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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that there would be no undue burden on the examiner to search all three invention groups. This is not found persuasive because would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because each invention requires a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses (elected Group II is classified in D02G 3/445 while Group I is classified in D02G 1/0206 and Group III is classified in D06N 7/0065) or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-15, 23 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,175,038 to Tung in view of USPN 6,287,688 to Howell.
Claims 17 and 20, Tung discloses a high bulk yarn for use as pile in a floor covering comprising a plurality of plies, wherein; each ply further comprises at least one draw textured yarn and wherein, the at least one draw textured yarn further comprises continuous filaments of polymer wherein; the plurality of plies are twisted or cabled together in a range between 30 and 400 twists per meter and heat set in the twisted or cabled state, wherein a weight of the high bulk yarn is at least 1000 denier (see entire document including column 1, lines 14-26 and column 2, line 43 through column 5, line 40).
Tung discloses bulking by hot-air-jet impingement and does not appear to specifically mention friction false-twist texturing. Howell discloses that friction false-twist texturing was a well-known and indeed preferred alternative technique for drawing and texturing continuous-filament polyester yarn to impart bulk (see entire document including column 1, lines 12-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to bulk the yarn of Tung via friction false-twist texturing to provide the desired bulking and/or increase processing speeds and/or operational costs.
Tung discloses a bulk metric (% BCE) that is different from the claimed yarn bulk (measured in cm3/gm) but Tung is expressly directed to maximizing bulk (column 2, lines 43-60) and Tung discloses that bulk is a result-effective variable directly tied to parameters disclosed as adjustable in Tung (column 2, lines 7-12). Plus, the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical high bulk yarn in terms of yarn material, filament denier, yarn denier, yarn construction, and method of production. Therefore, the applied prior art either inherently teaches the claimed yarn bulk or at a minimum it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the yarn with any suitable high bulk, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a yarn high bulk on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 18, the filaments are single-component filaments (column 3, lines 5-21 and the Examples).
Claim 19, the yarn has a weight of greater than 2000 denier (column 4, lines 3-15 and column 4, lines 31-55).
Claim 21, Tung discloses that the polymer may be a polyester (column 3, lines 34-41) and Howell discloses that PET is a well-known polyester used for false-twist textured yarn applications requiring luxurious bulk and improved hand and advantageously do not typically age very rapidly and therefore are suitable for downstream drawing and draw-texturing operations (column 1, lines 12-61). Plus, the examiner takes official notice that PET is a very common yarn material used for the pile in floor coverings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the yarn material of Tung from PET, because it is common and/or because has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 22, a weight of the filaments is greater than 2 dpf (column 3, lines 5-21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights