composite fiber. As applied above, Ojiya teaches conjugate fibers comprising the same nylon polymers in the same ratios disclosed by applicant. Ojiya teaches a laminated type or an eccentric core-sheath type fiber in which a first component is preferably nylon 610, and a second component is preferably nylon 6 or nylon 66 ([0008], [0010] and [0013]-[0014]). Ojiya also teaches that a composite ratio is preferably 25/75 to 75/25 ([0017]). In an embodiment, Ojiya further teaches an example of a conjugate fiber in which one component is nylon 610 and the other component is nylon 6, in a ratio of 4:6 ([0024] and Table 1). Therefore, Ojiya teaches compositions that are identical or substantially identical to those disclosed by applicant. Accordingly, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established, as applied above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights