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 1-17 are 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 “…a torsional rigidity of 1.3 mgּ·ּּּּּcm2 or more”. It is unclear how an infinite torsional rigidity could be achieved. Applicant is advised to claim an upper limit to the torsional rigidity as detailed in paragraph 0038 of the PG Pub.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denka (JPWO2006135060).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Denka teaches an acrylic fiber [modacrylic is taught on page 5, para. 7] for artificial hair [Abstract] comprising an acrylic copolymer. A fiber cross section of the acrylic fiber for artificial hair is a C-shape [page 6, para. 1]. Two ends of the C-shape are apart from each other [See Figures]. A circumcircle of the fiber cross section has a diameter in the claimed range as Denka teaches R2 can be 40 micrometers, for example, and 1.4 R2 <= R1 <= 2.4 R2 and therefore the circumcircle is in the claimed range. An inscribed circle of the fiber cross section has a diameter in the claimed range (R2 is taught as the inscribed circle) [Example 1-5]. Denka teaches a thickness of the fiber cross section minimum is t1 and maximum is t2 with 1.1t1 <= t2 <- 2.0t1 and also teaches t1 is 15 micrometers in Example 1-2. Therefore Denka clearly teaches the thickness of the fiber cross section is in the claimed range. Denka teaches the ϴ is 1-35 degrees and with a math calculation the distance of the canal width between the ends of the fiber cross section is 0.35-12 micrometers which is in the claimed range. Denka does not explicitly detail the torsional rigidity. However, the present specification teaches that the claimed torsional rigidity is achieved with high content of C-shaped fibers and since Denka teaches high content of C-shaped fibers including 100% , the clamed torsional rigidity is inherent to Denka. Further, given Denka teaches such a similar fiber made of such similar materials with such similar dimensions the claimed torsional rigidity is necessarily inherent to the fiber of Denka.
Regarding claim 3, the single fiber fineness is in the claimed range (20-100 dtex) [page 6, para. 6].
Regarding claim 7, Denka teaches a hair ornament product comprising the acrylic fiber for artificial hair according to claim 1 [page 2, para. 1].
Regarding claim 8, the hair ornament according to claim 7 is at least one selected from the group consisting of a fiber bundle for hair, weaving hair, a wig, a braid, a toupee, a hair extension, and a hair accessory [page 2, para. 1].
Regarding claim 9, Even if Denka does not disclose the claimed process, it is noted that “[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) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Denka meets the requirements of the claimed fiber, Denka clearly meet the requirements of present claims fiber.
Regarding claim 10, the single fiber fineness is in the claimed range (20-100 dtex) [page 6, para. 6].
Regarding claim 11, the acrylic fiber for artificial hair comprises the fiber with the C-shaped cross-section.
Regarding claim 14, the single fiber fineness is in the claimed range (20-100 dtex) [page 6, para. 6].
Regarding claim 15, the acrylic fiber for artificial hair comprises the fiber with the C-shaped cross-section.
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 5, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denka (JPWO2006135060) in view of Yoshikawa et al. (WO 2020039704).
Regarding claim 5, 12 and 16, Denka is relied upon as set forth in the rejections of claims 1, 7 and 9 above and fully incorporated herein by reference. Denka is silent regarding the claimed fiber treatment agent. However, Yoshikawa et al. teaches a fiber treatment agent adhered to acrylic fiber for artificial hair with the fiber treatment agent containing a fatty acid ester oil and polyoxyethylene surfactant to improve tactile sensation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fiber treatment agent of Yoshikawa et al. in Denka in order to improve tactile sensation and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denka (JPWO2006135060) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US Pat. 4,524,193).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 17, Denka is relied upon as set forth in the rejections of claims 1, 7 and 9 above and fully incorporated herein by reference. Denka is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the acrylic copolymer. However, Yamazaki et al. teach modacrylic fiber comprising acrylonitrile in the claimed amount (40-65% is taught), vinyl chloride or vinylidene chloride in an amount in the claimed range (31-59.9% is taught) and sulfonic acid group containing vinyl monomer in the claimed amount (0.1-4% is taught) in order to provide excellent flame resistance [3:60-4:12 and 6:3-60]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the modacrylic fiber of Yamazaki in Denka in order to provide excellent flame resistance and arrive at the claimed invention.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2006/0237869 teaches acrylic fiber used for artificial hair with a C-shaped cross-section.
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