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 with traverse of Group I and the species directed to a composition in which a relaxation treatment is not performed after the secondary drawing process, in the reply filed on December 29, 2025, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified groups of claims are sufficiently interrelated as to be searched in one search of reasonable burden. This is not found persuasive because, as set forth in the Restriction Requirement of November 12, 2025, the common technical feature directed to an acrylic fiber is not novel. Additionally, for the reasons set forth below, the elected invention is rendered anticipated or obvious over the teachings of the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 9-11 and 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the fibers having one or more cross-sectional shapes selected from the group consisting of an anchor-like-Y-shape, a C-shape, and a figure-6 shape. Although Applicants’ specification recites at paragraph 0013 and Figs. 1-3 examples of the claimed shapes, it is unclear what the full scope of an “anchor-like-Y-shape” necessarily entails, including how each of the shapes can be shown in combination, and if the claimed “shapes” necessarily still remain as claimed if combined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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 1-4 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 WO 2020/039704 to Yoshikawa, with US Pub. No. 2021/0164130 cited as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1-4, Yoshikawa teach an acrylic fiber for artificial hair including an acrylic copolymer, having a fiber cross section including 2 to 4 T-shaped protrusions extending radially from a central portion, wherein the torsional rigidity of the acrylic fiber is 0.30 to 2.0 mg·cm2 (Yoshikawa, Abstract). Yoshikawa teaches various shapes at paragraph 0015 including Fig. 3, which appears to be within the scope of the claimed anchor-like-Y-shape (see Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0013 and Fig. 1). Yoshikawa teaches that the single fiber fineness may be 20 dtex or more and 95 dtex or less (Id., paragraph 0047).
Yoshikawa does not appear to teach the claimed dry-heat shrinkage ratio. However, Yoshikawa teaches that the acrylic copolymer may contain less than 95% by weight of acrylonitrile and more than 5% by weight of other monomers, including vinyl chloride and/or vinylidene chloride and sulfonic acid group-containing vinyl monomers (Yoshikawa, paragraphs 0025-0027). Yoshikawa teaches wet spinning a spinning solution by dissolving the acrylic polymer in an organic solvent that may contain a small amount of water (Id., paragraph 0030), wherein the wet spinning includes at least a coagulation process, a water washing process, and a drying process, and a bath drawing process (Id., paragraph 0036). Yoshikawa teaches that the fibers are drawn in the bath drawing process (Id., paragraph 0041). Yoshikawa teaches that the fibers are dried and drawn, and may be further drawn in a secondary drawing (Id., paragraph 0045). Applicants’ specification teaches a similar manner of forming the claimed acrylic fibers comprising substantially similar or identical compositions and manners of forming the acrylic fibers (see Applicants’ specification at paragraphs 0038, 0041-0054). Since the dry-heat shrinkage ratio of the acrylic fiber is a property of the fiber, and since Yoshikawa teaches a substantially similar acrylic copolymer fiber comprising a substantially similar or identical composition and manner of forming the fiber, including an identical torsional rigidity value range, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed dry-heat shrinkage ratio is inherent to the invention of Yoshikawa. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshikawa does not appear to specifically teach the claimed hollow ratio. However, Yoshikawa teaches a substantially similar fiber structure shape and single fiber fineness as claimed. Additionally, Yoshikawa teaches at Fig. 3 a shape identical to Applicants’ Fig. 1. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed hollow ratio is inherent to the invention of Yoshikawa. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshikawa, with US Pub. No. 2021/0164130 cited as the English equivalent, in view of USPN 6,863,977 to Ochi.
Regarding claims 1-4, in the event it is shown that the dry-heat shrinkage ratio is not inherent to the invention of Yoshikawa, Ochi teaches highly shrinkage acrylic fibers made of an acrylonitrile polymer comprising acrylonitrile in no less than 50% by weight copolymerizable with a vinyl monomer, wherein a shrinkage rate after dry heating at 130ºC for 10 min. without load is 25 to 35% (Ochi, Abstract, column 4 lines 7-34). Ochi teaches that the thermal shrinkage is significantly influenced by an acrylonitrile content, and a lower acrylonitrile content may tend to a higher shrinkage rate (Id., column 6 lines 10-26). Ochi teaches that the high shrinkage acrylic fiber is a useful down-hair component giving bulkiness and texture to pile fabric (Id., column 2 lines 30-46, column 2 line 62 to column 3 line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the acrylic fiber of Yoshikawa, wherein the fiber comprises a dry-heat shrinkage rate, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Ochi, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional acrylic fiber having the desired properties including feeling, appearance, and bulkiness, suitable for the intended application.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshikawa, with US Pub. No. 2021/0164130 cited as the English equivalent, in view of JP 2008-285772 to Toshiyuki.
Regarding claim 4, in the event it is shown that the prior art does not establish the claimed hollow ratio, Toshiyuki teaches a similar artificial hair obtained by forming the cross-sectional shape of an artificial hair fiber having a hollow part with a percentage of hollowness of 10-50% (Toshiyuki, Abstract). Toshiyuki teaches that the artificial hair has at least one cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of oval, cross-circular, cocoon, potbelly, dogbone, ribbon, 3-8 lobe, and star (Id., paragraph 0011). Toshiyuki teaches that as a result of the fiber form, the artificial hair has thermal resistance and fiber physical properties such as strong elongation, curl characteristics, excellent color clearness, soft touch feeling, bulky properties, lightweight feeling, and luster feeling approximate to human hair (Id., Abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0009, 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the artificial fiber of the prior art, wherein the fiber comprises a hollow ratio, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Toshiyuki, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional artificial fiber having the desired properties including lightweight feeling and bulkiness, suitable for the intended application.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshikawa, with US Pub. No. 2021/0164130 cited as the English equivalent, in view of Ochi, as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of JP 2008-285772 to Toshiyuki.
Regarding claim 4, in the event it is shown that the prior art combination does not establish the claimed hollow ratio, Toshiyuki teaches a similar artificial hair obtained by forming the cross-sectional shape of an artificial hair fiber having a hollow part with a percentage of hollowness of 10-50% (Toshiyuki, Abstract). Toshiyuki teaches that as a result of the fiber form, the artificial hair has thermal resistance and fiber physical properties such as strong elongation, curl characteristics, excellent color clearness, soft touch feeling, bulky properties, lightweight feeling, and luster feeling approximate to human hair (Id., Abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0009, 0064). Toshiyuki teaches that the artificial hair has at least one cross-sectional shape selected from the group consisting of oval, cross-circular, cocoon, potbelly, dogbone, ribbon, 3-8 lobe, and star (Id., paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the artificial fiber of the prior art combination, wherein the fiber comprises a hollow ratio, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Toshiyuki, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional artificial fiber having the desired properties including lightweight feeling and bulkiness, suitable for the intended application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786