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 4-7 are pending in the application. Claims 1-3 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claim 1, filed on 11/11/2025, 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 4-7 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 4 recites the limitation “the fiber cross-section.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 includes the limitations “The polyamide core-sheath composite fiber.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 includes an identical limitation and is rejected because it depends from claim 5.
Claim 5 includes the limitation “the fiber” in the last line of the claim. It is unclear what this limitation refers to. Claim 7 is rejected because it depends from claim 5.
Claim 6 includes the limitation “the polyamide core-sheath composite fiber.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saruyama (JPS61258019A, see the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Saruyama teaches an antistatic polyamide fiber, which comprises spinning a composite fiber comprising a polyamide composition (A) copolymerized with a polyalkylene ether compound and a polyamide as a core ingredient, and a polyamide as a sheath ingredient (page 3 lines 26-29). The polyamide composition (abbreviated as AE composition) obtained by copolymerizing a polyalkylene ether compound refers to a copolymer of a polyether such as a block polyether amide, a block polyether ester amide or a random polyether amide and a polyamide, and does not include a simple blend of a polyether and a polyamide (page 3, lines 33-37). In particular, a block polyether amide is suitably used because of its ease of production and good physical properties of a polyamide fiber obtained by blending the composition (page 3, lines 37-39). The examiner notes that the disclosed block polyether amides and block polyether ester amides meet the claimed polyether ester amide copolymer limitation.
The examiner further notes that in Example 1, Saruyama teaches obtaining pellets of a block polyetheramide (referred to as composition P1) (page 8, lines 12-14). A mixture obtained by blending 25% by weight of pellets composed of P1 with the poly - ε - capramide pellets was used as a core ingredient, and only the poly - ε - capramide not containing the pellets composed of P1 was used as a sheath ingredient, and both the core ingredient and the sheath ingredient were melted using an ordinary pressure melter-type composite spinning machine (page 8, lines 21-25 and FIG. 3). A core-sheath composite yarn having a core ratio of 12% by weight and a core-sheath composite yarn having a core ratio of 24% by weight were spun using the composite spinneret having “the above configuration” (page 8, lines 27-29 and FIG. 3). From the spun yarn, a multifilament yarn of 70 denier and 24 filaments was obtained (page 8, lines 22-30).
The examiner notes that Curves C and D in FIG. 1, and Nos. 15 to 28 in Table 1 of Saruyama, show results for the core-sheath composite yarns comprising 25% by weight of pellets composed of P1 in the core and a core ratio of 12% or 24% by weight (pages 8-9, lines 44-14). The examiner notes that the lowest strength value for these core-sheath composite yarns is 4.27 g/d (3.77 cN/dtex, as calculated by the examiner) and the lowest electrical specific resistance of the fibers is 0.398 x 108 Ω·cm (3.98 x 107, as calculated by the examiner).
Saruyama may not explicitly disclose a cross-sectional uniformity ratio d/R of core and sheath components in a transverse cross-section of the fiber of 0.072 or less.
However, Saruyama teaches that an ordinary pressure melter-type composite spinning machine in FIG. 3 is used in Example 1 (page 8 lines 21-25). With respect to FIG. 3, Saruyama teaches that when the center lines of 3 and 5 coincide with each other, a concentric core-sheath composite yarn is obtained, while when the center lines of 3 and 5 are shifted from each other, an eccentric core-sheath composite yarn is obtained (page 6, lines 23-26). The examiner notes that a concentric core-sheath composite yarn would have a cross-sectional uniformity ratio d/R of 0, which falls within the claimed range of 0.072 or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that Saruyama’s reference to an ordinary melter-type composite spinning machine in FIG. 3 would refer to the concentric core-sheath configuration, as opposed to the shifted configuration for eccentric core-sheath composite yarns (page 6, lines 23-26). In addition, or 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 chosen a core-sheath configuration with the expectation that the antistatic and physical properties obtained in Saruyama’s Examples would be provided, since Saruyama states that the spinning machine in FIG. 3 is an example of a die that can be used in the invention, wherein a concentric core-sheath composite yarn is one of only two yarn configurations that represent the fibers of the invention obtained by using the die, and as concentric core-sheath composite yarns would be expected to provide more uniform properties than eccentric core-sheath composite yarns (page 1, lines 3-6; page 6, lines 23-26; and page 9 lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 6, Saruyama does not explicitly disclose a fabric comprising the polyamide core-sheath composite fiber.
However, Saruyama teaches that a polyamide containing a polyalkylene ether-based compound, particularly a polyethylene oxide-based compound has an antistatic performance to suppress the generation of static electricity, and thus has been beneficially used in many clothing fields (page 3, lines 8-10).
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 the polyamide core-sheath composite fiber of Saruyama in a fabric in order to obtain clothes exhibiting excellent antistatic properties as well as excellent physical properties, as suggested by Saruyama (page 3, lines 3-22).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saruyama (JPS61258019A, see the attached machine translation), as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Morie et al. (US 2015/0159303 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Saruyama remains as applied above to claims 4 and 6.
Saruyama further teaches, in embodiment, examples in which various core-sheath composite yarns (70 deniers, 48 filaments) were experimentally produced (page 10, lines 4-9). As calculated by the examiner, the single yam fineness in these yarns would be 1.46 denier, or 1.62 dtex.
Saruyama does not explicitly disclose wherein an area ratio of a core in the transverse cross-section of the fiber is 20 to 40%.
However, Morie teaches a core-sheath conjugated fiber in which the area ratio of the core portion to the sheath portion in a transverse section of the fiber is 3/1 to 1/5 (Abstract). In view of fiber strength, dye affinity, moisture absorption properties, antistatic properties, and cool feeling by contact, the core-sheath conjugated fiber is preferably configured such that the area ratio of the core portion to the sheath portion in a transverse section of the fiber is preferably 3/1 to 1/5, more preferably 1/1 to 1/3 (i.e., as calculated by the examiner, an area ratio of the core of preferably 75% to 17%, more preferably 50 to 25%) ([0010]).
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 core-sheath conjugated fiber of Saruyama with an area ratio of 3/1 to 1/5, and more preferably 1/1 to 1/3 (i.e., an area ratio of the core of preferably 75% to 17%, more preferably 50 to 25%) in order to obtain a good balance of fiber strength, dye affinity, moisture absorption properties, antistatic properties, and cool feeling by contact properties, as suggested by Saruyama (Abstract and [0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following (with respect Saruyama): “The present application has a higher number of metering cycles for both the core and sheath, which leads to an improved d/R. For this reason, it is reasonable to consider that the d/R of Saruyama does not fall within the range of the present application... In addition, an unexpected effect of the present invention is the suppression of frequent fuzzing caused by sheath rupture due to core eccentricity as shown in the table below... On the other hand, the cited document controls the concentration and melt residence time of the antistatic agent for the purpose of controlling the dispersion of the antistatic agent and suppressing thermal degradation, but does not disclose or suggest the cross-section control "d/R" of the present application. Accordingly, it does not and cannot disclose or suggest fuzz suppression through cross-section control.”
Regarding these contentions, Saruyama teaches, with respect to FIG. 3, that when the center lines of 3 and 5 coincide with each other, a concentric core-sheath composite yarn is obtained (page 6, lines 23-26). As applied above, a concentric core-sheath composite yarn would have a cross-sectional uniformity ratio d/R of 0, which falls within the claimed range of 0.072 or less. Applicant has not presented any evidence (e.g., an affidavit) showing that the spinneret of Saruyama could not be made to produce concentric core-sheath fibers. It is also unclear how applicant’s Comparatives Examples 1 and 3 demonstrate that Saruyama’s spinneret would not produce concentric fibers. Comparative Examples 1 and 3 use a configuration described as being a “three-plate structure, core metered twice,” with Comparative Example 1 using 3 sheath component holes and an L/D ratio of 1.0, and Comparative Example 3 using 2 sheath component holes and an L/D ratio of 1.5 (Table 1). Saruyama’s FIG. 3 shows a spinneret that may have 2 sheath component holes (in the cross-section shown). However, even if applicant’s Comparative Example 3 could be directly compared to Saruyama’s spinneret, it is unclear how the single comparative example would demonstrate that Saruyama’s spinneret could not be used to spin concentric core-sheath fibers.
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