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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 1 and 9 are newly amended.
Claims 1-9 are currently under examination for their merits.
Withdrawn Objections & Rejections
The objections and rejections presented herein represent the full set of objections and rejections currently pending in the application. Any objections or rejections not specifically reiterated are hereby withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komura et al. (JP2005226210A, on IDS 08/23/2024) in view of Tian et al. (Journal of Materials Science, 2015) and Lahtinen et al. (US20050002981A1) as evidenced by Kim et al. (Scientific Reports, 2017, hereafter “Kim SH”) is withdrawn in order to address the claimed as amended.
The rejection of claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komura et al. (JP2005226210A, on IDS 08/23/2024) in view of Tian et al. (Journal of Materials Science, 2015) and Lahtinen et al. (US20050002981A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR2005226210, on IDS 08/23/2024, hereafter “Kim”) is withdrawn in order to address the claimed as amended.
The rejection of claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komura et al. (JP2005226210A, on IDS 08/23/2024) in view of Tian et al. (Journal of Materials Science, 2015) and Lahtinen et al. (US20050002981A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zuidema et al. (Biomaterials, 2014, on IDS 08/23/2024) is withdrawn in order to address the claimed as amended.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR101075882B1, 2011, on IDS 08/23/2024, previously cited) in view of Rahman Sobuj (Textiles Study Center, 04/11/2015).
In regards to claim 1, in regards to manufacturing a yarn for a cell culture scaffold, this is an intended use of the preamble. The claim does not require specific culturing steps but only indicates that the yarn can be used for this purpose. According to MPEP 2111.02, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Furthermore, the intended use does not result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art (See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Therefore, the intended use is not considered limiting.
The only active method steps are (1) preparing a ply yarn by twisting a plurality of fiber strands in a first direction, wherein the ply yarn has no open spaces between fiber strands, and then (2) partially untwisting at least one part of the ply yarn in the longitudinal direction in a second opposite to the first direction to implement an open space which is formed by spacing apart the adjacent fiber strands within the untwisted part.
In other words, the method only requires twisting a plurality of fibers strands, so that there are no spaces between the strands, and therefore, forming a ply yarn, and then untwisting that ply yarn in the opposite direction
Turning to the art, Kim (who is noted is an instant inventor) teaches a method for manufacturing yarn (Abstract).
Kim teaches that the nanofibers that make up the yarn can be produced by medical adhesion agents (Background, second page), and therefore, is at least capable of performing the intended use of being used for a cell culture scaffold.
Regarding step (1), Kim teaches preparing a ply yarn by twisting nanofibers (i.e., a plurality of fiber strands) (“In the method of manufacturing a composite yarn containing nanofibers according to the present invention . . . electrospinning is performed . . . to obtain a tape yarn composed of nanofibers. The nanofiber tape yarns thus obtained are plied and twisted together; see Description of Embodiments, third page).
As shown in Figs. 3 or 4, the yarn is completely twisted and therefore, is considered to have to have no open spaces between fiber strands (it is also noted that Figs. 3 and 4 of Kim appear to be the yarn confirmation of the completely twisted portion instant Fig. 2).
The difference between the method of Kim and the instant invention is the step of partially untwisting the ply yarn in step (2).
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to subsequently untwist a plied yarn as in step (2) in order to provide texture to that yarn (Fig. 1, first page; Fig. sixth page) or to provide specific properties such as high stretchability (ninth page, top paragraph) as taught by Rahman Sobuj. Furthermore, because Rahman Sobuj teaches methods for twisting and then untwisting yarn in the opposite direction to crease open spaces (fig. sixth page), a person of ordinary skill in the art could have incorporated an extra step of subsequently untwisting the plied yarn of Kim as in step (2) with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 2, Kim teaches that the yarn is a slitting yarn (Abstract; Background, second page).
In regards to claim 3, Kim teaches that the yarn fibers can be made of polystyrene, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), etc. (third page, third paragraph).
In regards to claim 4, Kim teaches a yarn with a fineness of 74 deniers (sixth page), which overlaps with claimed range.
In regards to claim 5, Kim is silent as to the specific fineness of the fibers themselves
However, it is noted that the fineness (as measured in deniers) is a measure the mass of a 9000 m of a fiber by the density of the fiber substance).
In this regard, Kim teaches a fiber strand can have a diameter of less than 1 µm (Background, second page). As above, Kim also teaches Kim teaches that the material can be at polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), etc. (third page, third paragraph).
Together, a fiber made of PVDF with a diameter of 1 µm would result in a fineness in denier of about 0.0126 (density of PVDF = 1.78 x 10^6g; diameter of 1 µm = area of 7.854 x 10^-13 m2; volume = area x 9000m = 7.069 x 10-9 m3; mass = V x density = 0.01258 g or deniers) which is lower but close to the broad range of 0.1 to 30 deniers as in claim 5 (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."
Indeed, as above, the clamed fiber materials are the same, as above, the overall fineness of the yarns are the same, and as discussed below (see rejection of claim 6) the claimed sub-substructure of the fibers are the same. Therefore, the fineness of the fibers as taught by Kim would be expected to have the same properties.
In regards to claim 6, Kim teaches that the slitting yarn is a web with a three-dimensional structure (Background, second page; see also fourth through sixth pages).
Kim also teaches that the slitting yarn has a weight basis of 5 gsm (g/m2) and widths of 0.1 to 10 mm (third page) of 2 mm (see Preparation of PAN Nanofiber Tapes, sixth page), which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR101075882B1, 2011, on IDS 08/23/2024, previously cited) in view of Rahman Sobuj (Textiles Study Center, 04/11/2015) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zuidema et al. (Biomaterials, 2014, on IDS 08/23/2024, previously cited).
In regards to claims 7-8, Kim teaches that the nanofibers can be produced by medical adhesion agents (second page).
While it is unclear if the medical adhesion agents are physiologically active adhesion agents such as those in claim 8, Zuidema teaches a method for coating fiber substrates with at least fibronectin (a glycoprotein and a physiologically active component) (Abstract, p1439). Zuidema also teaches that fibronectin coating provided superior attachment (adhesion) compared to other coatings (p1441, second column, top paragraph). Furthermore, Zuidema teaches that this promoted survival (p1448, column 2, top paragraph). Finally, broadly Zuidema teaches that fiber scaffolds can be utilized to provide topographical cues that aid in directing cellular migration (p1148, column 1, last sentence).
A person of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to modify the method of Kim and provide a physiologically active component, such as fibronectin, because it would promote attachment cells, improve their survivability, and thus provide a topographical cue to aid in directing migration. Furthermore, because, as above, Zuidema teaches methods for coating cell scaffold fibers, and techniques for growing cells on coated fibers, and because Kim teaches that the fibers can be produced by medical adhesion agents, it could be done with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Kim, Rahman Sobuj, and Zuidema renders the invention unpatentable as claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR101075882B1, 2011, on IDS 08/23/2024, previously cited) in view of Rahman Sobuj (Textiles Study Center, 04/11/2015) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komura et al. (JP2005226210A, on IDS 08/23/2024) and ISO2016 (International Standard, Textiles – Determination of twist in yarns – Direct counting method, 1995).
In regards to claim 9, Kim as modified by Rahman Sobuj is silent as to the number of twists per meter or the specific percentage of untwist as defined by the Mathematical Equation (Untwist rate (%$) = (length (m) of yarn after untwisting – length (m) of ply yarn) x 100 / length (m) of ply yarn.
However, in regards to a number of twists, other twisted yarns for the use as biological scaffolds were known in the art before the effective filing date.
Specifically, Komura teaches a yarn for use as a cell culture scaffold prepared by twisting a fiber bundle (a plurality of fiber strands) (Title, Abstract, claim 6). Komura teaches that the number of twists of the twisted yarn is not particularly limited as long as the target cells are cultured, but is preferably 10 to 2000 times/m, more preferably 100 to 1000 times/m (Advantageous-Effects, p3; which overlaps with the claim number of twists of 100 to 5000 twists (times)/m).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to twist the plurality of fibers over this amount because Komura teaches that it is suitable for culturing cells. Furthermore, because both Kim and Komura are in the same technical field of producing nano-scale twisted yarns, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have specifically twisted the yarn of Kim within the claimed ranges with predicable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to an untwist rate of 10 to 60% as satisfied by Mathematical Expression 1 (i.e., the yarn is untwisted to 10 to 60% of its initial twisted value), a person of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at this untwisted percentage by routine optimization.
According to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), differences in concentration or temperature (i.e., amounts of known values) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
As discussed above, the condition of untwisting yarn in order obtained textured or stretchable yarns was known in the art.
Furthermore, measuring untwisting of a yarn by the same formula is taught by ISO2061 (this is the same as measuring the change in length (Δl) of a yarn and is represented by the equation Δl = (lu – lt) / lt x 100 (Change in length on untwisting, p6; “Increase or decrease in initial length observed when the specimen is untwisted, expressed as the percentage extension, or contraction, based on the specimen initial length”; 3.4. change in length on untwisting, p2)), which results in a value greater than 0% and up to 100% of the length (untwisted amount) of the originally twisted yarn (which is relative value of 100%). Since untwisting is a measurable percentage as identified by the prior art, it is a result-effect variable (some value between 0% and 100%), and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at the broad range of an untwisted amount of 10 to 60% by routine optimization with predicable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the disclosure does not point to a criticality in this range.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Kim, Rahman Sobuj, Komura and ISO2061 render the invention unpatentable as claimed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,129,489 B2 in view of Kim (KR101075882B1, 2011, on IDS 08/23/2024, previously cited), Rahman Sobuj (Textiles Study Center, 04/11/2015), and ISO2016 (International Standard, Textiles – Determination of twist in yarns – Direct counting method, 1995).
While the instant claims and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,129,489 B2 are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because both are drawn to a ply yarn for cell culture that is a slitting yarn with a 3D structure made by twisting plurality of fibers. Additionally, the yarn scaffold can be made of polystyrene and with a physiologically active component such as a monamine; wherein the yarn has a fineness that overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 30 deniers; with a 3D fiber web with a basis weight that overlaps with the range of 0.1 to 100 g/m2; wherein the slitting yarn has a predetermined width, and with a number of twists that overlaps with the range of 100 T/m.
U.S. Patent No. 12,129,489 B2 does not explicitly teach that the yarn is made by a process of (1) preparing a ply yarn by twisting a plurality of fiber strands in a first direction, wherein the ply yarn has no open spaces between fiber strands, and then (2) partially untwisting at least one part of the ply yarn in the longitudinal direction in a second opposite to the first direction to implement an open space which is formed by spacing apart the adjacent fiber strands within the untwisted part.
In other words, the method only requires twisting a plurality of fibers strands, so that there are no spaces between the strands, and therefore, forming a ply yarn, and then untwisting that ply yarn in the opposite direction.
However, performing these methods for manufacturing yarns was known in the art before the effective filing date.
Specifically, Kim (who is noted is an instant inventor) teaches a method for manufacturing yarn (Abstract).
Kim teaches preparing a ply yarn by twisting nanofibers (i.e., a plurality of fiber strands) (“In the method of manufacturing a composite yarn containing nanofibers according to the present invention . . . electrospinning is performed . . . to obtain a tape yarn composed of nanofibers. The nanofiber tape yarns thus obtained are plied and twisted together; see Description of Embodiments, third page).
As shown in Figs. 3 or 4, the yarn is completely twisted and therefore, is considered to have to have no open spaces between fiber strands (it is also noted that Figs. 3 and 4 of Kim appear to be the yarn confirmation of the completely twisted portion instant Fig. 2).
Additionally, Rahman Sobuj teaches methods for twisting and untwisting yarn (Fig. 1, first; Fig. sixth page). Rahman Sobuj teaches that untwisting yarn provides texture to that yarn (Fig. 1, first page; Fig. sixth page) or specific properties such as high stretchability (ninth page, top paragraph). ISO2061 also teaches that untwisting previously twisted yarn can change its length (3.4. change in length on untwisting, p2)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to twist and then untwist yarn in the claimed manner in order to provide texture to the yarn, give it a property such as stretchability, or to change its length. Furthermore, because twisting and then untwisting is a known method for manufacturing yarns, it could have been done with predicable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to the percentage of untwist in claim 9, an untwist rate of 10 to 60% as satisfied by Mathematical Expression 1 (i.e., the yarn is untwisted to 10 to 60% of its initial twisted value), a person of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at this untwisted percentage by routine optimization.
According to MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), differences in concentration or temperature (i.e., amounts of known values) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
As discussed above, the condition of untwisting yarn in order obtained textured or stretchable yarns was known in the art.
Furthermore, measuring untwisting of a yarn by the same formula is taught by ISO2061 (this is the same as measuring the change in length (Δl) of a yarn and is represented by the equation Δl = (lu – lt) / lt x 100 (Change in length on untwisting, p6; “Increase or decrease in initial length observed when the specimen is untwisted, expressed as the percentage extension, or contraction, based on the specimen initial length”; 3.4. change in length on untwisting, p2)), which results in a value greater than 0% and up to 100% of the length (untwisted amount) of the originally twisted yarn (which is relative value of 100%). Since untwisting is a measurable percentage as identified by the prior art, it is a result-effect variable (some value between 0% and 100%), and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at the broad range of an untwisted amount of 10 to 60% by routine optimization with predicable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the disclosure does not point to a criticality in this range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims as amended require twisting a plurality of fiber strands in a first direction, wherein the ply yarn has no open spaces between fiber strands, and then partially untwisting at least one part of the ply yarn in the longitudinal direction in a second opposite to the first direction to implement an open space which is formed by spacing apart the adjacent fiber strands within the untwisted part. (Remarks, p5-6).
Applicant argues that Komura is directed to a twisted yarn for a cell-culture substrate and a manufacturing method thereof, but terminates at the twisting/winding step, and does not disclose a step of untwisting the twisted yarn in the opposite direction to the first direction for twisting the fiber strands. (Remarks, p5).
Specifically, Applicant argues that the gaps between fibers are the fine inter-filament voids of the multifilament itself, but are not formed by any untwisting. (Remarks, p6).
Applicant further argues that there is no reason and motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art, but not knowing the claimed invention, to be tempted to apply an untwisting to form an open space (Remarks, p6-7).
Continuing, Applicant argues that none of Lahtinen and Tian, either alone or in combination, do not teach the claimed method, cannot cure the above deficiencies of Komura, and thus the proposed combination of the cited references cannot arrive at the claimed invention in the way that this newly defined claimed invention is and does. (Remarks, p6-7).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 in view of Komura, Lahtinen, and Tian have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, in regards to Applicant’s argument that there is no reason and motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art, but not knowing the claimed invention, to be tempted to apply an untwisting to form an open space (Remarks, p6-7), regarding Applicant’s assertions regarding hindsight reasoning, must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In regards to untwisting previously twisted yarn, this is a technique for the manufacturing of yarn known in the art before the effective filing date.
As discussed above, as taught by Rahman Sobuj, it was known in the art that after twisting, yarn could be subsequently untwisted in order to provide texture or to provide specific properties such as high stretchability (Fig. 1, first page; Fig. sixth page; ninth page, top paragraph).
As further taught by ISO2061, untwisting previously twisted yarn changes the length of the yarn (Change in length on untwisting, p6; “Increase or decrease in initial length observed when the specimen is untwisted, expressed as the percentage extension, or contraction, based on the specimen initial length”; 3.4. change in length on untwisting, p2)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to subsequently untwist yarn in order to change the properties (such as giving it texture, stretchability, or change its length), and because the prior art teaches techniques for untwisting yarn (and even measuring untwisted yarn), a person of ordinary skill in the art could have performed an untwisting step as claimed with predicable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended render the double-patenting rejections moot. (Remarks, p8).
In regards to U.S. Patent Nos. 11,946,031 B2, 11,013,580 B2, and 11,629,321 B2, Applicant’s arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the double-patenting rejections over these patents have been withdrawn.
However, the double-patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 12,129,489 B2 is maintained as discussed above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 JOSEPH (PAUL) MIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-0341. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, James (Doug) Schultz can be reached at (571) 272-0763. 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.
/JOSEPH PAUL MIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
/JAMES D SCHULTZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights