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 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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strachan (US Patent 3,940,914).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7, Strachan teaches a composite yarn comprising at least two or at least three or more (including at least five) single elastic filaments which are substantially independent of each other except at entanglement point and plurality of inelastic elements and/or a bundle of inelastic elements the single elastic filaments and the inelastic elements are not coalesced [3:1-15; 2:44-68 and 5:13-63]. While it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that any additional ingredients in the prior art would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of the applicant’s invention, See MPEP 2111.03. Strachan teaches is silent regarding the number of entanglement points. However, Strachan teaches entanglement degree as a results effective variable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed number of entanglement points through routine experimentation. Strachan teaches the at least five single elastic filaments are drafted and each elastic filament would have different draft ratios since they different tensions at the outer of the yarn than the inner of the yarn and since filaments are not well bonded together and can independently move, the individual filaments would have not the exact draft ratio.
Regarding claim 3, Strachan teaches the elastic filaments are drafted and teach the draft number as a results effective variable stating that the draft number can be selected to accomplish a particular retractive power and/or for end use application and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed draft through routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 4-5, Strachan is silent regarding the draft of the inelastic elements being less than that of the elastic filaments including the claimed range. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed draft of the inelastic elements being less than that of the elastic filaments including the claimed draft ratio as the inelastic elements are not able to be drafted as the elastic elements and further it would have been obvious in order to affect the composite yarn properties.
Regarding claims 6, A count of each of the inelastic filaments is less than a count of the single elastic filaments a percentage in weight of the plurality of inelastic filaments is greater than a percentage in weight of the at least five single elastic filaments in the composite yarn as this principle is taught in the Examples. Further, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as is known in order to affect the elasticity of the yarn and the fabric.
Regarding claim 8, each of the inelastic elements comprise at least one polyester filament and/or polyamide filament [2:60-63].
Regarding claim 9, the inelastic elements are texturized.
Regarding claim 10, the inelastic elements comprise bicomponent filaments and the elastic filaments have a count in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, the composite further comprises at least a bundle of elastic filaments intermingled with the inelastic elements the elastic filaments consist of single elastic filaments.
Regarding claims 13, Strachan teaches an article comprising a fabric comprising the composite yarn of claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-15, Strachan teaches a process for producing a composite yarn with the steps comprising providing a plurality of inelastic filaments, providing at least five separate single elastic filaments, intermingling the single elastic filaments and inelastic filaments and collecting the composite yarn obtained via the intermingling step wherein the at least five single elastic filaments are fed as individual filaments and therefore not coupled together prior to said intermingling and are substantially independent of one another except at said entanglement point after intermingling.
Strachan teaches the at least five single elastic filaments are drafted and each elastic filament would have different draft ratios since they different tensions at the outer of the yarn than the inner of the yarn and since filaments are not well bonded together and can independently move, the individual filaments would have not the exact draft ratio.
Regarding claim 16, no further yarn or roving or sliver is added to the composite yarn between the intermingling step and the collecting step.
Regarding claim 17, the inelastic elements are texturized and overfed during the intermingling step by the claimed percentage [2:54-59].
Regarding claim 18, A count of each of the inelastic filaments is less than a count of the single elastic filaments a percentage in weight of the plurality of inelastic filaments is greater than a percentage in weight of the at least five single elastic filaments in the composite yarn as this principle is taught in the Examples. Further, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as is known in order to affect the elasticity of the yarn and the fabric.
Regarding claim 19, Strachan teaches a composite yarn obtainable by the process of claims 15.
Regarding claim 20, Strachan teaches a composite yarn comprising at least two or at least three or more (including at least five) single elastic filaments which are substantially independent of each other except at entanglement point and plurality of inelastic elements and/or a bundle of inelastic elements the single elastic filaments and the inelastic elements are not coalesced [3:1-15; 2:44-68 and 5:13-63]. While it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that any additional ingredients in the prior art would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of the applicant’s invention, See MPEP 2111.03. Strachan teaches is silent regarding the number of entanglement points. However, Strachan teaches entanglement degree as a results effective variable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed number of entanglement points through routine experimentation. Strachan teaches the at least five single elastic filaments are drafted and each elastic filament would have different draft ratios since they different tensions at the outer of the yarn than the inner of the yarn and since filaments are not well bonded together and can independently move, the individual filaments would have not the exact draft ratio.
A count of each of the inelastic filaments is less than a count of the single elastic filaments a percentage in weight of the plurality of inelastic filaments is greater than a percentage in weight of the at least five single elastic filaments in the composite yarn as this principle is taught in the Examples. Further, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as is known in order to affect the elasticity of the yarn and the fabric.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strachan (US Patent 3,940,914) in view of Koyanagi et al. (PG Pub. 2004/0048064).
Regarding claim 11, Strachan are silent regarding the specifics of the bicomponent filament. However, Koyanagi et al. teaches bicomponent filament comprised of PTT and PET to make an elastic fiber that is easily dyeable and suitable for high speed false twisting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the PTT/PET bicomponent filament of Koyanagi et al. in Strachan in order to provide elastic filament that is easily dyeable and suitable for high speed false twisting and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strachan (US Patent 3,940,914) in view of Tharpe et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0268734).
Regarding claim 11, Strachan is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the inelastic filament. However, Tharpe et al. teach inelastic filament is PET/PTT in order to provide excellent recovery properties [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the PET/PTT of Tharpe et al. in Strachan in order to provide excellent recovery properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights