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.
Claims 1-4 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.
Claim 1 recites “two kinds of polyester resins having different melting points or softening points” and “in the thermoplastic core-sheath composite fibers, a high- melting-point component is placed in the core, while a low- melting-point component is placed in the sheath”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how the components are arranged when the softening points are different but the melting point is not.
Claim 1 recites “a tricot fabric containing thermoplastic core-sheath composite fibers each made of two kinds of polyester resins having different melting points or softening points … a high- melting-point component is placed in the core, while a low- melting-point component is placed in the sheath … using the thermoplastic core- sheath composite fibers as a front yarn and a back yarn”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite. First, it is unclear if “each” fiber must be composed of two kinds of polyester resins or if the thermoplastic core-sheath composite fibers comprise two kinds of polyester resins. Second, it is unclear if the “different melting points or softening points” is a limitation of the “two kinds of polyester resins” or for two or more of the “thermoplastic core-sheath composite fibers”. Third, it is unclear what a “component” of the thermoplastic core-sheath composite fibers means and/or which “component” is the front yarn and which is the back yarn.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2017000939 A (hereinafter JP 939) (machine generated translation herein cited) .
Regarding claim 1, JP 939 discloses a flow path material for a liquid separation apparatus (see JP 939 a permeate channel material for RO separation paragraphs 0001, 0011-0013, 0038-0039).
JP 939 discloses a tricot fabric (see JP 939 tricot knitted fabric paragraphs 0012-0013, 0036-0037) containing thermoplastic core-sheath composite fibers (see JP 939 core-sheath composite yarn paragraphs 0012-0013, 0025, 0026, 0052, 0054, 0056, 0058) each made of two kinds of polyester resins having different melting points or softening points (see JP 939 two or more polyesters with different melting or softening points include blended yarns made from filament yarns, or core-sheath type/polyester H/polyester L; paragraphs 0025-0030, 0036).
JP 939 discloses in the thermoplastic core-sheath composite fibers, a high- melting-point component is placed in the core, while a low- melting-point component is placed in the sheath (see JP 939 polyester H/polyester L, wherein polyester H has a higher melting point than polyester L and polyester H is the core and polyester L is the sheath; paragraphs 0012, 0024, 0026, 0028-0029 (JP 939 discloses “a core-sheath composite yarn in which the sheath component has a lower melting point or softening point than the core component. This is preferable because it maximizes the number of fusion points by placing polyester H, which has a high melting point, in the core and polyester L, which has a low melting point, in the sheath” (see JP 939 paragraph 0026).).
JP 939 discloses the tricot fabric is a tricot knitted fabric knitted with a two-guide-reed knitting machine using the thermoplastic core- sheath composite fibers as a front yarn and a back yarn and is rigidified by the thermoplastic core-sheath composite fibers being bonded to each other (see JP 939 paragraphs 0022, 0032, 0035-0036, 0052, 0054). JP 939 discloses “method for manufacturing a tricot channel material, in which synthetic fibers are used to knit a tricot fabric such as a double denby having a base structure and raised portions, and then heat-set to heat-fuse the fibers together” (see JP 939 paragraph 0035) and “a method for manufacturing a tricot channel material, which involves using synthetic fibers such as polyester fibers and knitting them into a tricot fabric having a base structure and raised portions using a tricot knitting machine consisting of at least two reeds” (see JP 939 paragraph 0036). JP 939 discloses Example 1 comprises using a core-sheath composite yarn, “a double Denby warp knit (36 gauge (number of needles per unit length of the knitting machine)) was knitted to form a knitted fabric having a base structure and raised portions. Subsequently, the material was heat-set in a pin tenter machine set to 245°C to obtain tricot flow channel material A” (see JP 939 paragraph 0052).
Further, the claimed “tricot fabric is a tricot knitted fabric knitted with a two-guide-reed knitting machine using the thermoplastic core- sheath composite fibers as a front yarn and a back yarn and is rigidified by the thermoplastic core-sheath composite fibers being bonded to each other” limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Patentable weight has only been given to the structure of the end product, not to the method of manufacture. The end product being tricot knitted fabric. Manufacturing steps such as knitted with a two-guide-reed knitting machine, rigidified by … being bonded to each other, are not given patentable weight in the claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, the tricot fabric taught by JP 939 appears to be structurally the same as one designed by the claimed method limitation. If that is not the case, then any differences lie in structural features not yet claimed.
JP 939 discloses the tricot fabric has a wale density of 45 to 70 yarns/inch (2.54 cm) (see JP 939 paragraphs 0012, 0033, 0043, 0052, 0056, 0058) and a course density of 40 to 70 yarns/inch (2.54 cm) (see JP 939 paragraphs 0033, 0043).
JP 939 does not disclose when the tricot fabric is heat-pressed at 900C and 4.0 MPa for 3 minutes, the percentage of change in the thickness of the tricot fabric before and after pressing is 10% or less. However, the material(s) and step(s) of JP 939 will necessarily achieve a tricot fabric that when the tricot fabric is heat-pressed at 900C and 4.0 MPa for 3 minutes, the percentage of change in the thickness of the tricot fabric before and after pressing is 10% or less. The tricot fabric of JP 939 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 939 (machine generated translation herein cited) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, JP 939 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
Further, JP 939 discloses the “fineness of the synthetic fibers used in the tricot flow channel material … is preferably in the range of 30 to 90 dtex” (see JP 939 paragraph 0031). JP 939 discloses that the “fineness of the back yarn that forms the needle loop portion of the base fabric is preferably 30 to 60 dtex, as this ensures sufficient water permeability for the permeate and allows for a thinner overall thickness of the tricot knit fabric” and the “fineness of the front yarn that forms the needle loops in the convex portion is preferably 40 to 90 dtex” (see JP 939 paragraph 0032).
JP 939 does not disclose the total fineness of the front-yarn thermoplastic core-sheath composite fiber and back-yarn thermoplastic core-sheath composite fiber constituting the tricot fabric is 110 to 200 dtex. However, the disclosed fineness of the front yarn and fineness of the back yarn limitations of JP 939 overlap with the disclosure in the as-originally filed specification (see as-originally filed specification Table 1/paragraph 0055). Therefore, the claimed total fineness limitation is necessarily present in the tricot fabric of JP 939.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or optimize the total fineness of the front-yarn thermoplastic core-sheath composite fiber and back-yarn thermoplastic core-sheath composite fiber in JP 939 because if the fineness is too low the resulting tricot fabric will be too thick, heavy and/or coarse and if the fineness is too high the resulting tricot fabric will be too thin, smooth or lightweight.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or optimize the total fineness of the front-yarn thermoplastic core-sheath composite fiber and back-yarn thermoplastic core-sheath composite fiber in JP 939 because without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio limitation cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed ratio in JP 939. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
JP 939 does not disclose the difference in runner length between the front yarn and the back yarn is 5 cm or less.
The as-originally filed specification does not disclose a definition of “runner length”. It is understood that “runner length” means the length of yarn required to produce a specific number of stitches or the number of inches or centimeters of yam needed to knit one rack of fabric.
The material(s) and step(s) of JP 939 will necessarily achieve a difference in runner length between the front yarn and the back yarn is 5 cm or less. The tricot fabric, including the front yarn and the back yarn, of JP 939 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
JP 939 discloses the thickness of the tricot fabric is 0.2 to 0.3 mm (see JP 939 paragraphs 0020, 0031, 0034).
Regarding claim 3, JP 939 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, JP 939 discloses the tricot fabric is configured such that one of two guide reeds forms base structure portions which are sinker loop parts, while the other guide reed forms convex portions which are needle loop parts (see rejection of claim 1). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of JP 939 is substantially identical to the claimed tricot fabric of the present application, and therefore, the structure of JP 939 is presumed inherently capable of achieving one of two guide reeds forms base structure portions which are sinker loop parts, while the other guide reed forms convex portions which are needle loop parts.
JP 939 discloses “the width of the grooves in the convex structure, 80 to 300 μm is preferable, and 100 to 200 μm is more preferable, in order to ensure sufficient water flow and suppress the sagging of the RO separation membrane” (see JP 939 paragraph 0019). JP 939 discloses the “groove height is preferably 70 to 150 μm, and more preferably 100 to 150 μm, in order to ensure sufficient water flow” (see JP 939 paragraph 0019). JP 939 discloses that “there is an optimal range depending on the water pressure during use; it is desirable to narrow the groove width when the water pressure is high. Specifically, when used at a water pressure of less than 4 MPa, the groove width is preferably in the range of 80 to 300 μm, and the groove height is preferably in the range of 70 to 150 μm” (see JP 939 paragraph 0019).
JP 939 does not disclose the ratio of the width between convex portions (groove width) to the convex portion width (ridge width) (groove width/ridge width) is 0.4 to 0.7. However, the disclosed groove width and ridge width limitations of JP 939 overlap with the disclosure in the as-originally filed specification (see as-originally filed specification paragraph 0032). Therefore, the claimed ratio limitation is necessarily present in the tricot fabric of JP 939.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or optimize the ratio of the width between convex portions (groove width) to the convex portion width (ridge width) of JP 939 because it would assist with achieving a tricot fabric with desired properties, such controlling the flow of fluid through the grooves and ridges of the tricot fabric and/or a desired cross-sectional geometry or ribbed texture of the resulting tricot fabric and/or controlling the flexibility/stretch and/or stability of the resulting tricot fabric.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify and/or optimize the ratio of the width between convex portions (groove width) to the convex portion width (ridge width) of JP 939 because “there is an optimal range depending on the water pressure during use; it is desirable to narrow the groove width when the water pressure is high” (see JP 939 paragraph 0019) and it would be inversely desirable to widen the groove width when the water pressure is low. Without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio limitation cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed ratio in JP 939. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, JP 939 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, JP 939 discloses the difference in total fineness between the front- yarn thermoplastic core-sheath composite fiber and back-yarn thermoplastic core-sheath composite fiber constituting the tricot fabric is 20 dtex or more (see rejection of claim 2).
Related Prior Art
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure:
JP 2020104099 A (JP 099) discloses channel material of liquid separation (see JP 099 paragraph 0001). JP 099 discloses “tricot knitted fabric made by knitting synthetic fibers, wherein the tricot knitted fabric is composed of at least two types of synthetic fibers with different fineness, and one of the synthetic fibers is a monofilament and the other is a multifilament made of two or more types of polymers” (see JP 099 paragraph 0016). JP 099 discloses that the “multifilament is a core-sheath composite fiber yarn, and the sheath component is composed of a component having a lower melting point or softening point than the core component” (see JP 099 paragraph 0018). JP 099 discloses “synthetic fiber A with the smaller fineness among at least two types of fibers with different fineness is 50 dtex or less” (see JP 099 paragraph 0020; see also paragraphs 0021, 0037).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights