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 § 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.
Claim 2 is 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.
In claim 2, lines 2 and 3 are unclear. It is unclear how the resin composition comprises 100 percent parts by weight of the main resin component, and still comprise parts by weight of other components recited. Based on a reading of paragraph 44 of the instant specification, it appears that line 2 and 3 should read –comprises, based on 100 parts by weight of the main resin component,--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al KR1020100045626 (cited by applicant).
With regard to claim 8, Kim et al discloses a method for (capable of) producing the polyamide hollow fiber for use as artificial hair according to claim 1, the method comprising melting and spinning a resin composition using a hollow fiber forming nozzle (see page 9, line 8 of translation which discloses a spinneret having an opening (nozzle)), wherein the resin composition comprises a polyamide resin (page 3, line 3 of translation) as a main resin component.
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 1-7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al KR1020100045626 (cited by applicant) in view of Toshiyuki JP2008285772 (cited by applicant) and Moon et al 20060237869.
With regard to claim 1, Kim et al disclose a polyamide (see page 3, line 3 of translation) hollow fiber for use as artificial hair, the fiber having a bore, the bore having a polygonal shape (see page 7, line 10 of translation which discloses that the bore may have a star shape, which is a polygonal shape) that includes a first side approximately perpendicular to the long axis of the cross-section of the fiber; and a second side approximately perpendicular to the long axis of the cross-section of the fiber (these sides of the bore are inherently approximately perpendicular to the long axis of the cross section of the fiber, since they extend longitudinally along the bore), the fiber comprised of a resin composition comprising a polyamide resin as a main resin component (see page 6, line 24),
wherein
a bending stiffness of the fiber is from 1.5 x 10-3 to 5.5 x 10-3 gf cm2/yarn (see table 2 which discloses a bending stiffness of 4.6 x 10-3 to 5.5 x 10-3 gf cm2/yarn which includes values that fall within applicant’s claimed range).
Kim et al do not disclose a void fraction of the fiber is from 15 to 40%.
Toshiyuki discloses a hollow fiber that may have a void fraction (hollow ratio) of from 10% to 50%, which includes the range as claimed by applicant. See page 7, lines 8-9 of the translation.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the fiber disclosed by Kim et al with a void fraction from 15 to 40%, in view of the teaching of Toshiyuki et al that an artificial hair fiber may have a void fraction (hollow ratio) of from 10% to 50%.
Kim et al/Toshiyuki do not disclose that a specific gravity of the fiber is from 0.80 to 1.10.
Moon et al discloses a fiber that may be used for artificial hair, where the specific gravity of the fiber may be from 0.80 to 1.10. See paragraph 14 which discloses that the specific gravity may be 1.21 or less, and paragraph 58 which discloses that the specific gravity may be 1.07, which falls within applicant’s claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the fiber of Kim et al/Toshiyuki with a specific gravity of 1.07, in view of the teaching of Moon et al that the specific gravity of a fiber should be less than 1.21, and may be 1.07.
With regard to claims 2,4,5 note that Kim et al discloses that the resin composition may comprise 10-30 parts by weight (paragraphs 31,32)) of a flame retardant (bromoepoxy resin) and 0.5 parts by weight of a flame retardant aid (antimony trioxide). See page 4, lines 1-8 and page 6, lines 27-28 of the translation.
With regard to claim 3, note that Kim et al discloses that the resin composition comprises at least one polyamide resin selected from the group consisting of polyamide 6 and polyamide 66. See page 4, lines 9-10 of the translation.
With regard to claims 6 and 7 note that Kim et al, as modified above, discloses a head decoration article comprising the polyamide hollow fiber according to claim 1. See page 7, lines 30-31 of the translation of Kim et al which discloses a wig.
Claims 9 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al KR1020100045626 (cited by applicant) in view of Toshiyuki JP2008285772 (cited by applicant) and Moon et al 20060237869, and further in view of Sato 2006/0275603.
With regard to claim 9, Kim et al, as modified above, does not disclose that the polygonal shape is tetragonal, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, or octagonal. However, it is noted that Kim et al disclose that the cross sectional polygonal shape disclosed is not limited to a particular shape. See page 7, lines 9-11.
Sato discloses an artificial fiber which may have a hexagonal cross section. See paragraph 13.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the cross sectional polygonal shape of Kim et al (as modified above) with a hexagonal shape, in view of the teaching of Sato that a hexagonal shape may be used for a cross section of an artificial fiber.
With regard to claim 10, it is noted that a hexagon may be considered to be a “flat, multilobed shape”, inasmuch as the “lobes” of the pentagon are “flat” (flat sides).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772