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 .
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.
Claims 12, 13, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JPH 08-246337 to Kubota in view of US Pub. No. 2010/0159241 to Liu.
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 16-23, Kubota teaches a fibrillated fiber or web having soft, swollen, and warm touches, and is excellent in antipilling property, comprising a conjugate fiber produced by joining a component (A) comprising a polyester and component (B) comprising a polyester, and having 32 or more layers, the fibrillated fiber or web having fine fibrils produced by dissolving off component (B) (Kubota, Abstract). Kubota teaches that the components are bonded in an alternately and continuously layered multi-layer structure (Id., paragraph 0014), wherein the ratio of component A to component B is from 2/1 to 10/1 (Id., paragraph 0022). Kubota teaches that the components are preferably continuous along the longitudinal direction of the filament (Id., paragraph 0015). Kubota teaches that the cross-sectional shape of the fibrillated composite fiber can be any known shape including round or a flat cross section, wherein a flat cross section is preferred (Id., paragraph 0024). Kubota teaches that the single fiber fineness after fibrillation is 0.1 denier or less, preferably 0.05 denier or less (Id., paragraph 0027). Note that a one denier polyester fiber is equivalent to about a 10 µm diameter. Kubota teaches an obtained drawn yarn from the composite fiber of 50d/24f (Id., paragraph 0034).
Kubota does not appear to teach the claimed variation in layer thickness. However, Liu teaches a similar synthetic fiber including a plurality of segment portions connected to a plurality of sacrificial portions, wherein the plurality of segment portions and the plurality of sacrificial portions are arranged alternately to each other (Lu, Abstract). Liu teaches that the material of the core and the material of the segment portions are substantially the same (Id., paragraph 0021), such as the segment portions being polyesters and the sacrificial portions being sacrificial thermoplastic polymers such as polyesters that can be removed in a subsequent manufacturing process (Id., paragraph 0030). Liu teaches that the volume ratios of each segment portion and each sacrificial portion range from 1/9 to 9/1 (Id., paragraph 0017), and that the weight ratios of each segment portion and each sacrificial portion range from 1/9 to 9/1 (Id., paragraph 0020). Liu teaches that the synthetic fiber has an overall diameter of 7-40 micrometers, wherein the width of the segment portions is about 0.1-1.5 micrometers (Id., paragraph 0031). Liu teaches that the volumes of each segment portion and each sacrificial portion may be different, wherein those skilled in the art may alter the volume ratio of the segment portions and sacrificial portions according to actual design needs (Id., paragraph 0033). Liu teaches that fibers of different strength may be obtained by adjusting the composition of the segment portions and the sacrificial portions (Id., paragraph 0038).
Based on a circular fiber and the difference in volume and weight ratios of the components and Figure 1 of Liu, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the thicknesses of the segment portions would vary. For example, Liu teaches that the volume ratios and weight ratio of the segmented portions to sacrificial portions may be 9:1, including an overall fiber diameter of 7-40 micrometers and width of the segment portions being about 0.1-1.5 micrometers. Figure 1 of Liu suggests such a structure wherein the segmented portions comprise a larger volume and/or weight than the sacrificial portions separating the segmented portions, wherein the thickness decreases from the surface to the interior of the fiber based on an annular cross-section. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that in order to accomplish the structure set forth in Liu, the thickness or width of the segmented portions would necessarily vary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fibrillated fiber of Kubota, and adjusting and varying the volume ratios of the components, such that the components comprise a variation in layer thickness having the claimed value, as suggested by Liu, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fibrillated fiber having a layered shape known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar fibers based on the desired strength and design needs.
Regarding the claimed values, the claim neither requires “a sum” to require a particular sum, for example of all the interfaces, nor does the claim requires “an area” to necessarily require a particular area, such as the total cross-sectional area. Since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and compositions as claimed, including a similar drawn yarn, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed values naturally flows from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art combination teaches that the single fiber fineness after fibrillation is 0.1 denier or less, preferably 0.05 denier or less (Kubota, paragraph 0027). Such a value would appear to overlap with the claimed average layer thickness.
Regarding claims 17, 18, 20, and 21, the prior art combination teaches forming an undrawn yarn from the composite fiber, braiding into a tubular yarn of 150 denier and dissolving component (B) (Kubota, paragraphs 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 18, as shown in at least Figs. 1 and 2, and paragraph 0024, the fibers are flat fiber, having a fineness of 0.1 denier or less (Kubota, paragraph 0027). Additionally, it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine suitable dimensions of the fibers, such as thicker or thinner fibers and the desired flat cross-sectional dimensions, having a value such as the claimed value, based on the intended application.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art combination teaches including additives such as pigments and antistatic agents during the production or molding of the polyesters (Kubota, paragraph 0019).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the prior art combination teaches fabrics made of the fibrillated fibers (Kubota, paragraph 0015).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights