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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election
1. Applicant’s election of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on February 19, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant has cancelled claims 11-20 and added claims 21-33.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 16, 2026, March 2, 2026, November 20, 2025, September 3, 2024, and March 29, 2024.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taneichi et al. (U.S. 7,303,808).
Taneichi discloses a core/sheath structure comprising first and second fiber layers made of thermoplastic polymer (column 6, lines 11-26) where Figure 1 shows the core has a linear shape and an outer peripheral surface and a sheath covers the outer peripheral surface. Taneichi discloses the sheet material has protrusions in a pattern (claim 1 of Taneichi), as in claims 1-3, 6.
Concerning claim 4, Taneichi discloses a core/sheath structure comprising first and second fiber layers made of thermoplastic polymer (column 6, lines 11-26) where the core-sheath or side-by-side configuration comprises two thermoplastic polymers different in shrinkage and exhibit both thermal shrinkability and elastomeric behavior (claim 1 of Taneichi).
Concerning claims 8 and 23, Figure 2 of Taneichi shows a reinforcing component.
Concerning claim 9, Taneichi discloses a core/sheath structure comprising first and second fiber layers made of thermoplastic polymer (column 6, lines 11-26) where Figure 1 shows the core has a linear shape and an outer peripheral surface and a sheath covers the outer peripheral surface. Taneichi discloses the sheet material has protrusions in a pattern (claim 1 of Taneichi).
Concerning claim 24, Taneichi discloses a fiber aggregate comprising elastomer fibers and can include rubber material (column 8, lines 40-52).
Concerning claim 25, Taneichi discloses the first layer and the second layer can further comprise other fibers, such as cotton (column 6, lines 41-43).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
5. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 10, 21-22, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taneichi et al. (U.S. 7,303,808).
Taneichi discloses a core/sheath structure comprising first and second fiber layers made of thermoplastic polymer (column 6, lines 11-26) where Figure 1 shows the core has a linear shape and an outer peripheral surface and a sheath covers the outer peripheral surface. Taneichi discloses the sheet material has protrusions in a pattern (claim 1 of Taneichi). Although Taneichi does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the core in relation to the thickness of the sheath, diameter modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04, as in claim 10.
Concerning claims 21-22, Taneichi discloses the fiber which constitutes the first layer is suitably one made of a thermoplastic polymer. The thermoplastic polymer includes polyolefins, such as polyethylene and polypropylene; polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate; and polyamides. Core/sheath type conjugate fibers or side-by-side type conjugate fibers composed of a combination of these thermoplastic polymers are also useful (column 6, lines 11-26).
Taneichi discloses a fiber aggregate comprising elastomer fibers and can include rubber material (column 8, lines 40-52) where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the core/sheath article to have a certain amount of rigidity and flexibility.
Concerning claim 26, Taneichi discloses a fiber aggregate comprising elastomer fibers and can include rubber material (column 8, lines 40-52) where the first layer and the second layer can further comprise other fibers, such as cotton (column 6, lines 41-43). In claim 26, the phrase, “for forming pores” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Concerning claims 27-30, Taneichi discloses a core/sheath structure comprising first and second fiber layers made of thermoplastic polymer (column 6, lines 11-26) where Figure 1 shows the core has a linear shape and an outer peripheral surface and a sheath covers the outer peripheral surface. Taneichi discloses the sheet material has protrusions in a pattern (claim 1 of Taneichi). In claim 27, the phrase, “configured to deflect on contact in order to impart the tactile feeling” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Claim Objections
7. Claims 5, 7 and 31-33 are 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. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited core/sheath structure further including the sheath further includes a water-soluble substance so that after exposure to water, at least a part of the water-soluble substance is removed in the sheath. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited core/sheath structure further including wherein the core/sheath structure composes the forming material; and at least one of the core and the sheath comprising one or more of a foaming agent and a whipping agent. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited core/sheath structure further including wherein the sheath includes a thermoplastic polymer; and wherein orientation of the protrusions is controlled by one or more aspects of one or both of: the fibers or the particles; or the thermoplastic polymer.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights