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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “is” is improperly capitalized in the middle of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1–5 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 the limitation "a difference in modification degree between the single yarns is 0.2 or more" in the eccentric core-sheath composite false-twisted yarn. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the yarn comprises a single composite fiber. Accordingly, there is only one yarn and as such there cannot be a modification degree between yarns, plural.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0087820 A1) in view of Suzuki (JP 2020-105682 A1), “Suzuki II.”
Suzuki teaches a fiber material for use in making a fibrous product such as woven fabrics, wherein the fiber material has an eccentric sheath-core composite false-twisted yarn comprising a multifilament single yarn. Suzuki abstract, ¶¶ 35, 239, Fig. 3. The single yarn is a composite fiber composed of two polymers that are a component A and a component B, wherein component A is completely covered with component B, a ratio S/D of a minimum thickness S of a thickness of the component B that covers component A, to a fiber diameter D is 0.01 to 0.1; and a portion where component B has a thickness up to 1.05 times the minimum thickness S has a peripheral length of at least one-third of an entire circumferential length of the composite fiber. Id. abstract. The composite fibers that make up the yarn have a crimping rate of 40–70%. Id. ¶ 115.
Suzuki fails to teach a difference in modification degree between single yarns is 0.2 or more.
Suzuki II teaches the formation of sheath-core composite fibers that form a yarn, wherein the yarn is used in woven fabrics, such that in order to suppress the creation of a densely-filled yarn the irregularity ratio (i.e., difference modification degree) between single yarns is preferably 1.2–2.0 (0.2–1). Suzuki II abstract, Description of Embodiments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the yarn of Suzuki to have a difference modification degree of 0.2–1 motivated by the desire to form a yarn with soft touch and texture. See Suzuki II Description of Embodiments.
Although Suzuki et al. do not explicitly teach the claimed feature of a KES surface roughness of 10 microns or less and a wear resistance at 10% elongation is grade 3 or higher, it is reasonable to presume that said properties are inherent to the combined prior art references. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. an eccentric sheath-core composite false-twisted yarn comprising a multifilament single yarn with the claimed composition and structure). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties of a KES surface roughness of 10 microns or less and a wear resistance at 10% elongation is grade 3 or higher would obviously have been present one the Suzuki et al. product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947 (CCPA 1975).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Suzuki II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yako (JP 2020-186503 A).
Suzuki and Suzuki II fail to teach the false-twisted yarn has a residual torque of 30 T/M or more.
Yako teaches the formation of an eccentric sheath-core, false-twisted yarn excellent in stretchability, wherein the yarn may be used to make a woven or knitted fabric. Yako abstract, Description of Embodiments. The yarn has a crimping rate in excess of 30% and a preferred residual torque of 50–150 T/M. Id.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the eccentric sheath-core, false-twisted yarn of Suzuki to have a residual torque of 50–150 T/M motivated by the desire to impart drapeability. See id.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786