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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 5/27/2026 has been considered and entered into the record. The limitations of claim 2 have been incorporated into claim 1. Accordingly, claim 2 has been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous objection and indefinite issues. Thus, the objection and indefinite rejection are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3–5 remain pending and are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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,” and in view of Yako (JP 2020-186503 A).
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.
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.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Suzuki fails to teach a difference in modification degree between single yarns or a residual torque of 30 T/M or more. Applicant also argues that Yako fails to teach a modification degree of 0.2 or more between single yarns. This argument is unpersuasive as one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner relies upon Suzuki II to teach the claimed difference in modification degree between single yarns and Yako to teach the claimed residual torque.
Applicant then argues that while Suzuki II teaches an irregularity ratio (i.e., modification degree ratio) between single yarns, it is taught for the purpose of suppressing the creation of densely-filled yarn, which is different from the wear resistance improvement when elongated. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Accordingly, while Suzuki teaches an irregularity ratio for purposes other than which Applicant claims a modification degree ratio, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to modify Suzuki with the irregularity ratio of Suzuki II motivated by the reasons set forth in the prior art.
Applicant further argues that even if one were to consider combining Suzuki II and Yako there is a fundamental technical inconsistency between the two references that undermines any motivation to combine. This argument is unpersuasive as it fails to address the particular findings of the Examiner. As set forth above, Suzuki II (D2) and Yako (D3) are relied upon to modify the teachings of Suzuki (D1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights