DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a Continuation of PCT/JP2022/035476, filed September 22, 202, which claims the priority to Japan Patent Application No. 2021-201026, filed December 10, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 05/31/2024, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are under examination on the merits.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018/179,803 A1 to Yasutoma et al., published on October 4, 2018, having U.S. equivalent US2020/0024774 (“the `774 publication”) in view of WO2019/172,147 A1 to Muraoka et al., published on September 12, 2019, having U.S. equivalent US2020/0288801 (“the `801 publication”).
Applicants’ claim 1 is drawn to a fiber bundle for artificial hair, comprising two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers, each of the two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers having different core-to-sheath area ratios, wherein: each of the two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers includes a core and a sheath; each of the two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers has a core-to-sheath area ratio represented by an area ratio between the core and the sheath; in each of the two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers, the core comprises a polyester resin composition containing a polyester resin and the sheath comprises a polyamide resin composition containing a polyamide resin; and a standard deviation of ratios of a core cross-sectional area to a fiber cross-sectional area of the two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers contained in the fiber bundle for artificial hair is 0.15 or more.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `774 publication (Abstract and claim 1) discloses various types of conjugate fibers including a core part and a sheath part covering the core part such that the conjugate fiber has a core-to-sheath area ratio of core:sheath=2:8 to 7:3. Example 1 of the `774 publication [0115] disclose conjugate fibers including a core part and a sheath part covering the core part such that the conjugate fiber has a core-to-sheath area ratio of core:sheath=5:5 (Example 1), and a method of preparing the undrawn yarns of eccentric core-sheath conjugate fibers comprising polyethylene terephthalate (a polyester resin) as the core part and nylon 66 (a polyamide resin) as the sheath part. Examples 2-3 of the `774 publication [0116-0117] disclose a method for preparing the undrawn yarns of eccentric core-sheath conjugate fibers comprising polyethylene terephthalate (a polyester resin) as the core part and nylon 66 (polyamide resin) as the sheath part having core:sheath=7:3 (Example 2), and core:sheath=2:8 (Example 3). The `774 publication (FIG. 5) discloses the fiber cross sections of fibers of Example 3. It can be seen that the fibers disclosed in Examples 1-3 are three types of core-sheath conjugate fibers with different cross-section shapes of the core and sheath, and core-to-sheath area ratio. In addition, the `774 publication (claim 7) discloses a hair ornament product, comprising: the conjugate fiber of claim 1, wherein the conjugate fiber including a core part and a sheath part covering the core part such that the conjugate fiber has a core-to-sheath area ratio of core:sheath=2:8 to 7:3. Therefore, claim 7 of the `774 publication teaches and/or suggests the hair ornament product comprise different types of the conjugate fibers individually having a core-to-sheath area ratio of core:sheath=2:8 to 7:3.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between the instantly claimed conjugate fiber product and the fiber product (an artificial hair product) is that the prior art does not teach a fiber bundle for artificial hair, comprising two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers with a standard deviation of ratios of a core cross-sectional area to a fiber cross-sectional area of the two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers contained in the fiber bundle for artificial hair is 0.15 or more.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, the instantly claimed conjugate fiber product would have been obvious over the fiber product disclosed in the `774 publication because the same prior art teaches different types of the core-sheath conjugate fibers having a core-to-sheath area ratio of core:sheath=2:8 to 7:3 for artificial hair. In addition, the `801 publication (Abstract) teaches a fiber bundle for artificial hair that has good curl setting characteristics, good combing property, tactile sensation and glossiness similar to human hair, and flame retardancy comprising 20 to 90 parts by mass of a polyester fiber and 10 to 80 parts by mass of a polyamide fiber. Specifically, the `801 publication [0063] discloses the artificial hair bundle is made by mixing and hackling polyester fibers and polyamide fibers to obtain fiber bundles for artificial hair having a mass ratio shown in Tables 1 to 3. One ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to prepare artificial hair disclosed in the `801 publication by replacing the polyester fiber and the polyamide fiber with two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers disclosed in the `774 publication through mixing and hackling the core-sheath conjugate fibers in order to make artificial hair that has good curl setting characteristics, good combing property, tactile sensation and glossiness similar to human hair.
In terms of the limitation “a standard deviation of ratios of a core cross-sectional area to a fiber cross-sectional area of the two or more types of core-sheath conjugate fibers contained in the fiber bundle for artificial hair is 0.15 or more”, neither the `774 publication nor the `801 publication teaches the limitation of the standard deviation.
According to Example 1 of the present specification [0089], the core-sheath conjugate fibers of Production Examples 2 and 6 were cut into a desired length, and were stacked at a weight ratio of 50:50, the standard deviation of ratios of a core cross-sectional area to a fiber cross-sectional area of the two types of core-sheath conjugate fibers prepared in Example 2 (the core-to-sheath area ratio between the core and the sheath was 7:3) and Example 6 (the core-to-sheath area ratio between the core and the sheath ratio was 3:7) was 0.20 based on the following calculation:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Since the `774 publication teaches different types of the core-sheath conjugate fibers having a core-to-sheath area ratio of core:sheath=2:8 to 7:3 is used for artificial hair, and the `801 publication [0063] discloses the artificial hair bundle is made by mixing and hackling polyester fibers and polyamide fibers to obtain fiber bundles for artificial hair having a mass ratio (50/50, 20/80, 90/10) shown in Tables 1 to 3, the parameters used in calculating the standard deviation is either taught and/or suggested by the `774 publication and the `801 publication. To one ordinary skilled in the art, the difference of the standard deviation would have been obvious-to-try. Therefore, the `774 publication in view of the `801 publication would have rendered claims 1-8, and 11-17 obvious.
In terms of claims 9 and 18, the `774 publication [0076] teaches the single fiber fineness of the core-sheath conjugate fibers for artificial hair is preferably 10 dtex or more and 150 dtex or less, more preferably 30 dtex or more and 120 dtex or less, further preferably 40 dtex or more and 100 dtex or less, and particularly preferably 50 dtex or more and 90 dtex or less because the fineness within the above range is suitable for artificial hair.
In terms of claims 10, the `774 publication [0076] teaches the single fiber fineness of the core-sheath conjugate fibers for artificial hair is preferably 10 dtex or more and 150 dtex or less, more preferably 30 dtex or more and 120 dtex or less, further preferably 40 dtex or more and 100 dtex or less, and particularly preferably 50 dtex or more and 90 dtex or less because the fineness within the above range is suitable for artificial hair. A total fineness of the fiber bundle for artificial hair having a total fineness of 30000 dtex or more and 400000 dtex or less is a sum of each fiber fineness of the core-sheath conjugate fibers for artificial hair. For a single strand of human hair averages 50 to 100 dtex as disclosed in the `774 publication [0076], a value of 300,000 dtex represents the combined density of roughly 3,000 to 6,000 individual human hairs measured together over a specific length, which is common for human hairs. Therefore, the `774 publication in view of the `801 publication would have rendered claim 10 obvious.
Conclusions
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status 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).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
