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 14 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.
Claim 14 recites is not dependent upon any claim as was deleted from the claim language. It is believed Applicant intended for claim 14 to depend upon claim 7 and the claims has been examined as such.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 appears as if Applicant intended it to depend upon claim, but no dependency is listed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (JP2004183191) or in the alternative over Masuda et al. (JP2004183191) in view of Mitchell et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0330992).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Masuda et al. teaches a method for producing a yarn [Title] comprising the steps of selecting a filament core comprising a plurality of polyester filaments [0032]. Masuda et al. teaches the polyester filaments are drafted under the same conditions taught in the present specification (2.4 is taught) which yields the claimed elongation [Ex. 3]. Therefore, the claimed elongation is necessarily inherent to the yarn of Masuda et al. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Masuda et al. teaches selecting a staple fiber sheath with sheath fibers wherein at least 95% by weight (all of the sheath is taught as natural fibers and regenerated fibers) of the sheath is made of first staple fibers (natural fibers) and second staple fibers (regenerated fibers) with the first staple fibers being cotton fibers and the second staple fibers are regenerated cellulosic fibers and combining the filament core and staple fiber sheath via ring spinning [0008, 0010 and 0022].
Masuda et al. are silent regarding the cotton being recycled. Both Masuda et al. and the present invention teach a method of producing a yarn with the same composition with similar properties. The only difference is the cotton being recycled which is known in the art. However, given the level of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and the limited number of choices (recycled or not recycled), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed cotton being recycled in order to save money and be environmentally friendly and arrive at the claimed invention.
In the alternative, Mitchell et al. teach using recycled cotton and recycled polyester in order to be environmentally friendly and to save money. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the recycled cotton of Mitchell et al. in the polyester core and in the blended sheath including cotton of Masuda et al. in order to be environmentally friendly and to save money and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Masuda et al. teach a weight ratio of the first staple fibers to the second staple fibers as a results effective variable depending on the purpose. Given this teaching, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed mixing ratio through routine experimentation in order to tailor the yarn to the end purpose and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Masuda et al. teach regenerated cellulosic fibers with an average length in the claimed range [0019].
Regarding claim 4, Masuda et al. and Masuda et al. in combination with Heifetz are relied upon as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 and fully incorporated herein. Masuda et al. teaches the sheath fibers are cut to 32 mm (all fibers would not be perfectly 32mm-some would be slightly longer or shorter) and subjected to ageing and therefore it is clear the claimed 5%(n) index and SFC are inherent to Masuda et al. given the range claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Masuda et al. teach a weight ratio of the first staple fibers to the second staple fibers as a results effective variable depending on the purpose. Given this teaching, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed mixing ratio through routine experimentation in order to tailor the yarn to the end purpose and arrive at the claimed invention. Masuda et al. teach average length of the sheath fibers is in the claimed range [Examples]. Masuda et al. teaches the sheath fibers are cut to 32 mm (all fibers would not be perfectly 32mm-some would be slightly longer or shorter) and subjected to ageing and therefore it is clear the SFC is inherent to Masuda et al. given the range claimed.
Claims 7-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (JP2004183191).
Regarding claim 7, Masuda et al. teaches a method for producing a yarn [Title] comprising the steps of selecting a filament core comprising a plurality of polyester filaments [0032]. Masuda et al. teaches the polyester filaments are drafted under the same conditions taught in the present specification (2.4 is taught) which yields the claimed elongation [Ex. 3]. Therefore, the claimed elongation is necessarily inherent to the yarn of Masuda et al. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Masuda et al. teaches selecting a staple fiber sheath with sheath fibers wherein at least 95% by weight (all of the sheath is taught as natural fibers and regenerated fibers) of the sheath is made of first staple fibers (natural fibers) and second staple fibers (regenerated fibers) with the first staple fibers being cotton fibers and the second staple fibers are regenerated cellulosic fibers and combining the filament core and staple fiber sheath via ring spinning [0008, 0010 and 0022].
Masuda et al. teaches the sheath fibers are cut to 32 mm (all fibers would not be perfectly 32mm-some would be slightly longer or shorter) and subjected to ageing and therefore it is clear the claimed 5%(n) index and SFC are inherent to Masuda et al. given the range claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Masuda et al. teach a weight ratio of the first staple fibers to the second staple fibers as a results effective variable depending on the purpose. Given this teaching, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed mixing ratio through routine experimentation in order to tailor the yarn to the end purpose and arrive at the claimed invention. Masuda et al. teach average length of the sheath fibers is in the claimed range [Examples]. Masuda et al. teaches the sheath fibers are cut to 32 mm (all fibers would not be perfectly 32mm-some would be slightly longer or shorter) and subjected to ageing and therefore it is clear the SFC is inherent to Masuda et al. given the range claimed.
Regarding claims 10-11, Masuda et al. teaches the core comprises one or more elastic polyester filaments having a draft in the claimed range [Example 3].
Regarding claim 12, the polyester filaments are textured filaments (latent crimp filaments are taught) [0016].
Regarding claim 13, the amount of polyester filaments in the core is in the claimed amount of the weight of the yarn (15-60% is taught) [0026].
Regarding claim 14, the total of the polyester filaments is in the claimed range [0032].
Regarding claim 15, Masuda et al. teaches a textile article comprising a denim fabric or garment comprising a yarn according to claim 7 [0014 and 0049].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (JP2004183191) in view of Mitchell et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0330992).
Regarding claim 9, Masuda et al. teach average fiber length of the regenerated cellulose fibers of 30-60mm. Masuda teaches the lengths of the fibers can be chosen, but are silent regarding the claimed ratio. However, Mitchell et al. teaches recycled cotton fibers with an average length of 0.6” (or 15.24mm) in order to use recycled fibers to save money and be environmentally friendly. The fiber length read on the claimed ratio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the recycled cotton fibers lengths as taught by Mitchell et al. in Masuda et al. in order to save money and be environmentally friendly and arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights