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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the claims filed January 22, 2026, in which claims 1-24 were presented for examination, of which claim 1, 7, 10, 12, 13, 19, 22, and 24 were amended, are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of
the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants Argument: The third polymer matrix layer 7 is formed by extrusion molding, a thickness of which is thick and uneven, and is unable to form the arc-shaped wrapping portion 501 of the application. Since the third polymer matrix layer 7 is thick and uneven in thickness, the amount of light entering and exiting the third polymer matrix layer 7 is affected, the amount of light that is reflected is lower, the reflective effect of Nowak is not good.
Nowak et al. do not teach (Claims 1 and 13) the wrapping layer covers each of the glass microbeads with an arc-shaped coating portion on the outer surface of each of the glass microbeads.
Examiners Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the claims, the thickness of the arc-shaped coating portion being even, and the amount of light to be reflected have not been claimed. As such, Examiner shows below how Nowak teaches the amended limitation(s), as claimed.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 13, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (US PG Pub. 2021/0245473) in view of Nowak et al. “Nowak” (US PG Pub. 2018/0127915).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a light-reflective yarn (Abstract and invention as shown in Fig. 11) capable of preventing glass microbeads from falling off, comprising:
a base layer (20, Fig. 11) having two opposite surfaces (surfaces against elements 52 and 54);
a plurality of glass microbeads (32), the glass microbeads adhering to at least one of the surfaces of the base layer with at least one adhesive layer (52) and forming at least one layer of glass microbeads (Par. 0052, as shown in Fig. 11);
the light-reflective yarn being formed by stacking the base layer (20), the glass microbeads (32) and the adhesive layer (52, see Fig. 11), and having two surfaces and sides other than the two surfaces (see annotated Fig. 11 below); the at least one layer of the glass microbeads (layer of 30) being disposed on at least one of the surfaces of the light-reflective yarn (top surface of 50).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11-Examiner Annotated
Yao does not disclose a wrapping layer made of a resin material and having transmittancy, the wrapping layer wrapping the light-reflective yarn, including covering the glass microbeads and wrapping the sides of the light-reflective yarn, the wrapping layer covers each of the glass microbeads with an arc-shaped coating portion on the outer surface of each of the glass microbeads.
However, Nowak teaches yet another reflective yarn, wherein Nowak teaches a wrapping layer (7, Fig. 2) made of a resin material and having transmittancy (Par. 0084, lines: 9-11) the wrapping layer wrapping the light-reflective yarn (combination of 2, 3, 5, and 6, “wrapping” as shown in Fig. 2), including covering the glass microbeads (6, Par. 0023) and wrapping the sides of the light-reflective yarn (as shown in Fig. 2), the wrapping layer (7) covers each of the glass microbeads (6) with an arc-shaped coating portion on the outer surface of each of the glass microbeads (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
764
961
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2-Examiner Annotated
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light-reflective yarn of Yao, by incorporating a wrapping layer as taught by Nowak, in order to provide the microbreads with enhanced protection.
Regarding claim 7, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the wrapping layer (7 of Nowak) is formed by a liquid resin subjected to heat (Par. 0061, lines: 6-19, “liquid at room temperature before polymerisation”).
They do not explicitly disclose the wrapping layer is formed by heat drying a liquid resin.
However, the limitation “formed by heat drying a liquid resin”, renders this claim a product-by-process claim. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above)).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior-art
device disclosed by Yao in view of Nowak would have the same parameters used to
create the applicant’s claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Yao in view of Nowak disclose a gap (space between microbeads 32 of Yao) is provided between the two adjacent glass microbeads (32); the wrapping layer (7 of Nowak) forms a larger thickness at each of the gaps (as shown in the gaps filled between microbeads 32 in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 13, Yao discloses a light-reflective yarn (Abstract and invention as shown in Fig. 11) capable of preventing glass microbeads from falling off, comprising:
a base layer (20, Fig. 11) having two opposite surfaces (surfaces against elements 52 and 54);
a plurality of glass microbeads (32), the glass microbeads adhering to at least one of the surfaces of the base layer with at least one adhesive layer (52) and forming at least one layer of glass microbeads (Par. 0052, as shown in Fig. 11);
the light-reflective yarn being formed by stacking the base layer (20), the glass microbeads (32) and the adhesive layer (52, see Fig. 11), and having two surfaces and sides other than the two surfaces (see annotated Fig. 11 above); the at least one layer of the glass microbeads (layer of 30) being disposed on at least one of the surfaces of the light-reflective yarn (top surface of 50).
Yao does not disclose at least one reflective layer and a wrapping layer.
However, Nowak teaches a light-reflective yarn, wherein Nowak teaches at least one reflective layer (4, Fig. 2) disposed on bottom sides of the glass microbeads (6, Par. 0083, lines: 16-26, examiner notes reflective layer, 4, is positioned on the bottom of microbeads, 6.);
the light-reflective yarn (invention as shown in Fig. 2) being formed by stacking the base layer (2), the glass microbeads (6), the adhesive layer (combination of 3 and 5) and the reflective layer (4, as shown in Fig. 2), the at least one layer of the glass microbeads (6) and the at least one reflective layer (4) being disposed on at least one of the surfaces of the light-reflective yarn (as shown in Fig. 2 on the outer surface of base layer, 2); and
a wrapping layer (7, Fig. 2) made of a resin material and having transmittancy (Par. 0084, lines: 9-11), the wrapping layer wrapping the light-reflective yarn (combination of 2, 3, 5, and 6, “wrapping” as shown in Fig. 2), including covering the glass microbeads (6, Par. 0023) and wrapping the sides of the light-reflective yarn (as shown in Fig. 2), the wrapping layer (7) covers each of the glass microbeads (6) with an arc-shaped coating portion on the outer surface of each of the glass microbeads (see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light-reflective yarn of Yao, by incorporating at least one reflective layer and a wrapping layer as taught by Nowak, wherein with this combination the limitation “the light-reflective yarn being formed by stacking the base layer, the glass microbeads, the adhesive layer and the reflective layer […] the at least one layer of the glass microbeads and the at least one reflective layer being disposed on at least one of the surfaces of the light-reflective yarn” is taught, in order to provide the microbreads with enhanced protection.
Regarding claim 19, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the wrapping layer (7 of Nowak) is formed by a liquid resin subjected to heat (Par. 0061, lines: 6-19, “liquid at room temperature before polymerisation”).
They do not explicitly disclose the wrapping layer is formed by heat drying a liquid resin.
However, the limitation “formed by heat drying a liquid resin”, renders this claim a product-by-process claim. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above)).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior-art
device disclosed by Yao in view of Nowak would have the same parameters used to
create the applicant’s claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, Yao in view of Nowak disclose a gap (space between microbeads 32 of Yao) is provided between the two adjacent glass microbeads (32); the wrapping layer (7 of Nowak) forms a larger thickness at each of the gaps (as shown in the gaps filled between microbeads 32 in Fig. 11).
Claims 2-6, 10, 14-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Kang (US PG Pub. 2003/0215631).
Regarding claim 2, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose the wrapping layer is a resin containing acrylic acid and silane, or a resin containing thermoplastic polyurethane and silane, or a resin containing acrylic acid, silane and thermoplastic polyurethane, or a resin containing silane.
However, Kang teaches yet another reflective yarn, wherein Kang teaches glass beads wrapped around a coating agent containing silane (Par. 0031, examiner notes the coating agent, which is applied to the outer layer, is considered to be a “resin wrapping layer” since the coating agent hardens by heat).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silane as taught by Kang as the material for the wrapping layer of Yao in view of Nowak. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because silane was a well-known material for resin layers as taught by Kang, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the resin.
Regarding claim 3, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose the resin of the wrapping layer has a color.
However, Kang teaches yet another reflective yarn, wherein Kang the resin of the wrapping layer has a color (Par. 0031, examiner notes the coating agent, which is applied to the outer layer, is considered to be a “resin wrapping layer” since the coating agent hardens by heat, and it includes bead, 50, which is a coloring pigment, as explained in Par. 0043-0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrapping layer of Yao in view of Nowak, by incorporating a color as taught by Kang, order to enhance user aesthetic.
Regarding claim 4, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Kang disclose a transparent pigment is added to the resin of the wrapping layer (Par. 0043 of Yao, examiner notes due to the combination above the transparent resin, 46, is added to the resin wrapping layer of Nowak, when combined. Furthermore, the transparent resin, 46, is interpreted to be a “pigment” due to the definition of a pigment being “a substance used as coloring” TheFreeDictionary. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the definition does not limit to opaque colorants and encompasses transparent material that modify optical characteristics).
Regarding claim 5, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Kang disclose the transparent pigment is a transparent ink (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the transparent resin, 46, of Yao functions in the same manner as a transparent ink since both have a fluidity upon deposition).
Regarding claim 6, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Kang disclose the sides of the light-reflective yarn have the color of the wrapping layer (examiner notes Fig. 5 of Yang shows the color, due to element 50, is applied to sides of the formed yarn).
Regarding claim 10, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Kang disclose the wrapping layer (7 of Nowak) has a pigment (50, Par. 0043 of Kang).
Regarding claim 14, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose the wrapping layer is a resin containing acrylic acid and silane, or a resin containing thermoplastic polyurethane and silane, or a resin containing acrylic acid, silane and thermoplastic polyurethane, or a resin containing silane.
