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 .
Amendments to claim 1 and the cancellation of claims 11-15 and 20-21, in the response filed December 5, 2025, have been entered.
Claims 16-19 and 22 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “a variation coefficient CV of a rotation angle of a long axis of the flat hollow fiber” in claim 16 is interpreted as described in para 0080-0081 of the originally filed disclosure.
The limitation “flatness” in claim 17 is interpreted as described in para 0073 or the originally filed disclosure.
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 17-19 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 17 recite the limitation “wherein the flat hollow fiber has a flatness of 1.2 or more in a fiber cross section.” It is unclear if the claim refers to limiting one of the plurality of flat hollow fibers or each of the flat hollow fiber in the plurality of fibers.
Claim 18 recite the limitation “wherein the flat hollow fiber is made of at least two kinds of polymers having different melting points in a fiber cross section.” It is unclear if the claim refers to limiting one of the plurality of flat hollow fibers or each of the flat hollow fiber in the plurality of fibers.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the flat hollow fiber includes an opening portion formed in a direction from a fiber center to a fiber surface, and a width of the opening portion is 10% or less of a fiber diameter.” It is unclear if the claim refers to limiting on of the plurality of flat hollow fibers or each of the flat hollow fiber in the plurality of fibers.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “[a] fiber product partially comprising the multifilament according to claim 16.” It is unclear the intended scope of “partially comprising” and if the claimed directed towards a portion of the multifilament, such as one of the flat hollow fibers being contained in the fiber product, the multifilament as claimed, or a product formed from the multifilament but subjected to additional treatment and processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 16-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 03-167336 to Toyo in view of USPN 5,356,582 to Aneja.
NOTE: The English machine translation provided by Applicant is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 16-17 and 22, Toyo teaches a multifilament yarn comprising a plurality of filament B with a flatness of 3 or more (claim 17) (plurality of flat fibers) distributed with an irregularity degree of 20% or more represent by the CV value of the angle of the long axis of the flat filament with respect to the reference line (Toyo, abstract, p. 3, 6, Fig. 3), reading on a variation coefficient CV of a rotation angle of a long axis of each flat fiber within the plurality of flat fibers being greater than 20%. Toyo teaches when the angle is less than 20%, the angels are substantially the same and there is no difference such that the interfilament space is small and the warmth inferior (Id., p. 6). Toyo teaches the orientation in the irregular direction results in proper dry touch and unique natural color tone and gloss (Id.). Toyo teaches embodiment comprising multifilament B having a flat cross section and a CV % of 50% (Id., Table 1, p. 8-9). A yarn is a fiber product (claim 22). Toyo also teaches the multifilament being used to form a fabric (Id., p. 8), also reading on a fiber product comprising the multifilament (claim 22).
Toyo does not explicitly teach the plurality of flat fibers being a plurality of flat hollow fibers.
However, Aneja teaches continuous hollow filaments have significant advantages over solid filament including increased cover (opacity), lighter weight fabrics with comparable tensile strength, increased insulation, a dry/crisp hand which enhances the “body” and drape characteristics (Aneja, abstract, col. 4 lines 48-60). Aneja teaches a filaments being polyester flat hollow filament yarns (Id., col. 1 lines 35-50, col. 5 lines 35-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the filament yarn of Toyo, wherein the flat filament B are hollow flat filaments as taught by AN, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known filament cross section predictably suitable for use in polyester yarn and by the desire to impart increased cover, lighter wight, increased insulation and a dry/crisp hand as taught by Aneja.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 03-167336 to Toyo in view of USPN 5,356,582 to Aneja, as applied to claims 16-77 and 22 above, further in view of JP 2017-115254 to Matsuura.
NOTE: The English machine translation provided by Applicant is being used for prior art mapping of JP 03-167336 and the English Machine translation mailed October 2, 2025 is being used for prior art mapping of JP 2017-115254.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art combination does not explicitly teach the flat hollow fiber being made of at least two kinds of polymers having different melting points in a fiber cross section.
However, Matsuura teaches a multilayer laminate fiber having good physical properties such as abrasion resistance and feeling while having high light reflection and excellent aesthetic property (Matsuura, abstract). Matsuura teaches the fiber having a cross section structure with 2 or more kinds of polymers laminated alternatively, including a flat plate-shaped alternately laminated fiber or containing a hollow portion (Id., abstract, p. 5, 9). Matsuura teaches the use of polymers having different refractive indices, such as polyethylene terephthalate or polyethylene naphthalate on the high refractive index side and a polyester copolymerized with one or more component selected from spiroglycol, cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid, and 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol (Id., p. 11), reading on the fiber being made of at least two kinds of polymers having different melting points in a fiber cross section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the multifilament yarn of the prior art combination, wherein the flat fiber is a multilayer laminate fiber as taught by Matsuura, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known materials predictably suitable for use in flat fibers or hollows fiber as well as to impart good physical properties such as abrasion resistance and feeling while having high light reflection and excellent aesthetic property.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 03-167336 to Toyo in view of USPN 5,356,582 to Aneja, as applied to claims 16-77 and 22 above, further in view of DE 3,011,118 to Stapp.
NOTE: The English machine translation provided by Applicant is being used for prior art mapping of JP 03-167336.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art combination teaches the filament having a total filament void content by volume of at least about 10%, such as two longitudinal voids (opening portion formed in a direction from a fiber center to a fiber surface) symmetrically-located on either side of a solid portion in an elliptical cross-section as shown in Fig. 1 of DE 3,011,118 to Stapp (Aneja, col. 5 lines 48-54) Stapp shows two circular voids (Stapp, Fig. 1). Strap also show 4 void (Id., Fig. 2) Aneja also a filament having three or four longitudinal voids (Aneja., col. 5 lines 53-61). At a flatness of 3 and 2 equally sized circular voids, the ratio of diameter of the void circle to the minor axis width and major axis width, respectively is 38.7% and 12.9%, based on a void volume of 10%. At a flatness of 3 and 2 equally sized circular voids, the ratio of diameter of the void circle to the minor axis width and major axis width, respectively is 38.7% and 12.9%, based on a void volume of 10%. At a flatness of 3 and 4 equally sized circular voids, the ratio of diameter of the void circle to the minor axis width and major axis width, respectively is 27.4% and 6.8%, based on a void volume of 10%. While the prior art combination does not explicitly teach a width of the an opening portion being 10% or less of a fiber diameter, the width of one of the opening portion being 10% is less of the minor axis (fiber diameter) overlaps with the claimed range. 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). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the percent void volume and void count, and therefore the width of the individual void, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2006161263 to Kuawayama teaches a core-sheath conjugate fiber having a core component exposed on the fiber surface that is an elution-type hollow cross-section fiber.
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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights