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
Applicant's amendments and remarks filed on 8/5/2026 have been entered and considered. Claim 8 has been added and claims 1 – 8 are pending. In view of Applicant’s arguments, the Examiners all previously set forth rejections. The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 8 have been 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0087820 A1).
As to claims 1 and 8, Suzuki et al. is directed to an eccentric core-sheath composite fiber and combined filament yarn (Title). Suzuki et al. teach a mixed-filament yarn including two or more kinds of single filaments having different cross-sectional configuration and dispersedly intermingled with each other, in which: at least one kind of the single filaments includes the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber and the at least one kind of the single filaments is bundled with the other of the single filaments with the number of tangles being from 1 to 100/m [0032]. The Examiner equates the eccentric core-sheath fiber to Applicant’s “fiber A” and the single filaments bundled with the eccentric core-sheath fiber to Applicant’s “fiber B”. By virtue of the eccentric core-sheath configuration, it can be classified as Applicant’s “latent crimp yarn”. Suzuki et al. teach that the polymers used for the eccentric core-sheath and single filaments can preferably include polyesters and polyamides among other polymers [0058]. Suzuki et al. note that the yarn can be false twisted according to need [0122 and 0123]. Table 4 demonstrates a variety of examples having various values for “proportion of adjacent filament groups %”, specifically example 17 teaches a value of 49%. Additionally, comparative examples 5 – 8 teach values of 88 – 92%. Suzuki et al. additionally teaches that it is preferable that the proportion of adjacent-filament groups for at least one kind of the single filaments is 10 to 50%. When the proportion thereof is within that range, the single filaments having the same composition can be regarded as moderately dispersed in the mixed-filament yarn without localizing. When the constituent single filaments differ in dyeability, the proportion of adjacent-filament groups is more preferably 20 to 40%, because a fabric formed from the mixed-filament yarn has a surface composed not of single filaments of only one of multiple compositions but of moderately mixed single filaments of the multiple compositions. Namely, a fabric having a natural grainy appearance is obtained. Furthermore, when the proportion of adjacent-filament groups in the mixed-filament yarn composed of single filaments differing in dyeability is within that range, the degree of dispersion of the single filaments constituting the mixed-filament yarn can be changed by regulating arrangement of the single filaments. It is hence possible to control the pitch of graininess or the color tone [0094]. Regarding the limitations in claim 8 of “wherein an adjacent filament group includes N x 0.2 or more single fibers of the polyamide fiber A, the N x 0.2 or more single fibers being adjacent and continuous, and wherein the adjacent filament group ratio of the polyamide fiber A is represented by Ns/N x 100 (%), with a total number of single fibers of the polyamide A denoted by N and a total number of single fibers of the polyamide fiber A constituting the adjacent filament group is denoted by Ns”, the Examiner submits this is the definition of adjacent filament group ratio (see discussion in paragraph [0082] of the Specification. As Suzuki et al. also discusses the same property, the Examiner submits this is taught by Suzuki et al.
In light of the above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the adjacent filament group ratio to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a yarn with the optimal color tone and pitch of graininess. 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).
As to claim 2, Suzuki et al. et al. teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach elongation difference between the polyamide fiber A and the polyamide fiber B is 7.0% or more and 40.0% or less. It is reasonable to presume that the elongation difference is inherent to Suzuki et al. Support for said presumption is found in that the fiber A and fiber B with the same polymers, same configuration, same crimping and made by same process conditions (see above and details discussed in the prior art), and therefore are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
As to claim 3, Suzuki et al. teach that the single filament fineness is preferably 0.8 dtex or less [0080].
As to claim 4, Suzuki et al. teach utilizing two polymers in the eccentric sheath core fibers having a difference in melt viscosity of 50 Pa s or more [0095]. Additionally, Suzuki et al. teach that the difference in melt viscosity influences the level of crimp, mechanical properties [0098-0099]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize melt viscosity ratio to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a yarn with the desired level of crimp and mechanical properties. 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). Suzuki et al. teach the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the conjugate fiber has an equilibrium moisture content of 6.3% or less. It is reasonable to presume that the equilibrium moisture content of 6.3% or less is inherent to Suzuki et al. Support for said presumption is found in that the false twisted yarn is made of the same materials, same processes with the same features (see above and details discussed in the prior art), and therefore are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
As to claim 5, Suzuki et al. teach making a knit or woven fabric from the yarns described above [0002].
As to claims 6 – 7, Suzuki et al. teach using the yarn to create garments [0120] among other end uses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights