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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed September 9, 2026. Claims 104-121 are pending. Claims 1-103 have been cancelled. Claims 104,107 and 110 have been amended. Claims 111-121 are new. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 104-110 in the reply filed on December 30, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8,11,16-18,and 103 to 110 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Newly submitted claims 111-121 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the independent claims 111 and 116 have no limitations regarding differences in luster, color, hue or dyability characteristic and therefore require a divergent search as they do not need to share the required optical effects of the prior claims.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 111-121 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
All prior rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 104-110 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Needham (WO 00/34555) in view of Tseng (WO 94/10539) and Weiss (US 6,085,395).
Needham teaches producing colored filaments from polyamides, polyesters, polyolefins and combinations thereof by coextrusion in a concentric structure (page 7, lines 5-16) and using filament bundles to produce textile materials (page 8, lines 3-10). Needham teaches producing different visual effects through using color combinations, intensities, shades and hues (page 6, lines 15-18) and pigments are used for coloring (page 4, lines 5-10). Needham teaches shade differences such a color difference to produce a desired color pattern or characteristic (page 8, lines 18-20). Needham teaches the diameter and thickness of the filaments can be chosen based on a desired level of functionality of the application of the filament (page 7, lines 17-22). Needham teaches randomized color addition and the ability to produce many color interactions (page 7, lines 1-3)
Needham does not specify luster and does not teach yarns.
Tseng teaches that the pigments conventionally added to the polymer of bristles for toothbrushes contain luster changing optical effects (page 12, line 21 to page 13, line 1).
Weiss teaches producing multicolored yarns by combining differently colored filaments (column 2, lines 5-8) wherein the filament bundles differ in polymer type, color or dyeability (column 2, lines 34-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add luster impacting pigments to the toothbrush bristles of Needham as Tseng teaches nascent pigments with a pearl luster are used as coloring agents for similar toothbrush bristles and Needham invites the inclusion of pigments to impact color shading. Using different amounts of lustrous pearl pigments of blends of lustrous pigments and other pigments in different areas of the bristles would be obvious to impact the color shading and provide variable luster character to different regions of the bristle. Providing shading with pigments that also impact luster would produce gradient luster changes in different regions of the bristles. Using common pigments with luster producing characteristics in similar toothbrush bristle substrates would be obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the filaments of Needham by making the filaments into yarns as Weiss teaches yarns for textile applications are conventionally made of filament bundles that differ in color, dyeability or polymer composition and Needham invites the inclusion of the filament and filament bundles in textile applications. Regarding the selection of the colors for the first second and third filaments and the average denier between locations, Needham clearly teaches randomly adding coloration across the length of the filaments and using different polymers with different colors in concentric rings across the radial cross-section of the filament. Needham teaches the coloration pattern across the cross-section and length can be determined based on the desired color pattern and is therefore a design choice. Needham further teaches the diameter and thickness of the yarn can be determined based on the desired level of functionality for the filament application and teaches straight fibers of specific diameters indicating a single diameter for the length of the filament can be chosen which is substantially constant with less than 5% variation between different locations on the filament. Combining different types of uniquely colored individual filaments into the fiber bundles and yarns is obvious to arrive at the claimed invention. Since Needham taches the same bristles suitable for toothbrushes can also be used as filament in textile applications it would be obvious to used luster pigment colored filaments in textile applications as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s rejections as they apply to the new rejections above have been considered. The examiner argues that in view of Tseng using pigments that have luster properties and creating shading with these pigments would produce a filament with different luster characteristics over the length of the filament. Since Needham teaches the filaments colored for toothbrush bristles are also effective in textile applications, making a yarn out of the same luster variable filaments would also be obvious. New claims have not been considered as they contain divergent subject matter as claims 111 and 116 are not directed to any differences in luster, rather just polymer ratios in filaments, which without the limitation of the same luster effects of claim 104 requires an entirely different classification and search.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights