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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, 15 and 16 in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 26-30 and claims 15 and dependent claims 16, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims are amended to recite the low density yarn has the effect yarn extends as hair from the base yarn without being fused to or twisted around the base yarn. The specification teaches the yarns are twisted so the recitation that the yarns are not twisted around is new subject matter and not disclosed. Further the term “without being fused to” is also not disclosed in the specification. The specification does not teach fusion nor not fused yarns.
Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 15 and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al (US2019013421) in view of Ozawa et al (US 20130136892).
Masuda is directed to a bulky yarn that includes a sheath having continuously formed loops without any breakages and a core yarn that fixes the sheath yarn by being interlaced with the sheath yarn wherein the number of loops protruding from a yarn surface layer by not less than 3.0mm is 1 to 20 loops/mm (ABST).
Masuda teaches a bulky yarn with a core yarn that is equated with the claimed base yarn and a sheath yarn that is equated with an effect yarn. Masuda teaches low density sheath and core fibers. Masuda does not explicitly teach a low density yarn, however Masuda teaches a bulky yarn which would inherently be a low density yarn. As Masuda teaches the same materials and structure as claimed it is reasonable to presume the property of low-density is inherent to Masuda.
Masuda teaches the yarns are twisted and then untwisted or intermingling [0067] and meets the claim limitation of without twisting. Masuda does not require melting or fusion of the yarns and meets the claim limitation.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
Masuda does not teach a plurality of pieces of a low-density yarn formulated as a three-dimensional matrix.
Masuda is directed to conjugate filaments and does not teach the yarns consist of a single polymer.
Ozawa teaches this stuffed article is made of a ticking filled with a stuffing. The stuffing is a long-fiber wad formed by integrating an effect yarn with a core yarn. The effect yarn is opened to form loop-like fibers. The above-described long-fiber wad is composed of long fibers.
The long fiber wad is equated with a three-dimensional matrix. The length of the wad can be in a range of several tens of centimeters to several hundreds of thousands of meters or more. At the time of being integrated with ticking, the fibers can be folded to the length of one side of the ticking, or may be cut to a predetermined length [0045].
As the long fibers are cut to form the wad, the wad is formed of pieces.
Ozawa teaches the yarns are not necessarily fused together [0032] and meets the claim limitation of without being fused together. And/or entanglement can be applied in place of or in addition to the fusion. Ozawa teaches embodiments without fusion.
Ozawa teaches the effect yarn and/or the core yarn can be include an infusible fiber [0035] and [0041].
As to claim 1 and 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine cut bulky yarn pieces into a wad motivated to produce a 3-D stuffing for a ticking. It further would have been obvious to use infusible single polymer filaments motivated to produce an entangled yarn that is not fused together.
As to claim 2, Matsuda teaches the core yarn (base yarn) and the sheath yarn (effect yarn) can be low density polypropylene [0056], Matsuda teaches the core and sheath yarns in the examples in Table 1 are PET 1 and PET 2 and PET 3.
As to claim 3, Matsuda teaches the low density yarn is formulated as loop that extends substantially radially from the base yarn.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 26 and 27, Masuda in view of Ozawa differ and do not teach the yarns are overfed. The claims are directed to product by process limitation and It should be noted that even 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 or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As to claims 28-31, Masuda teaches there are 12 filaments which is within the range of 5 to 1000 [0187] and the filaments are of the same polymer.
As to claim 32 and 33, Masuda teaches the use of the bulky yarn is for heat retention with low thermal conductivity [0091] and [0101] and used for clothing and bedclothes [0056].
Claim 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al (US2019013421) in view of Ozawa et al (US 20130136892) in further view of Nishiumi et al (US 3923942).
As to claim 4, Masuda differs and does not teach the density of the product. Ozawa does not disclose the density.
Nishiumi is directed to a down like synthetic filler material that comprising spherical or particles made up of filamentary material with a denser concentration of filaments near the surface of the filler element and provided by an eccentric stream of gas which shapes the filaments into the spherical element (ABST).
The filler material is used for quilts, pillows, wind jackets, sleeping bags, cushions etc. (col. 1, lines 5-10). Nishiumi teaches the bulk density of the filamentary cylindrical bodies for the filler. The average bulk density is 1 to 30 mg/cm3 and most preferably between 1 and 20 mg/cm3. Below a density of 1 mg/cm3, the resistance against compression is too low, and above a density of 30 mg/cm3, compression resistance is too high. Thus a product cannot be made in either case (col. 5, lines 43-50). 30 mg/cm3 is equivalent to 30 gm/liter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a yarn product with the claimed density motivated to produce a filler with a density that has the optimal compression.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claim 1 and 15 to recite that the effect yarn extends from base yarn without being fused to or twisted around the base yarn. The amendment is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as new subject matter as the specification is clear that the yarns are twisted and not clear that there is no fusion.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
For these reasons and as in the revised Office Action rejection, the 35 USC 103 rejection is revised and maintained. Masuda and Ozawa teach the yarns are not fused and can be twisted. Masuda teaches twisting and then untwisting so the final product is not twisted and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant states that air jet texturing does not result in the yarns being twisted or fused to each other. The specification does not disclose this feature and one of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily know that air jet texturing provides yarns that are not twisted and not fused. Hot air will fuse the yarns. Applicant is required to provide evidence of the scope of the term that is not claimed.
With regard to the limitation of overfeeding the yarn, this is directed to a product by process limitation.
Wherein Masuda teaches conjugate filaments, Ozawa teaches in the alternative single infusible filaments.
Applicant argues that Masuda describes a method of making conjugated yarns followed by twisting and a heat-treatment to produce three-dimensional yarn and does not meet the claim limitation. Applicant argues that Ozawa is not made by air jet texturing. Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Air jet texturing is not claimed. Additionally Masuda teaches twisting and then untwisting so the final yarn is not twisted.
Applicant argues the rejection over claim 4 and states that Nishiumi has very different structure than the claims. Nishiumi is relied upon for teaching a known density for a bulking, lofty yarn because Masuda and Ozawa are silent with regard to the density. Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicants’ amendments with respect to claim 15 are persuasive and the rejection under Ozawa is withdrawn and claim 15 rejected under Masuda and Ozawa and 16 under Masuda, Ozawa and Nishiumi.
Applicant presents secondary considerations of long felt need and failure of others and unexpected results. The arguments are not persuasive. As a primary concern is the 35 USC 112(a) rejection as the specification does not disclose the yarn is not twisted, nor is it not fused and the air jet process is not claimed nor the scope clear. After this is clarified, and further possible amendment to include the binder yarn may be persuasive to overcome the rejections. Examiner is available for interview.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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
Prosecution Insights