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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0317584 (Ivanoff et al.) in view of US 2023/0203723 (Izawa) and US 20090007538 (Cheng et al) and further in view of US 6203577 (Yanai et al.).
Regarding claims 1, and 6, ‘584 discloses: a towel cloth and in the method of manufacturing the towel cloth, comprising a warp ground yarn, a weft ground yarn, and a warp pile yarn, the warp pile yarn being engaged with the warp ground yarn and the weft ground yarn (woven terry/towel fabric is disclosed in pars. 31 and 32; a woven terry fabric inherently includes warp pile/terry effect yarn; ground warp and ground weft that are all ‘engaged’ with each other), wherein the warp pile yarn is a siro spun yarn (“The cellulose fiber can be present in the form of a yarn or a twisted yarn produced therefrom. Types known per se such as, e.g., ring spun yarns, SIRO-yarns, core-spun yarns, compact yarns, OE-yarns, air-jet yarns, chenille yarns, looped yarns and zero-twist yarns [par. 21]…”).
Regarding canceled claim 2 limitations now incorporated into claim 1, ‘584 fully discloses in pars. 28-29, detailed description:
“In a further embodiment, both the pile and the base material consist essentially entirely of the cellulose fiber or, respectively, comprise a mixture with a different fiber. An embodiment is beneficial in which both the base material and the pile are made of 100% modal fibers or a mixture of 50% modal fibers and 50% cotton or a mixture of 30% modal fibers and 70% cotton, respectively.
In a further embodiment, the base material consists of either 100% cotton or 100% modal fibers. The pile consists of two threads, namely a thread made of 100% modal fibers and a thread made of 100% cotton.”. This citation fully discloses pile yarns which are already noted as siro spun yarn, ‘comprises’ 100% cotton.
‘584 does not disclose the siro spun yarn is a single yarn of a non-twisted or low twisted spun yarn applied with secondary twisting in an opposite direction to a primary twisting direction of a plurality of rovings aligned in a same twisting direction, namely, in an untwisting direction; nor the claimed range of cotton count
However, ‘723 does state explicitly, “To provide towel cloth which has favorable pile uprightness (erectility of pile) and bulkiness, and has both a fluffy hand and a dry touch, and moreover which hardly drops fluff, and a manufacturing method of such towel cloth. Towel cloth constituted by locking a pile yarn to a ground yarn, wherein the pile yarn has two or more single yarns which are initially twisted in a same direction and which are subsequently twisted in an opposite direction to the initial twist [abstract].”; and “yarn count of the pile yarn is preferably 8 to 120 as a yarn count of a single pile yarn prior to paralleling. For example, 10 to 15 are favorable yarn counts for thick towel cloth, 20 to 40 are favorable yarn counts for medium thick towel cloth, and 48 to 100 are favorable yarn counts for thin towel cloth. A yarn count under 8 means that the yarn is too thick, producing hard hand which is not preferable. In addition, a yarn count over 120 results in excessively thin hand and insufficient strength which is not preferable [par. 41].”. This teaching recites explicit datapoints within the claimed range. The MPEP 2144.05 states ranges in the prior art that overlap/include the claimed range establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of weaving to use pile yarn produced with the twist as taught by ‘723 above to provide a towel pile cloth which has favorable pile uprightness, bulkiness and has a fluffy and dry touch.
‘584 does not disclose the claimed siro spun yarn twist multiplier claimed.
However, ‘538 does teach a single yarn of a non-twisted or low twisted spun yarn applied with secondary twisting in an opposite direction to a primary twisting direction of a plurality of rovings (fig. 4), namely, in an untwisting direction (“reverse twist” is disclosed, par. 37); that is a siro spun yarn as it includes all required elements of a so-called siro spun yarn.
‘538 further teaches, “As known in the art, twisting can provide improvement in yarn strength, wear resistance, smoothness, and the like. However, if twisting is not controlled, yarn breakage rate may increase and the quality of the yarn may be negatively affected.
Through the linear false twisting device 309 of the instant invention and its position in the machine, the yarn can be run with a lower twist while exhibiting and improved triangular zone 308 because of the use of at least two rovings 301. This minimizes yarn breakage while allowing better twisting control, thus producing a high count, low twist, soft feel yarn. The machine of the present invention incorporates multiples of ring frames having the false twisting devices driven by one motor per 96 to 128 spindles. This allows the production of the high quality yarn without increasing production costs. The linear false twisting device 309 may operate in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner [pars 34-35].”.
‘538 therefore explicitly recognizes yarn twist and directly proportional twist multiplier as an optimizable yarn property known to affect yarn strength, wear resistance, smoothness and production costs that must be controlled/optimized as too much twist/too high of a twist multiplier results in higher yarn breakage rates and lower yarn quality.
‘538 also explicitly teaches siro spun yarns with a twist multiplier ‘down to T.M. 2.0’ or 0-2.0 twist multiplier. 2.0 T.M. is a data point within the claimed Twist multiplier range, thereby fully disclosing the claimed range and establishing prima facie obviousness of the claimed twist multiple range in addition to the explicitly shown prima facie obviousness of optimizing the twist and therefore the twist multiple of a siro spun yarn.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of textile engineering prior to filing the invention to optimize the twist multiplier of a terry pile yarn to arrive at a yarn that has the desired yarn strength, wear resistance, smoothness and production costs for given end use application.
Regarding limitations from cancelled claim 4 and current claim 7 that are incorporated into current claim 1, the combined teachings do not teach the siro spun yarn is mercerized.
However, this recitation is a product by process limitation, the MPEP is clear:
“the lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different that a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531,535,173 USPQ 685,688 (CCPA 1972).
The burden is shifted to applicant to bring forth evidence that a materially different and prima facie non-obvious result arises for the claimed ‘mercerization’ process.
Further, ‘577 does explicitly teach, “A method for shrink-proofing a cellulosic fiber textile that involves liquid ammonia treatment, hot water or alkali treatment under tension or under no tension, and with optional resin treatment (abstract).”.
“For alkali treatment, a caustic alkali or weak alkaline substance is used. Caustic alkali treatment is carried out using well known apparatus such as mercerizing machines. More particularly, the cellulosic fiber textile is impregnated with an aqueous solution of a caustic alkali, thereby converting at least a part of the cellulose III crystalline structure into a cellulose II crystalline structure. The caustic alkali used herein is typically lithium hydroxide (LiOH), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH), with sodium hydroxide being preferred. Other alkaline chemicals may be used if necessary [par. 20].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of textile engineering prior to filing the invention to process a cotton fiber yarn with an aqueous alkali solution under tension on a mercerizing machine to convert at least a part of the cellulose III crystalline structure into a cellulose II crystalline structure; thereby improving shrink proof properties of the yarns and textiles produced by the yarns.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose the number of twists of a secondary twisting being equal to or larger than the primary twisting.
However, ‘538 does teach, “As known in the art, twisting can provide improvement in yarn strength, wear resistance, smoothness, and the like. However, if twisting is not controlled, yarn breakage rate may increase and the quality of the yarn may be negatively affected.
Through the linear false twisting device 309 of the instant invention and its position in the machine, the yarn can be run with a lower twist while exhibiting and improved triangular zone 308 because of the use of at least two rovings 301. This minimizes yarn breakage while allowing better twisting control, thus producing a high count, low twist, soft feel yarn. The machine of the present invention incorporates multiples of ring frames having the false twisting devices driven by one motor per 96 to 128 spindles. This allows the production of the high quality yarn without increasing production costs. The linear false twisting device 309 may operate in a clockwise or counter-clockwise manner [pars 34-35].”.
‘538 therefore explicitly recognizes yarn twist as an optimizable yarn property known to affect yarn strength, wear resistance, smoothness and production costs that must be controlled/optimized as too much twist results in higher yarn breakage rates and lower yarn quality.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of textile engineering prior to filing the invention to optimize the twist values of a terry pile yarn to arrive at a yarn that has the desired yarn strength, wear resistance, smoothness and production costs for given end use application while not being so high that yarn breakages increase decreasing product quality and increasing production costs.
Regarding claim 9, ‘584 fully discloses: the weft ground yarn may be any yarn selected from the group consisting of an open-end spun yarn, an air spun yarn, a ring spun yarn, a conjugated yarn, and a bound spun yarn [In par. 24, detailed description, “In a preferred embodiment, the textile base material and/or the pile consist(s) essentially entirely of the cellulose fiber or the mixture comprising the cellulose fiber, respectively. This means that exclusively yarns from the cellulose fiber or blended yarns, respectively, from the cellulose fiber and a second component, e.g. cotton, are used for the production of the base material and/or the pile.”; and in par. 21, “The cellulose fiber can be present in the form of a yarn or a twisted yarn produced therefrom. Types known per se such as, e.g., ring spun yarns, SIRO-yarns, core-spun yarns, compact yarns, OE-yarns, air-jet yarns…”.]. This citation fully discloses the base fabric which equates to “ground fabric” which inherently includes both warp and weft ‘comprises’ the claimed types of spun yarns.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0317584 (Ivanoff et al.) in view of US 20090007538 (Cheng et al) as applied to claims above; further in view of US 6203577 (Yanai et al.) and further in view of NPL document “What is Micronaire Value of Cotton | Relation between Micronaire, Fineness, and Maturity?” (Kiron).
Regarding claim 3, ‘584 discloses, “In the terry product according to the invention, the cellulose fiber used can be provided as a cellulose staple fiber having a cutting length of from 30 mm to 60 mm, preferably from 38 mm to 51 mm.; [par. 20].”. The disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obvious per MPEP 2144.05 as one of ordinary skill in the art of textile engineering prior to filing the invention would have known to potentially modify the cellulose staple fiber length within the range already taught by the prior art.
‘584 does not explicitly teach the claimed micronaire range.
However, NPL documents to Kiron does teach explicitly, “Micronaire (MIC) is a combination of fibre linear density and fibre maturity. Micronaire is the widely used method to estimate fibre fineness and maturity. The micronaire of a cotton is determined by measuring the resistance to airflow of a sample of fibres of a specified mass compressed to a fixed volume. Low micronaire value indicate fine and/or immature fibres; high values indicate coarse and/or mature fibres. The fineness factor in micronaire is considered more important in spinning, and fibre maturity is thought to have more effect on dye-uptake success. Micronaire value between 3.8 and 4.5 are desirable [par. 1].”. This teaching explicitly recognizes the optimizable and results oriented nature of cotton micronaire values with respect to indication of fineness and fiber maturity with respect to spinning and dye uptake success. Further the data point 4.5 micronaire is explicitly disclosed as a desirable micronaire value for cotton; 4.5 being a discrete data point within the claimed range fully disclosing the claimed range.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of textile engineering prior to filing the invention to modify/optimize the micronaire value of cotton used to be within known desirable ranges to provide the resultant cotton fibers/yarns with the appropriate/desired fiber fineness and maturity shown to provide known effects to spinning and dye uptake success.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0317584 (Ivanoff et al.) in view of US 20090007538 (Cheng et al) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 6203577 (Yanai et al.).
The combined teachings above do not teach the claimed method of mercerizing the siro spun yarn in alkali solution under tension.
However, ‘577 does explicitly teach, “A method for shrink-proofing a cellulosic fiber textile that involves liquid ammonia treatment, hot water or alkali treatment under tension or under no tension, and with optional resin treatment (abstract).”.
“For alkali treatment, a caustic alkali or weak alkaline substance is used. Caustic alkali treatment is carried out using well known apparatus such as mercerizing machines. More particularly, the cellulosic fiber textile is impregnated with an aqueous solution of a caustic alkali, thereby converting at least a part of the cellulose III crystalline structure into a cellulose II crystalline structure. The caustic alkali used herein is typically lithium hydroxide (LiOH), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH), with sodium hydroxide being preferred. Other alkaline chemicals may be used if necessary [par. 20].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of textile engineering prior to filing the invention to process a cotton fiber yarn with an aqueous alkali solution under tension on a mercerizing machine to convert at least a part of the cellulose III crystalline structure into a cellulose II crystalline structure; thereby improving shrink proof properties of the yarns and textiles produced by the yarns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Assertions regarding the definition of the term “cellulose fiber” is an incorrect use of the definition of “cellulose” and an incomplete reading of the full disclosure of the ‘584 Ivanoff reference.
The term “cellulose fibers” as defined in attached Non-patent literature ‘Cellulosic Fibers: Types, Properties and Uses - Textile Engineering’ is:
“Cellulosic fibers are defined as fibers containing cellulose as the major polymeric substance. Cellulosic fiber is a type of fiber made from cellulose, a natural polymer that is found in plants and serves as a structural component of plant cell walls. These fibers are used in a variety of applications, including textiles, papermaking, and building materials. They are valued for their strength, durability, and sustainability. Cellulosic fibers can be obtained from the stem, leaf or seed of a plant. By far the most important of these is cotton, obtained from the seed. Other important cellulosic fiber types such as flax, jute, ramie, bamboo and hemp are bast fibers. Cellulose is the most abundant of all naturally organic polymers, with thousands of millions of tonnes being produced by photosynthesis annually throughout the world. Cellulosic fibers may be obtained naturally or man-made. However, natural cellulosic fibers are easily obtained from plants. Cotton is a fiber that grows on the seeds of cotton plants, and is therefore called seed fiber. Fibers obtained from the stems of plants are called bast fibers, examples of which are flax (linen fiber), ramie and jute. Leaf fibers are obtained from the leaves of plants, e.g., sisal and pina fibers.
List of Cellulosic Fibers:
Here is list of cellulosic fibers:
Cotton
Linen
Rayon
Lyocell
Modal
Tencel
Bamboo
Hemp
Jute
Abaca
Soy
Corn
Sorghum
Wheat
Kenaf
Pineapple
Ramie
Flax
Nettle
Types and Classification of Cellulosic Fibers:
There are several types of cellulosic fibers, which can be broadly classified into two categories:
Natural cellulosic fibers &
Regenerated cellulosic fibers…”.
The term “cellulose”/”cellulosic fiber” by Broadest Reasonable Interpretation refers to both natural and mad-made cellulose/cellulosic fiber.
‘584 also makes this distinction in paragraph 14, Summary of invention, when it states explicitly, “Surprisingly, it has been found that the use of "man-made" cellulose fibers, i.e., viscose fibers, modal fibers, polynosic fibers and lyocell fibers, in a specific titer range of from more than 1.7 dtex to 4.5 dtex in a terry product causes the products according to the invention to exhibit both excellent bulkiness and excellent bulk stability.”. This citation makes clear that reference recognizes that the term cellulose includes all type of cellulose which encompass natural and “man-made” cellulose.
The abstract and claim 1 of ‘584 Ivanoff do not define the term “cellulose” as only “man-made” as applicant seems to be asserting. They identify the type of cellulose being used.
There is no statement in the ‘584 Ivanoff reference which coins a special lexicographical definition for the term “cellulose”/”cellulosic fiber”. The term “cellulose”/”cellulosic fiber” must therefore be given it’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation which includes both natural and man-made cellulose.
Further the recited limitation newly added to claim 1 from cancelled claim 2 regarding the use of 100% cotton is fully disclosed even without the use of the term “cellulose” as noted in the rejection above repeated here below:
Regarding canceled claim 2 limitations now incorporated into claim 1, ‘584 fully discloses in pars. 28-29, detailed description:
“In a further embodiment, both the pile and the base material consist essentially entirely of the cellulose fiber or, respectively, comprise a mixture with a different fiber. An embodiment is beneficial in which both the base material and the pile are made of 100% modal fibers or a mixture of 50% modal fibers and 50% cotton or a mixture of 30% modal fibers and 70% cotton, respectively.
In a further embodiment, the base material consists of either 100% cotton or 100% modal fibers. The pile consists of two threads, namely a thread made of 100% modal fibers and a thread made of 100% cotton.”. This citation fully discloses pile yarns which are already noted as siro spun yarn, ‘comprises’ 100% cotton.
The argument regarding the 103 rejection is unsustained.
It is noted that there is substantial potential for future obviousness type double patenting of this application over US 2023/0203723 (application #17/915,004 to the same inventive entity as current application), which has received a Notice of Allowability but has not yet received a patent number. Current independent claims are broader (genus) to the allowed claims (species) in some respects as they omit the specifics regarding yarn structure and twists in allowed independent claims. Current independent claims include recitations to yarn dimensions and twist multiplier that are not present in the allowed claims however these limitations would be prima facie obvious as noted in current rejections above.
Applicant can obviate any obviousness type double patenting of instant application over application 17/915,004 with a properly executed terminal disclaimer.
Assertions regarding the “two applications being entirely different” does not address the fact that a single yarn versus a two ply yarn would clearly be obvious variants in the art of textile design and manufacturing.
The Examiner is simply noting the potential obviousness type double patenting rejection to expedite any further prosecution of this application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Various woven pile fabric references have been attached to establish the general state of the prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732