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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wahal et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0122770).
Regarding claim 1, Wahal et al. teach a lyocell tow wherein each individual filament is crimped and has a filament titer in the range in the claimed range (1-50 denier is taught) and wherein the lyocell tow has a tow titer in the claimed range (10,000-3,00,000 denier is taught) [0071-0072]. Wahal et al. teach the length of the tow is indefinite or extreme length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that extreme length would encompass for example 1,000m or 10,000 m and therefore the claimed length is obvious over Wahal et al.
However, the recitation in the claims that the tow is “for use in stretch-breaking or worsted or semi-worsted spinning” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given Wahal et al. disclose the tow as presently claimed, it is clear that the tow of Wahal et al. would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. for use in stretch-breaking or worsted or semi-worsted spinning, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Wahal et al. teach application of a lubricating agent which is considered to be a finish suitable for stretch break and onward worsted and semi-worsted processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahal et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0122770).
Regarding claim 3, Wahal et al. are silent regarding the lyocell fibers having a crosslinked surface. However, it is known in the art to crosslink fiber surfaces, including lyocell fibers in order to improve strength and dimensional stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to crosslink the lyocell fiber surfaces in order to improve strength and dimensional stability and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Wahal et al. teach lyocell fiber from Lenzing which also makes crosslinked lyocell fiber.
Regarding claim 12, Wahal et al. teach a blended yarn comprising blending the lyocell tow with one or more fiber types including wool, silk, polyester, nylon and polypropylene as combinations of the fiber types is taught.
Regarding claim 13, Wahal et al. teach the blended yarn of claim 12, but silent regarding the circular and flat-bed knitted fabrics of claim 13. However, Wahal et al teach producing clothing (which includes fabrics) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the method include making any of the claimed garments including the claimed circular and flatbed knitting would have been obvious given the limited number of ways available and known in the art.
Further, even if Wahal et al. does not disclose the method as claimed, it is noted that “[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) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed method and given that Wahal et al. meets the requirements of the claimed fabric, Wahal et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims fabric.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolan et al. (WO 2018/222872).
Regarding claim 14, Dolan et al. teach a worsted yarn comprising lyocell fibers having a fiber titer in the claimed range and a mean staple fiber length in the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the titer and fiber length as claimed and as taught by Dolan in order to provide a balance of properties including hand and improved strength and less pilling.
Claim 4-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahal et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0122770) in view of Gray et al. (US Pat. 3,439,394).
Regarding claim 4, Wahal et al. are relied upon as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 which is hereby fully incorporated herein by reference. Wahal et al. are silent regarding the claimed method. However, Gray et al. teach a method for the manufacture of tow comprising splitting full tow band into (m+1) primary sub tows by m primary guides, jointly passing the primary sub tows through a crimper when the primary sub tows can be jointly crimped in order to produce crimps in registry with ridges and troughs of registered crimps extending across the unitary tow ribbon and also tows which can split easily without damage. Gray et al. also teach it is known in the art to cut the tows into staple fibers and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cut at least m primary sub tows to lengths in the claimed range and subsequently plait into one or more containers as is known in the art and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Gray et al. in Wahal et al. in order to produce crimps in registry with ridges and troughs of registered crimps extending across the unitary tow ribbon and also tows which can split easily without damage and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed steps of claim 5. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to plait the primary sub tows into one container for storage as is known in the art and cut residual tows into staple fibers in any length, including that presently claimed in order to use the staple fibers immediately for various end uses as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 6, The previous combination teaches the primary sub tows have the claimed titer, but are silent regarding the claimed titer of the residual tows. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the residual tows to have any titer, including that presently claimed in order to suit end use requirements as is known in the art.
Regarding claims 7-11 and 15-16, even if Wahal et al. does not disclose the method as claimed, it is noted that “[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) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed method and given that Wahal et al. meets the requirements of the claimed tow, Wahal et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims tow.
Art Not Cited but Relevant
US Pat. 4,803,762 teaches a method for splicing fiber tows.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 on 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights