DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to Claims 1-3, in the reply filed on December 29, 2025 is acknowledged. Rejoinder of the non-elected claims will be considered upon a finding allowable subject matter in Group I. Claims 4-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,692,671 to Fujimoto et al. (“Fujimoto II”).
With regard to Claim 1, Fujimoto II discloses a polyester fiber produced by melt spinning a polyester having at least 90% or more, up to 100%, by weight of polytrimethylene terephthalate (“PTT”). See, e.g., Abstract, Examples, entire document. Fujimoto II discloses Comparative Example 1, which is a PTT fiber having a peak value of the thermal stress being present at a temperature of 60 degrees C., a peak value of thermal stress being 0.12 g/d (which is roughly about 0.11 cN/dtex), and an elongation of 61%. Table 2. As such, Comparative Example 11 of Fujimoto II satisfies requirements (A), (B), and (C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 135 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fujimoto II.
With regard to Claims 2 and 3, Fujimoto II does not specifically address the properties of lowest modulus at an elongation of 10% to 30%, birefringence of 0.03 to 0.08, and specific gravity of 1.319 to 1.340. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that these properties are inherent to the material disclosed by Fujimoto II. Support for the presumption is found because Fujimoto II teaches a PTT fiber having similar materials, i.e. fiber composed of 90 mol% or more of trimethylene terephthalate repeating units, with overlapping scope with respect to other properties of the fiber, i.e. similar peak value of thermal stress at a similar temperature, along with a similar elongation at break, in the manufacture of a similar end-use material, i.e. a PTT fiber that can be formed into twisted yarn. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2003-138425 to Yoshimura et al. (English translation obtained from PE2E database is referenced herein) (“Yoshimura”).
With regard to Claims 1 and 3, Yoshimura discloses polytrimethylene terephthalate (“PTT”) fiber having improved elongation properties. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Yoshimura discloses that the PTT fiber has trimethylene terephthalate repeating units in an amount of greater than 90 mol%. Page 14, Example 1. Yoshimura discloses that the PTT fiber has a birefringence of 0.02 to 0.07 and a thermal stress peak value of up to 0.18 cN/dtex. Page 4. Yoshimura does not disclose that the PTT fiber has a thermal stress peak value at the temperature range of 40 to 100 degrees C. or an elongation at break of 60 to 200%. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that these properties are inherent to the material disclosed by Yoshimura. Support for the presumption is found because Yoshimura discloses similar properties of the heat distortion of the fibers being in the range of 40 to 105 degrees C. (which is similar to the temperature of thermal stress peak) and a residual elongation of 60 to 250% (which is similar to the elongation at break). Page 4. Moreover, Yoshimura teaches using similar materials, i.e. fiber composed of 90 mol% or more of trimethylene terephthalate repeating units, with overlapping scope with respect to other properties of the fiber, i.e. similar peak value of thermal stress and birefringence, in the manufacture of a similar end-use material, i.e. a PTT fiber that can be formed into twisted yarn. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). A similar analysis applies to the lowest modulus at an elongation of 10 to 30% of the fiber property recited in Claim 2 and the specific gravity of 1.319 to 1.340 property recited in Claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 135 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,620,502 to Fujimoto et al. (“Fujimoto I”).
With regard to Claim 1, Fujimoto I discloses a polytrimethylene terephthalate (“PTT”) fiber composed of 90 mol% or more of trimethylene terephthalate repeating units. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Fujimoto I discloses Examples 1-11 and 17 of PTT fibers have a peak value of thermal stress occurring at a temperature range of 57 degrees C. to 75 degrees C., which satisfies requirement (A), and having an elongation at break of 65% to 115%, which satisfies requirement (C). Table 2. Fujimoto I does not disclose an example whereupon the PTT fiber has a peak value of thermal stress in the range of 0.1 cN/dtex to 0.8 cN/dtex. However, Fujimoto I does generally disclose that the peak value of thermal stress can be adjusted to affect shrinking force, column 12, lines 1-5, and that a peak value of up to 0.12 cN/dtex is suitable and compliant with the scope of their invention. Column 10, lines 56-65. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the PTT fiber of Fujimoto I with a peak value of thermal stress in the range of 0.1 cN/dtex to 0.8 cN/dtex because Fujimoto I teaches that such a modification is a result effective variable affecting shrinking force of the fiber, because Fujimoto I teaches the value can be as high as 0.12 cN/dtex, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. M.P.E.P. 2144.05(I). With regard to Claim 3, Fujimoto I discloses the PTT fiber has a birefringence of 0.030 to 0.070 and a density of 1.320 to 1.340. Column 10, lines 56-65; see also Table 2, Examples 1-11 and 17. With regard to Claim 2, Fujimoto I does not specifically address the property of lowest modulus at an elongation of 10% to 30%. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that this property is inherent to the material disclosed by Fujimoto I. Support for the presumption is found because Fujimoto I teaches using similar materials, i.e. fiber composed of 90 mol% or more of trimethylene terephthalate repeating units, with overlapping scope with respect to other properties of the fiber, i.e. similar peak value of thermal stress at a similar range of temperatures, elongation at break, birefringence, and density, in the manufacture of a similar end-use material, i.e. a PTT fiber that can be formed into twisted yarn. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent No. 6,704,980 to Yamamoto et al. and U.S. Patent No. 6,109,015 to Roark et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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 D. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789