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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 7, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 13, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for variations in embodiments comprising 100 layers, does not reasonably provide enablement for determining the claimed variation when there are not 100 layers. Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0045 recites that the variation in layer thickness is calculated by measuring a thickness of a layer existing on a line that vertically bisects a long side of each layer for 100 layers of one type of the polymers constituting the fiber cross section as an integer in units of nm, dividing a standard deviation of the measured thicknesses by an arithmetic mean to obtain a coefficient of variation, and rounding the coefficient of variation to a nearest integer in units of %. However, the claims do not require specifically 100 layers of one type of polymer. Additionally, Applicants’ specification recites that when the number of layer is less than 100, a total of 100 layers are obtained from cross-sections of many conjugate fibers. Applicants’ specification recites at least Examples 16 and 17 which recite 64 and 32 laminated layers respectively, but a recited variation in layer thickness without further acknowledgment of any conjugate fibers or the identity of such fibers. Additionally, Applicants’ Examples do not appear to recite exactly 100 layers, but do recite a variation in layer thickness.
Based on the specification, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill can determine the claimed variation in layer thickness for embodiments which comprise greater or less than 100 layers. Applicants’ specification appears to require 100 layers of a polymer to determine a variation in layer thickness. However, it is unclear if such a limitation is necessarily required by the claim. Additionally, in the event that exactly 100 layers are not required, such as in Applicants’ Examples, or less than 100 layers are recited, it is unclear how the variation in layer thickness is determined, as the specification does not require the additional conjugate fibers to be identical in structure or scope to the claimed conjugate fibers, as there is no indication of the variation in layer thicknesses of the many conjugate fibers. Additionally, if there are greater than 100 layers present, it is unclear which “100 layers” are identified for purposes of the variation in layer thickness, as there is no requirement for any of the layers or percentage of the layers to comprise a thickness. Therefore, the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to determine the claimed variation when other than 100 layers are present, commensurate in scope with these claims.
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 12, 13, and 16-23 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.
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 16-23, claims 12 and 19 recites a claimed variation (CV) or (CV value) in thickness as claimed. Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0045 recites that the variation in layer thickness is calculated by measuring a thickness of a layer existing on a line that vertically bisects a long side of each layer for 100 layers of one type of the polymers constituting the fiber cross section as an integer in units of nm, dividing a standard deviation of the measured thicknesses by an arithmetic mean to obtain a coefficient of variation, and rounding the coefficient of variation to a nearest integer in units of %. However, the claims do not require specifically 100 layers of one type of polymer. The claimed limitation is unclear based on the disclosure, as to what is necessarily required by the claim. Additionally, in the event that exactly 100 layers are not required, such as in Applicants’ Examples, or less than 100 layers are recited, it is unclear how the variation in layer thickness is determined.
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 USPN 3,700,545 to Matsui.
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 maximum number of layers can be 128 (Id., paragraph 0029). 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).
Regarding the claimed value, Kubota teaches an obtained drawn yarn from the composite fiber of 50d/24f (Kubota, paragraph 0034). Kubota teaches that the single fiber fineness after fibrillation is 0.1 denier or less, preferably 0.05 denier or less (Id., paragraph 0027). Since polyester is ordinarily known in the art as having a density of 1.38 g/cm3, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that a 50d/24f fiber corresponds to a denier of 2.08, which reasonably results in a diameter of 14.6µm and an area of about 167.3µm2. Based on the recited number of layers ranging from 32 or more layers and 128 layers, the average layer thickness would be about 456 nm for a 32 layer fiber, or about 114 nm for a 128 layer fiber, and a corresponding value would be about 0.0021nm-1 for a 32 layer fiber, or 0.0087nm-1 for a 128 layer fiber.
Kubota teaches that there is a variation in the single yarn denier between the filaments after fibrillation (Kubota, paragraph 0028). Kubota teaches that in order to achieve a natural fiber-like feel, softness, volume, and warmth, it is preferable for the denier to vary in this way between the filaments (Id.). Additionally, Matsui teaches a novel synthetic multi-segmented fiber having a touch similar to natural fiber, an excellent water absorbing property and improved gloss, which comprises at least 10 fine segments which are alternately laminated and composed of at least one component of fiber-forming linear polyamide and polyester, that extend substantially continuously along the longitudinal direction of the fiber and occupy at least a part of the periphery of the unitary multi-segmented fiber (Matsui, Abstract, column 3 lines 40-66). Matsui teaches that the fine segments have their cross-sectional shapes and areas irregular and uneven to each other (Id.). Matsui teaches that the multi-layer segment structure portion of the raw fibers has at last 30 segments in the cross-section of the unitary multi-segmented fiber (Id., column 9 lines 4-14). Matsui teaches that the average dimension of the segments or the average width of ridges is desired to be 0.1 to 10 µm (Id.). Matsui teaches that the raw fibers may have a layer-multiplied grainy structure (Id., Figs. 4-5), wherein a distorted grainy structure is extremely preferred from the improvement of the touch of the fibers (Id., column 5 lines 49-70).
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 thicknesses and cross-sectional shapes of the components, such that the components comprise a variation in layer thickness having the claimed value, as suggested by Kubota and Matsui, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fibrillated fiber having a layered structure known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar fibers based on the desired properties of the fibers, such as feel, softness, and touch.
Alternatively, in the event it is shown that the composition of the components necessarily result in the claimed variation, 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 substituting the polyester components with polyester and polyamide, such that the components inherently comprise a variation in layer thickness having the claimed value, as suggested by Kubota and Matsui, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fibrillated fiber comprising layered components known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar fibers based on the desired properties of the fibers, such as feel, softness, and touch.
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
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