DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8, 10-16 are pending. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-13, and 15 are amended. Claims 9 and 17 are cancelled.
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 28, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-13, and 15 have been amended, claims 9 and 17 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-8, and 10-16 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome most of the 35 USC §112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC §112(b) are not persuasive and introduce additional rejections. Applicant recites that the claim is a product-by-process claim, and thus the product does not require the elements of the method. The examiner maintains the rejection as it is not clear when infringement would occur on the product claims and how one in possession of the product would know if they are infringing the claim. That is, if someone had the particular product claimed, would it be required to have been formed by the method? Or could it have been formed by a different method?
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawings are found partially persuasive.
Applicant references paragraphs for the drawings, there are no paragraphs in the application as filed. While the Examiner notes the citation indicating that the publication of the present application is to be utilized for support, that document is not the working file, similarly to how the claims of the publication are not the claims that are amended. Please refer to the specification as filed.
Applicant’s arguments regarding roman numerals I, II, III, and IV are found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding a, b, c, d, e, f, p, and q are not found persuasive. Letter a refers to an inlet intersection and d an outlet intersection of through hole 8, b refers to an inlet intersection and d an outlet intersection of hole 9, c refers to an inlet intersection and e an outlet intersection of hole 10, q refers to an inner wall intersection and p an intersection and the outer wall of hole 7; point f is also recited as the hole III (10) intersection with inner wall of the outer cylindrical tube. Each of these points does not “correlate” to characters 8, 9, 10, and 7 but rather an outlet or inlet of these particular characters. They are specific locations called out by the specification and should be shown on the figures.
Applicant’s arguments, regarding the art-based rejections are considered and are persuasive.
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: a, b, c, d, e, f, p, q. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pile yarn, a first end, a second end, a free end, interlacing, wrapping, tangling, piles, and groups of transfer channels and the distance between groups of adjacent transfer channels must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a pile yarn prepared by the method according to claim 1” such that it is unclear if the claim is referring to a product-by-process limitation, in which the process is not owed the same patentable weight, or if the claim is referring to a method of producing a yarn with specific properties. It is thus unclear when infringement would occur. If someone had the same product, but formed by a different method would that infringe? The examiner is interpreting this as referring to a method of producing a yarn with specific properties, and thus requires all of the limitations of the method claim.
Claim 11 recites that the monofilaments are a drawn textured yarn. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. A drawn textured yarn could be formed of multiple monofilaments that together form a yarn, but it is unclear if applicant intends the different monofilaments to be considered a “yarn”. It would then be unclear what is the different between the multifilament and the monofilaments. The examiner believes that the multifilament would be considered the drawn textured yarn.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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 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 8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 3715878) in view of Earley et al. (US 20080040906) as evidenced by Awais et al. (see URL in PTO-892)
Regarding claim 8, Kim describes a pile yarn prepared by the method (Applicant alleges that the claim is a product-by-process claim, and not a method, patentable weight has only been given to the structure of the end product, not to the method of manufacture. The end product being considered a pile yarn. Manufacturing steps such as motion, pressure, angles of components, speed of motion cutting or no cutting, continuous or discontinuous feeding, are not given patentable weight in the claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113)) according to claim 1,
including a warp strand (2’)
wherein the pile yarn comprises the warp strand (2’) and piles (strands 1’) on a surface of the warp strand (2’);
wherein each of the piles includes a given fiber of the fibers (staple fibers, col. 2, ll. 6-9), said given short fiber having a first end and a second end (see Fig.5) , wherein the first end is a free end and the second end is bonded to the multifilament by a mutual interlacing, a wrapping, and/or a tangling (embedded in warps, col. 2, ll. 40-42),
wherein an average exposure length of the short fibers is 3-5 mm (warp strands are placed 2 to 20 each inch, col. 3, ll. 20-22, which would require the cutting to be at between 0.67 mm and 12.7 mm which overlaps the claimed range and is prima facie obvious),
wherein an exposure length defines a length of a portion of a corresponding short fiber of the short fibers that is exposed from an outermost monofilament surface of the multifilament (is the exposure length)
wherein along a length direction of the multifilament, a distribution density of the piles is 120-390/m (between 5 to 200 per inch, col. 3, ll. 24-28, which equates to between 39 and 560 per meter which overlaps the claimed range and is prima facie obvious).
Kim does not explicitly describe that the warp thread is a multifilament of multiple monofilaments.
In related art for yarns, Earley describes utilizing a core yarn of multiple fibers (para. 0051) with a denier of 100 to 900 denier, and 2 to 250 filaments (para. 0080).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the warp yarns of Kim to be of the type described in Earley in order to provide abrasion resistance to the yarn (see Earley, abstract).
Kim does not explicitly describe that the average length of the short fibers is 15-25 mm, however, Kim does describes that the short fibers can be staple fibers (col. 2, ll. 6-7).
In related art, Earley describes that cotton fibers may be utilized as desired (para. 0081) .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the material of the piles to be cotton as such a modification is a simple substitution of one known element (staple fiber) for another (cotton, which is a type of staple fiber) with an expectation of success. That is, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize how the yarn would behave if the staple fibers was cotton.
Kim as modified does not explicitly describe that the length of the short fibers is 15-25 mm, however, as evidenced by Awais, cotton fibers generally range from 20 to 32 mm (see page 3, first column, first paragraph) which overlaps the claimed range and thus is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Kim as modified describes a method for preparing a pile fabric, comprising: using the pile yarn according to claim 8 as all or part of raw materials, (what follows is a recitation of intended use, Applicant argues that claim 8 is a product claim and not a method claim, thus claiming how to use the product is an intended use limitation) processing according to a processing technology to prepare the pile fabric (fully capable of being processed with technology);
wherein the processing technology is a technology not containing an electrostatic flocking procedure or a pile cutting procedure (fully capable of being used to form a pile fabric without using an electrostatic of pile cutting procedure).
Regarding claim 11, Kim as modified describes pile yarn according to claim 8, wherein in the method (Patentable weight has only been given to the structure of the end product, not to the method of manufacture. The end product being considered a pile yarn. Manufacturing steps such as motion, pressure, angles of components, speed of motion cutting or no cutting, continuous or discontinuous feeding, are not given patentable weight in the claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113), the multiple monofilaments are a draw textured yarn (DTY);
a specification of the draw textured yarn is 100-150 D/30-50 F (as modified by Earley, a denier of 100 to 900 denier, and 2 to 250 filaments para. 0080).
Regarding claim 12, Kim as modified describes the pile yarn according to claim 8, wherein in the method (according to applicant, claim 8 is a product claim and not a method, how the product is formed is a product-by-process limitation and not accorded patentable weight), the uniform speed of the motion is between 20-40 m/min.
Regarding claim 13, Kim as modified describes the pile yarn according to claim 8, wherein in the method (what follows is a product-by-process limitation, Applicant alleges that claim 8 is a product claim, and thus any method as to how the product came to be is considered a product-by-process limitation and is not accorded patentable weight), a total number of strands feeding amount of the short fibers fed per second is 80-130/s.
Regarding claim 14, Kim as modified describes the pile yarn according to claim 13, wherein each of the short fibers is a cotton fiber (as modified by Earley, is cotton), a viscose fiber, a polyester fiber or a wool fiber.
Regarding claim 15, Kim as modified describes the pile yarn according to claim 13, wherein in the method (what follows is a product-by-process limitation, Applicant alleges that claim 8 is a product, thus only the structure of the pile yarn is given patentable weight) the fiber transfer channel of the multifilament has a total of n groups of short fiber feeding points arranged at intervals along a length direction of the fiber transfer channel of the multifilament, wherein n is 4-5, each of the n groups contains 5-8 short fiber feeding points, short fiber feeding points of a same group are evenly distributed around a central axis of the fiber transfer channel, and a distance between two adjacent groups of the short fiber feeding points is 25-30 mm.
Regarding claim 16, Kim as modified describes the pile yarn according to claim 8, wherein in the method (what follows is a product-by-process limitation, Applicant alleges that claim 8 is a product, thus only the structure of the pile yarn is given patentable weight), a feeding of the short fibers is a continuous feeding or a discontinuous feeding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Bertsch (US 5640745) does not describe that there are first and second ends, a free end and a secured end, where the length of the exposed free end is 3-5 mm.
Bobkowicz (GB 2051165) describes a similar device as Bertsch and similarly does not describe that there are first and second ends, a free end and a secured end, where the length of the exposed free end is 3-5 mm.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732