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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/26 and 01/06/25 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/269,808. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and the copending application of 18/269,808 claim a composite fiber formed of polyester resin A and polyester resin B, wherein the difference in molecular weight falls within the range that is presently claimed, along with a multifilament formed from the composite fiber and a fiber product containing the multifilament.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/993,640. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and the copending application of 18/993,640 claim a composite fiber formed of polyester resin A and polyester resin B, wherein the difference in molecular weight falls within the range that is presently claimed, along with a multifilament formed from the composite fiber and a fiber product containing the multifilament.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/712,820. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and the copending application of 18/712,820 require a composite fiber formed of polyester resin A and polyester resin B, wherein the difference in molecular weight falls within the range that is presently claimed, along with a multifilament formed from the composite fiber and a fiber product containing the multifilament.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018110523 issued to Suzuki et al. in view of JP 2005-273116 A issued Jin-Oo OR in view of JP2006-507421 A issued to Jun-Young et al. OR in view of JP 2003-293226 A issued to Munakata et al. further in view of JP 2001-123336 issued to Ochi et al., OR JP 2000-212837A issued to Nakatsuka et al.
Suzuki et al., [see claims 1-3, ¶¶ 0039-0042 and the working examples] teaches an eccentric core-sheath composite fiber in which: a polyester A component and a polyester B component, which are two components of the composite fiber that have different melt viscosities, are such that the A component is completely covered with the B component in a traverse cross section of the composite fiber, the ratio S/D of the minimum thickness S of the thickness of the B component covering the A component and the fiber diameter D being 0.01-0.1 [requirement ( 4) of Claim 1]; the circumferential length of the fiber in a portion in which the thickness is within 1.05 times the minimum thickness S is 1/3 or more of the circumferential length of the entire fiber [requirement (5) of Claim 1]; and the fineness unevenness (U%) is 1.5% or less [requirement (2) of claim 1].
PNG
media_image1.png
477
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Suzuki et al., at ¶¶ 0036, 0067, 0159, 0194; teach that the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber is knitted to produce a fabric, the fabric having sufficient stretch performance, exceptional wear resistance, a uniform and smooth appearance devoid of creases or streaks, and garment-suited uses, thereby meeting the limitations sought in claims 7-10.
The eccentric core-sheath composite fiber disclosed by Suzuki et al., differs from the Claim 1, specifically for the requirements (1) and (3). This difference shall now be discussed.
Regarding requirement (1) where component A and the component B constituting the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber, Suzuki et al., [¶ 0039] teaches that combinations of polymers that experience different amounts of shrinkage under heat treatment are favored, and combinations of polymers that have different molecular weights or compositions in which the difference in the melt viscosities in the combined polymer would be 10 Pa•s or higher are favored.
Jun-Young et al. teaches a stretchable composite fiber comprising two polyesters, wherein the fiber forming polymer is of a first component, having a number-average molecular weight of 10,000-20,000 and a molecular weight distribution index of 1.5-2.5, and the fiber-forming polymer of a second component has a number-average molecular weight of 15,000-90,000 and a molecular weight distribution index of 1.5-2.5. Additionally, Jun-Young et al. [claims 1-4, ¶ 0009] teaches that when the difference between the number-average molecular weights of the fiber-forming polymers is 5,000 or less, it will be difficult to realize the crimp extension rate and the elastic recovery rate of the raw yarn, and when the difference is 70,000 or greater, the generation of curved yarn during spinning results in difficulties in ensuring process properties.
Furthermore, JP 2006-507421A [see claims 1, 2, 4, ¶ 0022, examples] teaches a highly stretchable composite filament in which a composite is formed from two types of polyethylene terephthalate in a side-by-side configuration, wherein: when the difference (Δ Mn) between the number-average molecular weights of the polymers is less than 5,000, the difference in degree of orientation between the polymers is insufficient and
the stretchability of the final product decreases; and when the difference exceeds 15,000, the stretchability is exceptional, but since the difference between the number-average molecular weights is excessive, aggressive swelling occurs during spinning, and the strength of the raw yarn decreases. Therefore, it is difficult to establish stable spinning conditions.
Furthermore, JP 2003-293226 A issued to Munakata et al. discloses a latent crimpable polylactic acid composite fiber in which a composite is formed from two polylactic acid polymers in a side-by-side configuration, wherein the number-average molecular weight difference between the polylactic acid polymer having a high number-average molecular weight and the polylactic acid polymer having a low number-average molecular weight is 5000-35000. Additionally, Munakata et al. [see claims 1, 2, ¶¶ 0013, 0018, and the working examples] teach that: when the difference in the number-average molecular weights is smaller than the lower limit, the joining surfaces of the polylactic acid polymers at the transverse cross-section of the fiber assume a linear form and the number of crimps produced via the shrinkage process is low; therefore, a suitable degree of stretch is not obtained. When the difference exceeds the upper limit, the discharge yarn will bend during melt spinning and adhere to the spinneret surface, such that the yarn will be severed and stable spinning cannot be performed.
As described above by Jin-Oo or Jun-Young et al. or Munakata et al. or Ochi et al., or Nakatsuka et al., adjusting the difference between the molecular weights of two types of polyester resins in polyester composite fibers so as to be within a certain range in order to obtain stable spinning properties and desired shrinkage and crimp characteristics is a well-known matter.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have easily conceived the sought composite fiber by examining the difference between the weight-average molecular weights of two polyester polymers having different melt viscosities in the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber disclose by Suzuki et al., in order to achieve stable spinnability and sufficient crimping and stretching properties. When doing so, setting the value of said difference to 2000-15000 would merely be the optimization of a numerical range that could be addressed, as appropriate, by a person skilled in the art.
Regarding requirement (3)
The purpose of the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber disclosed by Suzuki et al., is to obtain a fabric that maintains sufficient stretch performance and wear resistance and that also has a uniform and smooth appearance devoid of creasing or streaking [ Suzuki et al., ¶¶ 0032 and 0036].
Here, it is a well-known matter as shown by JP 2001-123336A issued to Ochi et al., [see claim 1, ¶¶ 0001, 0015, 0019, examples] and 2000-212837A issued to Nakatsuka et al. [see claims 1, 4, ¶¶ 0001, 0026, 0036 and working examples] that stretchability and hand can be achieved in a stretchy fabric by setting the crimp extension rate to approximately 6-30% in a crimpable polyester composite fiber to be used in the fabric.
Therefore, a person skilled in the art could easily have conceived of setting the crimp extension rate to 3.0-25.0% in the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber disclosed by Suzuki et al., in order to achieve stretchability and hand in the fabric.
In light of the above, a person skilled in the art could easily have conceived of fulfilling criteria (1) and (3) of Claim 1 within the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber as disclosed by Suzuki et al.
Regarding claims 5 and 6. Suzuki et al., [see claims 1, 4, 9 and ¶ 0102] teaches that the abovementioned eccentric core-sheath composite fiber is used in a combined filament yarn together with another single yarn having a different cross-sectional form; and the combined filament yarn is used in fibrous products such as clothing.
A person skilled in the art could have, as appropriate, used latent crimped yarn or yarn with an existing crimp as the other single yarn in the combined filament yarn containing the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber disclosed in document 1 in order to obtain a fibrous product such as clothing having a desired hand.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018110523 issued to Suzuki et al. in view of JP 2005-273116 A issued Jin-Oo OR in view of JP2006-507421 A issued to Jun-Young et al. OR in view of JP 2003-293226 A issued to Munakata et al. further in view of JP 2001-123336 issued to Ochi et al., OR JP 2000-212837A issued to Nakatsuka et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-10 further in view of JP 8-269868 issued to Hishinuma et al.
Suzuki and the others as set forth above teach the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber but do not expressively suggest that the structural yarn wherein cracks are made on an entire circumference of the surface of the composite fiber according to claim 1.
This is remedied by the teachings of JP 8-269868 issued to Hishinuma et al.
Hishinuma et al. teaches at having smooth surfaces, synthetic fibers made from polyester, etc., are known to be inferior to natural fibers in terms of color development. Therefore, providing grooves or recesses and protrusions around the entire circumference of the fiber surface in order to enhance color developability of synthetic fibers is a well-known feature as shown by Hishinuma at ¶ 0006 and 0025.
Therefore, a person skilled in the art could easily have conceived of forming cracks around the entire circumference of the fiber surface in order to use the eccentric core-sheath composite fiber disclosed by Suzuki et al., in fibrous products such as clothing which require color development.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights