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 5-6, 8 and 10 are pending in the application. Claims 1-4, 7, 9 and 11 have been cancelled.
The amendment to claim 1, filed on 9/4/2025, has been entered in the above-identified application.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano et al. (US 2019/0242033 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kano teaches a sea-islands type composite fiber including an island component that is a polymer having moisture absorbability, and has excellent moisture absorbability (Abstract). Specific examples of the sea component of the sea-islands type composite fiber include, but are not limited to, polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate, polyamides such as nylon 6 and nylon 66, and polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene ([0061]). The sea-islands type composite fiber has a moisture absorption rate difference (∆MR) after a hot water treatment of 2.0 to 10.0% ([0078]).
FIGS. 1(a) to 1(m) are examples of the cross-sectional shape of the sea-islands type composite fiber ([0070]). When one island component is disposed at the center of the transverse cross section of the fiber, the one island component disposed at the center is defined as one circle ([0070]). The island component is disposed to form one circle in FIGS. 1(b) and (c), two circles in FIGS. 1(a), (d), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (m), three circles in FIGS. 1(e), (g), and (l), and seven circles in FIG. 1(f) ([0070]). The examiner notes that the cross-sections shown in FIGS. 1(a) and (c)-(m) would read on the claim limitation “a figure obtained by connecting centroids of island parts disposed on an outermost periphery in a transverse section of the fiber with line segments is a regular polygon having the centroids as vertexes.”
Therefore, Kano teaches sea-island fiber cross-sections that meet the claimed limitations.
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 have provided fibers having or substantially having the symmetry and positioning shown in FIGS. 1(a) and (c)-(m) of Kano in order to obtain the advantages of Kano’s invention ([0001]).
Kano does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio C/L of a radius of curvature C (μm) of a side on a fiber surface side of an outer periphery of an island part among the island parts disposed on the outermost periphery in the transverse section of the fiber to a radius L (μm) of a circumscribed circle including the island parts disposed on the outermost periphery in the transverse section of the fiber is 0.50 to 0.90.
However, Kano teaches that the shape of the island component in the transverse cross section of the fiber in the sea-islands type composite fiber is not particularly limited, and may be a circular cross section of a perfect circle or non-circular cross section ([0072]). Specific examples of the non-circular cross section include, but are not limited to, a multifoil, a polygon, a flat shape, and an oval ([0072]). The examiner notes that for islands with a circular cross-section, the maximum value of C/L would approach 0.5 (e.g., for two circular islands of equal diameter directly next to each other, where C is the radius of each circular island and L is the radius of a circle circumscribing the two circular islands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to make the sea-islands oval-shaped as this is disclosed as a shape of the invention by Kano. It would further have been expected by or obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention that the curvature would overlap with the claimed ratio due to the shape of an oval.
Regarding claim 6, the examiner notes that the cross-sections shown in FIGS. 1(c), (d) and (k) would read on the claim limitation “wherein a number of the island parts disposed on the outermost periphery in the transverse section of the fiber is an odd number.”
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Kano teaches that the composite fiber is formed into a fiber structure such as a woven fabric or a knitted fabric, and can be used in clothing applications ([0001]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “From Example 1 (C/L: 0.81), Comparative Example 2 (C/L: 0.35), and Comparative Example 3 (C/L: 0.46) of the present application, setting C/L to 0.50-0.90 can suppress sea portion cracking (Example 1: 2 pieces, Comparative Example 2: 11 pieces, Comparative Example 3: 18 pieces) and also suppress dyeing irregularity (Example 1: 1.3%, Comparative Example 2: 6.8%, Comparative Example 3: 7.3%). This technical indication regarding the C/L specification is not described in Kano, and the C/L values of the fibers described in the examples of Kano deviate from the numerical values specified in the present application as follows: C/L values in the cited reference: Minimum: 0.02 (Example 11), maximum: 0.47 (Example 6), Average of examples: 0.16 Therefore, Kano provides no technical indication regarding C/L, and the examples fall outside the numerical range of C/L specified in the present application.”
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that, as claimed, the island parts can be any material. Therefore, applicant’s evidence, which only shows results for polymers, and only specifically for PBT-PEG polymers in the Comparative Examples, is not commensurate with scope of the claim. In addition, at least the melt viscosity of the PET sea part in Comparative Example 2 and the sea-island composite ratio in Comparative Example 3 are different from the PET melt viscosity and the sea-island composite ratio used in Example 1. Therefore, it is unclear how applicant’s examples demonstrate that the claimed fibers, including the claimed ratio C/L, result in unexpected improvements in cracking and dyeing irregularity when compared to the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6465094 B1 teaches multicomponent fibers in which the cores are preferably formed as a plurality of pie-shaped pieces surrounded by the sea of the second material.
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