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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the claims filed January 13, 2026, in which claims 1-14 were presented for examination, of which claims 1-3 and 9-14 were withdrawn due to not being included in the elected embodiment, and claims 4-8 were amended, are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claim(s) 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kazuyoshi Yoshida “Yoshida”(JP6685071B2) in view of Borrell et al. “Borrell” (US Patent 5,051,110).
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 4-6 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi Yoshida “Yoshida”(JP6685071B2) in view of Borrell et al. “Borrell” (US Patent 5,051,110).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida discloses a method for producing an aramid spun
yarn, comprising applying the para- aramid staple fiber according to claim 1 to a ring
spinning process to produce an aramid spun yarn (Page 2, line: 10 (starting with “(1)
Twist yarn spun yarn”) to line: 16, and Page 5, Par. 5 (starting with “Example 1
Polyparaphenylene), last 8 lines of Par. 5) having a Ne16 to Ne30 single yarn (Page
5, Par. 5 (starting with “Example 1 Polyparaphenylene), last 5 lines of Par. 5.
Examiner notes a “cotton count of 20s” is well known as Ne20) and a twist
multiplier in the range of 2.0 to 4.0 (Page 5, Par. 5 (starting with “Example 1
Polyparaphenylene), last 5 lines of Par. 5. Examiner notes a “twist coefficient of
2.9” is within the claimed range), and
wherein the para-aramid staple fiber has an elongation of 4.1% to 6% (shown as an elongation of 4.5% in Example 1 of Machine Translated Table 2 below) and a strength of 15 to 24 g/d (Examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the tensile strength of 13.4 cN/dtex in Example 1 is within the Applicants claimed range).
PNG
media_image1.png
1506
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 2 – Machine Translated
Yoshida is silent regarding wherein the ring spinning process includes a carding process at a speed of 30 kg/hr or more.
However, Borrell teaches yet another fiber produced from ring spinning, wherein Borrell teaches the ring spinning process includes a carding process at a speed of 30 kg/hr or more (Col. 9, lines: 51-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ring spinning process of Yoshida, to include a carding process at a speed of 30 kg/hr or more as taught by Borrell, in order to create a structurally stable fiber. Incorporating a carding process at a speed of 30 kg/hr or more into Yoshida’s ring spinning process would have been a predictable use of a known technique, that leads to a reasonable expectation of success, and is well known for ring spinning processes.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida in view of Borrell disclose the aramid spun yarn has a twist multiplier of Ne 20 single yarn in the range of 2.0 to 4.0 (Page 5, Par. 5 (starting with “Example 1 Polyparaphenylene), last 5 lines of Par. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida in view of Borrell disclose the aramid spun yarn according to claim 4, wherein: the aramid spun yarn satisfies an elongation of 3.5% or more (Table 2 machine translated from original foreign document, as shown below, comparative examples 2-3 with elongations of 3.9% and 4.0%) and a strength of 7 g/d or more (Page 2, line: 10 (starting with “(1) Twist yarn spun yarn”) to line: 13, examiner notes the strength is 10 CN/detx which is within the Applicants claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida in view of Borrell disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not explicitly disclose the produced aramid spun yarn satisfies a cut resistance index of 12 to 18, as measured according to the test method specified in the EN388 Blade Cut Resistance version 2016.
While they do not disclose a cut resistance index of 12 to 18, as measured according to the test method specified in the EN388 Blade Cut Resistance version 2016, it does disclose satisfying the cut resistance standards presented in JIS L 1096: 2010 (Page 5, Par. 3-4), and discloses structural features/physical properties from the Applicants invention, as claimed.
Therefore, the resultant product would obviously provide the same test results because it satisfies the EN388 Blade Cut Resistance version 2016 limitation the Applicant has posed.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See
PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732