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, 4-5, 7, cancellation of claims 2-3 and 11-12, in the response filed January 8, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-16 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claims 8-10 and 13-16 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards the non-elected invention.
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 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/179803 to Yasutomo and US Pub. No. 2012/0121882 to Okaya and US Pub. No. 2016/0040323 to Steffen.
NOTE: US Pub. No. 2020/0024774 is being used as an English equivalent of WO 2018/179803 for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-7, Yasutomo teaches a conjugate fiber for artificial hair including a core part and a sheath parts (core-sheath conjugate fiber) comprising a core, including a polyester-based resin comprising a polyester-based resin, and a sheath, including a polyamide-based resin composition comprising a polyamide-based resin, that covers the core, wherein the fiber has a core-sheath area ratio of 2:8 to 7:3 and an eccentricity of 5% or more, more preferably 10% or more and 30% or less, in a cross section thereof (Yasutomo, abstract, para 0066, 0025). Yasutomo shows the fiber cross-section having a flat bilobed shape and a core cross-section has an elliptical shape with a major axis of the core cross-section being in a direction that substantially coincides with a direction of a major axis of the fiber cross-section (Id., Fig. 1&2, para 0010-0012, 0024-0028). Yasutomo teaches the eccentricity makes it possible to obtain fibers with natural crimpability while preventing the core part from being exposed on the surface with a value of 5% or more and exemplified an eccentricity in the major axis (Id., para 0025-0028). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have appreciated that the eccentricity of a cross section encompasses offset from the major axis and/or the minor axis.
Yasutomo does not explicitly teach the eccentricity ratio of the fiber in the minor axis direction as defined in the claim being in a range from 10% to 25%.
However, Okaya teaches a crimped composite core-sheath fiber having an eccentricity of 5 to 50%, wherein the eccentricity is calculated from the centroid of the core component and the centroid of the fiber divided by the radius and is applicable to fibers cross-sections and core cross-sections that are not circular (Okaya, abstract, para 0078-0080). Okaya teaches the shape of the fiber cross-section of the second component (core) being other than circular, including oval, Y, X, #, polygonal, star, and various other shapes and the shape of the cross-section of the conjugate fiber may be other than circular, including oval, Y, X, #, polygonal, star, and various other shapes (Id., para 0079), indicating that the fiber cross-section and the core cross-section being open to having a flat shape, including a flat multilobed shape (claim 2) and/or elliptical shape (claim 3) and open to offset from the major and/or minor axis.
Additionally, Steffen teaches a multicomponent fiber that is ribbon shaped selected to have polymer components of different shrinkage behaviors and teaches the ribbon-shaped cross-section have an aspect ratio greater than 1.5, including oval and bilobed (Steffen, abstract, para 0036-0041, Fig. 5B, 5C, 5D). Steffen shows the difference in the crimped structural resulting from the components being arranged side-by-side across the minor axis versus the component being arranged side-by-side across the major axis (Id., Figs. 1-4, para 0018-0021, 0034-0035). When arranged side-by-side across the minor axis, the center of the individual component would be offset from the center of the fiber cross section in the minor axis. Steffen teaches this arrangement results in the fiber shrinking in a more predictable way and producing a more compact structure that is more difficult to compress than the regular round self-crimping bicomponent fibers (Id., para 0034). Steffen shows the resultant crimp being curled vs a helix shape from the offset being in the major axis (Id., Fig. 2 and 4, para 0034-0035). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would appreciate that the crimp in Fig. 2 appears similar to the shape resultant from a curling iron. Therefore, Steffen establishes the orientation of components, such as offset relative to the minor axis, as defined in the claim, or the major axis, as defined in the claim, influences the resultant crimp structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fiber of Yasutomo, wherein the eccentricity is relative to the minor axis as taught by Steffen, motivated by the desire of forming conjugate fiber having eccentricity of the cross-section to form crimping and known relative to the centroid of the fiber cross-section relative to the centroid of the core component as taught by Okaya and in order to crimp in a more predictably manner and based upon the desired crimp structure and shape as taught by Steffen.
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 10% to 25%, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant 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, vary, and optimize the eccentricity, 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 as well as to adjust the crimp and avoid the core from being exposed on the surface.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art combination teaches the a ratio of the length of the major axis of the fiber cross section to a length of a first minor axis of the cross section being 1.10 or more and 3.00 or less, more preferably 1.20 or more and 2.00 or less, where the first minor axis of the fiber cross section is a longest straight line formed when any two points on the outer circumference of the fiber cross section are connected perpendicular to the major axis of the fiber cross section (Yasutomo, para 0029). The prior art combination teaches the fiber keeping favorable touch and appearance when the ratio is kept within this range (Id.).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches a ratio of a length of a major axis of the core part to a length of a first axis of a first minor part of the core part being 1.10 or more and 3.00 or less, more preferably 1.20 or more and 2.00 or less, where the major axis of the core part is a longest straight line among symmetrical axes of the core part and straight lines that connect any two points on an outer circumference of the core part and that extend parallel to the symmetrical axes of the core part and the first minor axis of the core part is a longest straight line formed when any two points on the outer circumference of the core part are connected perpendicular to the major axis of the core part (Yasutomo., para 0035). The prior art combination teaches the ratio being within the claimed range makes it possible to prevent separation of the fibers due to separation of the two components and the exposure of the core part while keeping favorable touch and appearance (Id.).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of a ratio of 1.3 or more and 2.0 or less, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant 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, vary, and optimize the ratio, 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 and ensure the prevention of separation of the fibers due to separation of the two component and exposure of the core part while keeping favorable touch and appearance.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches the polyester-based resin composition comprising 100 parts by weight of at least one polyester resin, including polyalkylene terephthalate (Yasutomo, para 0043-0044).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art combination teaches the polyamide-based resin being nylon 6 or nylon 66 (Yasutomo, para 0054, 0058).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Yasutomo, Okayama and Steffen, that Yasutomo does not disclose the eccentricity ratio of the fiber in the minor direction, while Okaya appears to describe an eccentric core-sheath conjugate fiber having an eccentricity ratio preferably 5% to 50% , mor preferably 7% to 30%, however, the eccentricity ratio appears to indicate how much the centroid position of the second component is shifted from the centroid position of the conjugate fiber and differs from the claim eccentricity ratio in the minor axis, and that Steffen appears directed toe side-by-side configuration and fails to disclose or suggest that the conjugate fiber composed of a core and a sheath covering the core has an eccentricity ratio in the minor axis direction of 10% to 25%. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The prior art is being relied upon for the concept taught. Yasutomo teaches an eccentricity of 5% or more in cross section, more preferrable 10% to 30%. Yasutomo teaches the claimed cross section. Yasutomo does show the eccentricity being in the major axis, however, Yasutomo does not limit nor define the eccentricity to being only in the major axis. Steffen teaches the impact on fiber crimping by the orientation or position of the different polymers, specifically varying in the minor axis versus the major axis. Steffen teaches the cross section of the bicomponent fiber being side-by-side or sheath-core cross-section (Steffen, para 0033). While the preferred embodiment of Steffen is side-by-side configuration, the teaching would also be applicable to other cross-sections, including sheath-core, as explicitly mentioned by Steffen. This supported by US Pub. No. 2020/0087820 to Suzuki, cited of interest in the Office Action mailed November 5, 2025. Suzuki teaches an eccentric core-sheath fiber comprising two polymers , including polyalkylene terephthalate polymers and teaches that is important that the center of gravity “a” of the core should be apart from the center of gravity C of the cross-section of the composition fiber in order to make the fiber bend considerably towards the high-shrinkage-ingredient side upon heat treatment. Therefore, the bend, or crimp, of the fiber would be towards the high shrinkage ingredient side, in the case of Yasutomo, the core. Positioning towards the minor axis would result in crimping towards minor axis and vice-a-versa. Okaya teaches a predictably suitable eccentricity ratio that is applicable in non-circular cross section, which would have major and minor axis. Based on the eccentricity ratios taught by Okaya, suitable for use in non-circular cross section, and the effect of positioning in the major axis and minor axis as taught by Steffen, one of ordinary skill in the art to form the fiber of Yasutomo, wherein the eccentricity is relative to the minor axis as taught by Steffen, motivated by the desire of forming conjugate fiber having eccentricity of the cross-section to form crimping and known relative to the centroid of the fiber cross-section relative to the centroid of the core component as taught by Okaya and in amount suitably taught by both Yasutomo and Okaya and in order to crimp in a more predictably manner and based upon the desired crimp structure and shape as taught by Steffen. Applicant has provided no evidence that the prior art combination would not behave as expected nor unexpected results. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 3,642,565 teaches composite filament having crimping properties having a core-sheath structure as well as a combination core sheath and side-by-side structure.
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