DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted on September 22, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended and claims 2 and 11-28 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1, 3-10, and 29-44 pending for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the amendments to the specification filed on September 22, 2025, the Listing of Elements table on page 7, at line 2 after 1100 Natural plant fiber pile fabric, reference number 1101 was amended from Exploded cross section view to Base. Previously, reference number 1102 represented “Base”, however in the amended Listing of Elements the Element Description is blank. It is unclear whether the description of “Base” for reference number 1102 was deleted. Additionally, reference number 1103 was added to the Listing, however a corresponding Element Description was not provided. It is noted that reference number 1103 does not appear elsewhere in the specification or the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: FIG. 9 does not include the pile fabric 110, guard hair 1003, length 1008 1003, underlayer 1004, underlayer length 1004, scrim 1006, adhesive agent 1005, plurality of fibers 1000, and fiber length 1001 described in the amendments to the specification filed September 22, 2025.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1008" and "1003" have both been used to designate guard hair length in the amended specification filed September 22, 2025.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1003” has been used to designate both guard hair and guard hair length in the amended specification filed September 22, 2025.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1004” has been used to designate both underlayer and underlayer length in the amended specification filed September 22, 2025.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10, 29-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 4461791)1,2 in view of Jun (WO 2014/063028)2.
With respect to claims 1, 4, and 37, Matsui teaches high grade pile articles having long guard hairs 3, fine short wools 2, and a substrate fabric 1 (base) (col. 2, lines 1-13). The piles may be dyed (impregnation material introduced into at least one microscopic crevasse in each of the pile fibers) (col. 6, lines 57-61; col. 8, lines 52-67; col. 9, lines 30-53). Dyeing of the pile fibers with a dye solution would necessarily impregnate the dye into at least one microscopic crevasse in each of the pile fibers. As can been seen in FIGs. 1-15, a first end of each pile is secured to the substrate (base) by a tufting method (col. 14, lines 6-9).
With respect to the material of the pile fibers and substrate, Matsui teaches many possible materials including natural fibers such as cotton (plant-derived) (col. 6, lines 57-65). To one of ordinary skill in the art it at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to try the pile materials disclosed by Matsui in order to determine which provides the desired look and feel. See MPEP 2143.
Matsui is silent as to the dye including a pigment.
Jun teaches a process for coloring textile materials (paragraph [0001]). The process includes contacting the textile material with an aqueous coloring medium comprising at least one dye and/or pigment and an aqueous dispersion of a copolymer binder to provide a dye or pigment bonded to the material to produce a colored textile material exhibiting improved depth of shade, crockfastness and lightfastness (paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dyeing process of Matsui to include the dyeing process of Jun, which uses a pigment, in order to produce a colored pule with improved depth of shade, crockfastness and lightfastness.
The limitation “wherein the plurality of plant-derived pile fibers have been processed via a retting process and then treated with heater and pressure in the presence of an impregnation material” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because as discussed above Mitsui teaches cotton in a form sufficient to form a fiber that is dyed with a dyeing solution.
With respect to claim 5, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Matsui further teaches the pile comprises long guard hairs 3 and fine short wools 2 (underlayer group) (col. 2, lines 1-3).
With respect to claim 6, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. With respect to the material of the pile fibers, Matsui teaches many possible materials including natural fibers such as cotton (plant-derived) (col. 6, lines 57-65). To one of ordinary skill in the art it at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to try the pile materials disclosed by Matsui in order to determine which provides the desired look and feel. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 8, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Matsui further teaches that a part or a whole of the pile has varied colors, finenesses, and/or length (col. 2, lines 20-24). To one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to try the variations disclosed by Matsui in order to determine which provides the desired appearance and feel. See MPEP 2143. It is noted that when the color and/or fineness of the pile is varied the length of the pile (i.e., the height of the guard hairs 3 and the wools 2) would be the same.
With respect to claim 9, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. As can be seen in FIGs. 1-6 and 10-15 the guard hairs 3 and the wools 2 (underlayer group) have different lengths.
With respect to claims 10 and 29, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Matsui further teaches the length of the piles are about 0.5-10 cm (5-100 mm), preferably 1-6 cm (10-60 mm) (col. 7, lines 50-56).
The pile fiber length range of Matsui substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 10 and 29. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Matsui, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claims 30 and 32-34, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Matsui further teaches the wools (underlayer group) have a denier of less than 10d (~30 microns)3, particularly less than 5d (~21 microns)1, and in many cases about 0.5-3d (~7~17 microns)1; and the guard hairs have a denier of more than 5d (~21 microns)1, particularly more than 10d (~30 microns)1, in many cases 15-200d (~37~135 microns)1 (col. 7, lines 40-56).
The fiber diameter range of Matsui substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 30 and 33-34. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Matsui, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claim 31, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Matsui further teaches that a part or a whole of the pile has varied colors, finenesses, and/or length (col. 2, lines 20-24). To one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to try the variations disclosed by Matsui in order to determine which provides the desired appearance and feel. See MPEP 2143. It is noted that when the color and/or length of the pile is varied the fineness of the pile (i.e., the diameter of the guard hairs 3 and the wools 2) would be the same.
With respect to claims 35-36, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Matsui further teaches that a major part of natural furs consist of “guard hairs (tough hairs)” and “wools (soft hairs)” (col. 1, lines 21-23). The guard hairs may be colored with various colors along the length while the wools are uniform and do not vary in color (col. 2, lines 28-40; col. 6, lines 7-48). Varying color distribution produces articles having three-dimensionally varied appearance and color and allows for a high grade of design for a large number of natural animal furs (col. 6, lines 30-38).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio of the guard hairs to the wools (underlayer group) to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a pile fabric that is has the desired feel (e.g., soft or tough), and provides the necessary coloring for the fur design desired (e.g., racoon, dog, marten, etc.). It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 38-39, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Matsui further teaches a method for producing pile articles includes a method for flocking piles when knitting or weaving by means of a pile weaving or knitting machine (mechanical entanglement or fixed to the base by stitching or knitting), a method using a sliver knitting machine or the like (fixed to the base by knitting), raising methods (mechanical entanglement), tufting methods (mechanical entanglement or fixed to the base by stitching), electrical flocking methods and other pile producing methods may be applied (col. 2, lines 14-19). The substrate fabric may contain a polyurethane elastomer, or rubbery or non-elastic resins (adhesive agent) (col. 2, lines 11-13).
With respect to claim 40, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Matsui further teaches the wools (underlayer group) have a pile density of 1,000-100,000 f/cm2 (10-1,000 f/mm2), and particularly 10,000-50,000 f/cm2 (100-500 f/mm2) (col. 7, lines 40-45).
The wools density range of Matsui substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 40. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Matsui, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claims 41-42, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above. Matsui further teaches the piles may be dyed (coloring agent) (col. 6, lines 57-61; col. 8, lines 52-67; col. 9, lines 30-53). Dyeing of the pile fibers with a dye solution would necessarily treat the surface of the fibers.
With respect to claim 43, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the material of the pile fibers, Matsui teaches many possible materials including natural fibers such as cotton (plant-derived) (col. 6, lines 57-65). To one of ordinary skill in the art it at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to try the pile materials disclosed by Matsui in order to determine which provides the desired look and feel. See MPEP 2143. In the event cotton is chosen as the pile material, the pile would be devoid of synthetic or man-made material.
With respect to claim 44, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Matsui does not explicitly teach the fiber volume per square centimeter of base, however as discussed above Matsui teaches pile lengths of about 0.5-10 cm (5-100 mm), preferably 1-6 cm (10-60 mm) (col. 7, lines 50-56) which overlap with the range of claim 10; diameters of wools (underlayer group) of less than about 30 microns, particularly less than about 21 microns, and in many cases about 7~17 microns; and of the guard hairs of more than about 21 microns, particularly more than about 30 microns, in many cases about 37~135 microns (col. 7, lines 40-56) which overlaps with the ranges of claims 30 and 33-34; and a pile density of 1,000-100,000 f/cm2 (10-1,000 f/mm2), and particularly 10,000-50,000 f/cm2 (100-500 f/mm2) (col. 7, lines 40-45) which overlaps with the range of 40. Since the fibers of Matsui have similar length and diameter as the claimed invention and are packed at the same packing density as the claimed invention, it is reasonable to presume the pile fabric of Matsui is within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 4461791)4,5 in view of Jun (WO 2014/063028)2 as applied to claim 1 above with supporting evidence provided by Ankeny (“Cotton’s Biodegradability”)2.
With respect to claim 3, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 obvious, it is obvious to choose cotton from the list of pile fiber materials. Additionally, it is known in the art that cotton is biodegradable in all natural environments (How does cotton’s biodegradability compare to other fibers or materials?).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 4461791)6,7 in view of Jun (WO 2014/063028)2 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Endo (US 4389364)1,2.
With respect to claim 7, Matsui in view of Jun teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above.
Matsui in view of Jun is silent as to the guard hairs and the wools (underlayer group) comprising different plant fibers.
Endo teaches pile fabrics that simulate natural furs (col. 3, lines 39-46). The pile fibers can be mixed with synthetic fibers, wool, cottons, and hemp (col. 6, lines 14-18; col. 7, lines 4-9). Mixing with conventional fibers is preferable to resemble natural furs in their appearance, hand, and structure (col. 7, lines 22-37).
Since both Matsui in view of Jun and Endo teach pile fabrics comprising natural fiber pile, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pile of Matsui in view of Jun to include a mixture of fibers, such as cotton and hemp, in order to provide a pile fabric that resembles natural fur in their appearance, hand, and structure.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-2 of Application No. 18/783,090. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/783,090 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Response – Drawings
The objections to the drawings have been overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the drawings in the response received on September 22, 2025. However, in light of the amendments to the specification and drawings, new objections to the drawings and specification have been applied above.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 2 of the response Applicant submits that none of the cited prior art teaches performing an impregnation process comprising treating the plant material fiber with pressure and heat to introduce materials into at least one microscopic crevasse in the plant fiber material.
These arguments are not persuasive. As explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the limitation “wherein the plurality of plant-derived pile fibers have been processed via a retting process and then treated with heater and pressure in the presence of an impregnation material” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because as discussed above Mitsui teaches cotton in a form sufficient to form a fiber that is dyed with a dyeing solution. Dyeing of the pile fibers with a dye solution would necessarily impregnate the dye into at least one microscopic crevasse in each of the pile fibers.
The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to shoe that the claimed product appear to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to supplicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP 2113(II). As described above, the product of Mitsui in view of Jun appears substantially similar in structure to the claimed product. Applicant has not provided evidence that the structure of the prior art is different than that claimed, therefore the rejection is maintained.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Previously presented
3 Diameter (microns) = √(dpf/density in g/cm3) * 11.89. A density of 1.54 g/cm3 for cotton was used
4 Cited in IDS
5 Previously presented
6 Cited in IDS
7 Previously presented