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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mommaerts et al (US 3984515) in view of Glawion et al (US20160265141).
Mommaerts is directed to a naturally crimped polyacrylonitrile fiber having an asymmetrical cross section the cross section having at least two large oblong lobes, the angle between at least two of these lobes being less than 90 degree, the fiber having an outer structure which has a relatively high density and has a variable thickness, this outer structure enclosing an inner structure which is porous and less dense than the outer structure (ABST).
Mommaerts teaches a kidney bean shape (col. 6, lines 5-9).
Fig. 2a shows the oblong structure with two large oblong lobes 1 and 2 separated by notch 3 (col. 6, lines 16-34). The two large oblong lobes are equated with the first and second bulbous end portions.
The structure has a first exterior curved portion that is convex of a first length that extends between the first and second end bulbous portions as shown in Fig. 2(a) and noted as the outer structure 6 (col. 6, lines 17-40). The structure has a second exterior curved portion referred as a notch 3 that is concave and extends between the first and second bulbous end portions. The length of the first convex portion, outer structure 6, is longer than the length of the second portion, notch 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mommaerts teaches a continuous interior wall defining an inner structure 7 within the filament. Mommaerts teaches the inner structure 7 has a lower density that the periphery 6. Mommaerts differs does not teach the inner structure is an opening.
Mommaerts is silent with regard to an article of apparel. Mommaerts teaches synthetic fibers and filaments have a wide variety of uses and many very valuable properties. However, the natural characteristics of these synthetic filaments including polyester, polyacrylonitrile, and other synthetic monofilaments and similar filaments do not have an aesthetically pleasing surface texture. Fiber makers and other manufacturers have attempted to make these manmade or synthetic fibers to appear more like naturally occurring fibers i.e., wool, cotton, etc. by curling or crimping the same by a variety of mechanical or shrinkage crimping processes (col. 32-43).
The article of apparel is a statement of use and statements of use do not distinguish the article from prior art. As Mommaerts teaches the fibers are to replace natural fibers and it would have been obvious to employ the fibers in a fabric motivated to produce an article of apparel.
Glawion is directed to a spinneret for extruding self-crimping hollow fibers including at least one capillary. The at least one capillary has at least one segmented opening, which has at least two opening segments spaced apart from each other in the cross-section. A first opening segment of the at least two opening segments has a first opening-segment width and a second opening segment of the at least two opening segments has a second opening-segment width. The second opening-segment width is wider than the first opening-segment width (ABST).
Glawion shows the filament as shown in Fig. 4a and 4b, the filaments have an external surface wherein the external surface has a first, second, third and fourth sections. The first and third sections can be equated with the two end of the fibers 51 and 52 and are spaced apart. The second and fourth sections extend between the first and third sections and are spaced apart from each other to provide the capillary in the center. There is a first exterior curved portion that extends along portion 42 and a second exterior curved portion that extends along portion 40. The length of 42 and 40 are different lengths as shown in Fig. 4b.
The capillary is equated with the interior opening claimed.
FIG. 4a is a macroscopic picture of cross sections of hollow fibers 2 according to the invention. FIG. 4b shows an enlarged representation of a cross section of a hollow fiber 2 according to the invention [0046].
PNG
media_image2.png
504
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
512
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Glawion teaches the advantage of the shaped fibers is to produce high crimping intensities [0007], [0059], [0060].
With regard to claim 1, Mommaerts teaches the kidney shape with bulbous end portions and concave and convex exterior portions for produce a crimping fiber. Mommaerts does not teach a hollow interior. Glawion teaches substantially the same shape and an interior hollow portion to produce a crimping fiber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a shape wherein the first and second curved portions have different lengths motivated to produce filaments and yarns with high crimping intensities to replicate natural fibers.
Claims 2-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mommaerts et al (US 3984515) in view of Glawion et al (US20160265141) and in further view of Bennett et al (US5439626).
As to claims 2 and 3, Mommaerts and Glawion are silent with respect to the linear density.
Bennett teaches making mixed filament yarns and different filament components can be combined during spinning. Bennett teaches using filaments of different deniers, void content or cross-section may also be used to reduce filament to filament packing and improve tactile aesthetics and comfort (col. 17, lines 1-5). Bennett teaches in example 19, single hollow and solid filament components of mixed filament yarns comprised of hollow filaments of different dpf can be made (col. 27, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce the fiber and yarn of different linear density motivated to produce a hollow crimped fiber to improve tactile aesthetics and comfort.
As to claim 4, Mommaerts and Glawion differ and do not teach a blend of the filaments in a yarn. Glawion teaches the hollow irregular cross-sectional shape improves crimping properties [0050].
Bennett teaches the hollow fibers are used in the yarns and mixed with other denier fibers and/or solid fibers. Bennett teaches it is possible to have mixed filament hollow yarns with cross-sectional shapes as depicted in Fig. 17B through 17D as well as including a portion of solid filaments in Fig. 17A. Bennett teaches the advantages of the hollow filaments have the same filament and fabric volumes but such fabrics made from filaments would be lighter and less rigid (col. 9, lines 20-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a blend of irregular filaments in the yarn motivated to produce a lighter and less rigid yarn and fabric.
As to claim 5, Mommaerts and Glawion are silent with respect to the linear density.
Bennett teaches the denier or dpf of the hollow filaments ranges from 0.5 to 20 dpf which overlaps the claimed range. Table 1 (col. 30) shows the dpfs are 2.0. ). Bennett teaches in example 19, single hollow and solid filament components of mixed filament yarns comprised of hollow filaments of different dpf can be made (col. 27, lines 5-10). Bennett teaches the fabrics are lighter in weight and have the same rigidity (col. 9, lines 20-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the claimed denier in the yarns motivated to produce a lighter and less rigid yarn and fabric.
As to claim 8, Mommaerts and Glawion are silent with respect to the type of fabric and do not specifically teach a knit.
Bennett teaches a knitted fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a knit fabric from the hollow shaped fibers motivated to produce a lighter and less rigid yarn and knit fabric.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mommaerts et al (US 3984515) in view of Glawion et al (US20160265141) and Bennett et al (US5439626) and in further view of Usher, Jr (US 20190233982).
As to claims 6 and 7, Mommaerts in view of Glawion and Bennett differ and do not teach a mixture with a third fiber diameter.
Usher is directed to a multi-length, multi-denier, multi-cross section fiber blend yarn (Title). Usher teaches the yarn is formed of a blend of polyester fibers customized by three parameters (1) a combination of polyester staple fibers with staple lengths of 1.5 inches, 1.25 inches, 1.0 inch and 0.75 inch; (2) a combination of polyester staple fibers with staple deniers (tex, fineness) of 1.0 dpf, 1.2 dpf, and 1.5 dpf; and (3) a combination of polyester staple fibers with at least two different staple cross sections (ABST), [0017]-[0020].
Usher teaches the yarns are used in the specialized market for garments for athletic and leisurewear [0002]. Usher teaches the fabrics are desired for moisture management and hand properties [0008], [0012], [0017], [0019], [0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the three fiber types in a yarn motivated to produce the desired moisture management and hand characteristics.
As to claim 11, Mommaerts in view of Glawion and Bennett and do not teach an article of apparel is a shirt.
Usher teaches the fabric is for use in garments and notes a shirt [0010]. The claim is directed to a statement of intended use and does not further distinguish the invention from prior art. As Usher teaches the inventive fabric is used for garments such as shirts and athletic apparel, Usher meets the claim limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a shirt from the hollow kidney shaped yarns motivated to produce a lighter weight fabric provided by the crimped hollow fibers.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mommaerts et al (US 3984515) in view of Glawion et al (US20160265141) and Bennett et al (US5439626) and in further view of Honda et al (US 6592858).
As to claims 9 and 10, Mommaerts, Glawion and Bennett differ and do not teach a bioceramic print layer.
Honda is directed to a fiber structure having deodorizing or antibacterial property (Title). Honda teaches the invention relates to a fibre structure which has, on the fibre surface, a complex oxide comprising titanium and silicon, plus a binder. The coating provides a fibre structure having durable deodorant properties, antibacterial properties, antifungal properties or anti-soiling properties (ABST). The coating provides the desired deodorant function and equated with a functional layer (col. 2, lines 57-68, col. 3, lines 1-12).
A complex oxide is a ceramic material and with regard to bioceramic as Applicant’s specification states that the bioceramics are oxides, the oxides of Honda are equated with the claimed bioceramic.
Honda teaches the coating can be applied by printing (col. 7, lines 3-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an functional coating of a bioceramic motivated to provide for deodorizing properties.
Claims 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usher, Jr (US 20190233982) in view of Wada et al (US 4263777) and Mommaerts et al (US 3984515).
As to claim 12, Usher is directed to a multi-length, multi-denier, multi-cross section fiber blend yarn (Title). Usher teaches the yarn is formed of a blend of polyester fibers customized by three parameters (1) a combination of polyester staple fibers with staple lengths of 1.5 inches, 1.25 inches, 1.0 inch and 0.75 inch; (2) a combination of polyester staple fibers with staple deniers (tex, fineness) of 1.0 dpf, 1.2 dpf, and 1.5 dpf; and (3) a combination of polyester staple fibers with at least two different staple cross sections (ABST), [0017]-[0020].
Usher teaches the yarns are used in the specialized market for garments for athletic and leisurewear [0002]. Usher teaches the staples are in the claimed denier range of 1 dpf, 1.2 dpf and 1.5 dpf which is within the claimed range of 0.5 to 2 dpf. Usher teaches 54% by weight of staple lengths of 1.25 inches or greater [0047].
Wada is directed to a roving formed from a first kind of staple fibers, each of which is at least 3 denier, is interposed with a randomly mixed sliver formed from a second kind of staple fibers, each of which is between 1.5 denier and 3 denier, and a third kind of staple fibers, each of which is at most 1.5 denier, the thermal shrinkage of the second kind of staple fibers being higher than that of the third kind of staple fibers (ABST).
Wada teaches a blend of three different denier fibers and teaches the staple fibers constituting the innermost portion may be natural fibers, man-made fibers or a mixture thereof. The cross sectional shape of the staple fibers is not limited. In other words, the shape of the staple fibers may be a circular shape or a modified cross section, such as a trilobal (col. 3, lines 45-50). Some examples of the modified cross sections applicable to the first part of staple fibers and the second kind of staple fibers B are illustrated in FIGS. 6A through 6F, wherein in FIG. 6A, a modified hollow trilobal shape is illustrated, in FIG. 6B, a cross shape cross section is illustrated; FIGS. 6C and 6F illustrate star shapes; and FIG. 6D and 6E illustrate hollow and solid trilobal shapes (col. 8, lines 42-50).
Wada teaches in Example 1 each filament has different crimp elasticities and shape and this provides for desired bulkiness and thermal shrinkage (col. 9 and 10 and table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a yarns of three types of fibers of different denier and different shapes.
Usher in view of Wada differ and do not teach the kidney shape as claimed.
Usher differs and does not teach one of the fibers has a kidney shape.
Mommaerts is directed to a naturally crimped polyacrylonitrile fiber having an asymmetrical cross section the cross section having at least two large oblong lobes, the angle between at least two of these lobes being less than 90 degree, the fiber having an outer structure which has a relatively high density and has a variable thickness, this outer structure enclosing an inner structure which is porous and less dense than the outer structure (ABST).
Mommaerts teaches a kidney bean shape (col. 6, lines 5-9).
Fig. 2a shows the oblong structure with two large oblong lobes 1 and 2 separated by notch 3 (col. 6, lines 16-34). The two large oblong lobes are equated with the first and second bulbous end portions.
The structure has a first exterior curved portion that is convex of a first length that extends between the first and second end bulbous portions as shown in Fig. 2(a) and noted as the outer structure 6 (col. 6, lines 17-40). The structure has a second exterior curved portion referred as a notch 3 that is concave and extends between the first and second bulbous end portions. The length of the first convex portion, outer structure 6, is longer than the length of the second portion, notch 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mommaerts teaches a continuous interior wall defining an inner structure 7 within the filament. Mommaerts teaches the inner structure 7 has a lower density that the periphery 6. Mommaerts differs does not teach the inner structure is an opening.
Mommaerts is silent with regard to an article of apparel. Mommaerts teaches synthetic fibers and filaments have a wide variety of uses and many very valuable properties. However, the natural characteristics of these synthetic filaments including polyester, polyacrylonitrile, and other synthetic monofilaments and similar filaments do not have an aesthetically pleasing surface texture. Fiber makers and other manufacturers have attempted to make these man-made or synthetic fibers to appear more like naturally occurring fibers i.e., wool, cotton, etc. by curling or crimping the same by a variety of mechanical or shrinkage crimping processes (col. 32-43).
The article of apparel is a statement of use and statements of use do not distinguish the article from prior art. As Mommaerts teaches the fibers are to replace natural fibers and it would have been obvious to employ the fibers in a fabric motivated to produce an article of apparel.
With regard to claim 12, Usher teaches a blend of staple fibers in with the claimed denier and length. Mommaerts teaches the kidney shape with bulbous end portions and concave and convex exterior portions for produce a crimping fiber to provide man-made fibers that exemplify natural fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a shape wherein the first and second curved portions have different lengths motivated to produce filaments and yarns with high crimping intensities to replicate natural fibers.
As to claim 14, Usher teaches the fibers can be 1 dpf, 1.2 dpf and 1.5 dpf which are all in the claimed range of 0.95 to 1.7 dpf.
As to claims 15 and 16, Usher teaches the fabric is made from a yarn with three different deniers.
As to claim 17, Usher teaches the staples are in the claimed denier range of 1 dpf, 1.2 dpf and 1.5 dpf which is within the claimed range.
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usher, Jr (US 20190233982) in view of Wada et al (US 4263777) in view of Mommaerts et al (US 3984515) and Glawion et al (US20160265141).
As to claims 13 and 21, Usher is directed to a multi-length, multi-denier, multi-cross section fiber blend yarn (Title). Usher teaches the yarn is formed of a blend of polyester fibers customized by three parameters (1) a combination of polyester staple fibers with staple lengths of 1.5 inches, 1.25 inches, 1.0 inch and 0.75 inch; (2) a combination of polyester staple fibers with staple deniers (tex, fineness) of 1.0 dpf, 1.2 dpf, and 1.5 dpf; and (3) a combination of polyester staple fibers with at least two different staple cross sections (ABST), [0017]-[0020].
Usher does not teach kidney shaped fibers (claim 13) nor C shaped fibers (claim 21).
Wada is directed to a roving formed from a first kind of staple fibers, each of which is at least 3 denier, is interposed with a randomly mixed sliver formed from a second kind of staple fibers, each of which is between 1.5 denier and 3 denier, and a third kind of staple fibers, each of which is at most 1.5 denier, the thermal shrinkage of the second kind of staple fibers being higher than that of the third kind of staple fibers (ABST).
Wada teaches a blend of three different denier fibers and teaches the staple fibers constituting the innermost portion may be natural fibers, man-made fibers or a mixture thereof. The cross sectional shape of the staple fibers is not limited. In other words, the shape of the staple fibers may be a circular shape or a modified cross section, such as a trilobal (col. 3, lines 45-50). Some examples of the modified cross sections applicable to the first part of staple fibers and the second kind of staple fibers B are illustrated in FIGS. 6A through 6F, wherein in FIG. 6A, a modified hollow trilobal shape is illustrated, in FIG. 6B, a cross shape cross section is illustrated; FIGS. 6C and 6F illustrate star shapes; and FIG. 6D and 6E illustrate hollow and solid trilobal shapes (col. 8, lines 42-50).
Wada teaches in Example 1 each filament has different crimp elasticities and shape and this provides for desired bulkiness and thermal shrinkage (col. 9 and 10 and table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a yarns of three types of fibers of different denier and different shapes.
Usher in view of Wada differ and do not teach the kidney shape as claimed.
Mommaerts teaches kidney shaped fibers which are essentially and equivalent to C shaped fibers but differs and does not teach the kidney shaped fibers have an interior opening.
Glawion is directed to a spinneret for extruding self-crimping hollow fibers including at least one capillary. The at least one capillary has at least one segmented opening, which has at least two opening segments spaced apart from each other in the cross-section. A first opening segment of the at least two opening segments has a first opening-segment width and a second opening segment of the at least two opening segments has a second opening-segment width. The second opening-segment width is wider than the first opening-segment width (ABST).
Glawion shows the filament as shown in Fig. 4a and 4b, the filaments have an external surface wherein the external surface has a first, second, third and fourth sections. The first and third sections can be equated with the two end of the fibers 51 and 52 and are spaced apart. The second and fourth sections extend between the first and third sections and are spaced apart from each other to provide the capillary in the center. There is a first exterior curved portion that extends along portion 42 and a second exterior curved portion that extends along portion 40. The length of 42 and 40 are different lengths as shown in Fig. 4b.
The capillary is equated with the interior opening claimed.
FIG. 4a is a macroscopic picture of cross sections of hollow fibers 2 according to the invention. FIG. 4b shows an enlarged representation of a cross section of a hollow fiber 2 according to the invention [0046].
PNG
media_image2.png
504
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
512
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Glawion teaches the advantage of the shaped fibers is to produce high crimping intensities [0007], [0059], [0060].
With regard to claims 13 and 21, Mommaerts teaches the kidney shape with bulbous end portions and concave and convex exterior portions for produce a crimping fiber. Mommaerts does not teach a hollow interior. Glawion teaches substantially the same shape and an interior hollow portion to produce a crimping fiber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a shape wherein the first and second curved portions have different lengths motivated to produce filaments and yarns with high crimping intensities to replicate natural fibers.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usher, Jr (US 20190233982) in view of Wada et al (US 4263777) and Mommaerts et al (US 3984515) and Honda et al (US 6592858).
As to claims 18 and 19, Usher, Wada, Mommaerts differs and does not teach a bioceramic print layer.
Honda is directed to a fiber structure having deodorizing or antibacterial property (Title). Honda teaches the invention relates to a fibre structure which has, on the fibre surface, a complex oxide comprising titanium and silicon, plus a binder. The coating provides a fibre structure having durable deodorant properties, antibacterial properties, antifungal properties or anti-soiling properties (ABST). The coating provides the desired deodorant function and equated with a functional layer (col. 2, lines 57-68, col. 3, lines 1-12).
A complex oxide is a ceramic material and with regard to bioceramic as Applicant’s specification states that the bioceramics are oxides, the oxides of Honda are equated with the claimed bioceramic.
Honda teaches the coating can be applied by printing (col. 7, lines 3-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an functional coating of a bioceramic motivated to provide for deodorizing properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection for the word bulbous has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection over Bennett and Glawion have been fully considered and are persuasive and the rejections withdrawn. Bennett and Glawion do not teach kidney shaped fibers. Similarly the rejections including Usher and Honda and Wada are revised per the amendments as the references do not teach a kidney shaped fiber.
Applicants amendments and arguments are persuasive and new grounds of rejection presented in this office action include reference to Mommaerts for teaching the claimed kidney shape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aneja (US 6013368)
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 A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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 STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789