However, Kang teaches yet another reflective yarn, wherein Kang teaches glass beads wrapped around a coating agent containing silane (Par. 0031, examiner notes the coating agent, which is applied to the outer layer, is considered to be a “resin wrapping layer” since the coating agent hardens by heat).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silane as taught by Kang as the material for the wrapping layer of Yao in view of Nowak. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because silane was a well-known material for resin layers as taught by Kang, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the resin.
Regarding claim 15, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose the resin of the wrapping layer has a color.
However, Kang teaches yet another reflective yarn, wherein Kang the resin of the wrapping layer has a color (Par. 0031, examiner notes the coating agent, which is applied to the outer layer, is considered to be a “resin wrapping layer” since the coating agent hardens by heat, and it includes bead, 50, which is a coloring pigment, as explained in Par. 0043-0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrapping layer of Yao in view of Nowak, by incorporating a color as taught by Kang, in order to enhance user aesthetic.
Regarding claim 16, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Kang disclose a transparent pigment is added to the resin of the wrapping layer (Par. 0043 of Yao, examiner notes due to the combination above the transparent resin, 46, is added to the resin wrapping layer of Nowak, when combined. Furthermore, the transparent resin, 46, is interpreted to be a “pigment” due to the definition of a pigment being “a substance used as coloring” TheFreeDictionary. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the definition does not limit to opaque colorants and encompasses transparent material that modify optical characteristics).
Regarding claim 17, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Kang disclose the transparent pigment is a transparent ink (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the transparent resin, 46, of Yao functions in the same manner as a transparent ink since both have a fluidity upon deposition).
Regarding claim 18, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Kang disclose the sides of the light-reflective yarn have the color of the wrapping layer (examiner notes Fig. 5 of Yang shows the color, due to element 50, is applied to sides of the formed yarn).
Regarding claim 22, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Kang disclose the wrapping layer (7 of Nowak) has a pigment (50, Par. 0043 of Kang).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Evans (US Patent 10,388,430).
Regarding claim 8, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose the adhesive layer is a material containing acrylic acid or a material containing polyurethane.
However, Evans teaches yet another yarn with glass (Col. 6, lines: 24-52), wherein Evans teaches an adhesive layer is a material containing polyurethane (Col. 6, lines: 32-39, examiner notes the resin holding the glass fibers acts as an “adhesive layer”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyurethane as taught by Evans as the material for the adhesive layer of Yao in view of Nowak. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because polyurethane was a well-known adhesive for combining layers and/or yarns as taught by Evans, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the yarn.
Regarding claim 20, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose the adhesive layer is a material containing acrylic acid or a material containing polyurethane.
However, Evans teaches yet another yarn with glass (Col. 6, lines: 24-52), wherein Evans teaches an adhesive layer is a material containing polyurethane (Col. 6, lines: 32-39, examiner notes the resin holding the glass fibers acts as an “adhesive layer”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyurethane as taught by Evans as the material for the adhesive layer of Yao in view of Nowak. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because polyurethane was a well-known adhesive for combining layers and/or yarns as taught by Evans, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the yarn.
Claims 11, 12, 23 and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Nowak, Karayianni et al. “Karayianni” (US Patent 7,665,288).
Regarding claim 11, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose at least one wrapping yarn wrapped around an outer periphery of the light-reflective yarn to form a reflective composite yarn, the light-reflective yarn constituting a core yarn of the reflective composite yarn, the outer periphery of the light-reflective yarn and the at least one wrapping yarn are covered by the wrapping layer.
However, Karayianni teaches yet another yarn, wherein Karayianni teaches at least one wrapping yarn (24, Fig. 2) wrapped around an outer periphery of the yarn (outer surface of 22, Fig. 2, Col. 14, lines: 7-16) to form a composite yarn (20, as shown in Fig. 2), the yarn constituting a core yarn of the composite yarn (22 is the core).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light-refelective yarn as disclosed by Yao in view of Nowak, by incorporating at least one wrapping yarn on its outer periphery as taught by Karayianni, wherein with this combination the limitation “the outer periphery of the yarn and the at least one wrapping yarn are covered by the wrapping layer” is taught since the at least one wrapping yarn is added onto the surface of the light reflective yarn of Yao, which was previously already underneath the wrapping layer as taught by Nowak in claim 1, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the yarn.
Regarding claim 12, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Karayianni disclose the light-reflective yarn (combination of 20, 32, and 52, Fig. 11 of Yao) and the at least one wrapping yarn (24 of Karayianni) form a twisted yarn (as shown in Fig. 2 of Karayianni), the twisted yarn constitutes the core yarn of the reflective composite yarn, and the outer periphery of the twisted yarn is covered by the wrapping layer (examiner notes since the at least one wrapping yarn is added onto the surface of the light reflective yarn of Yao, which was previously already underneath the wrapping layer as taught by Nowak in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the twisted yarn would also be covered by the wrapping layer).
Regarding claim 23, Yao in view of Nowak disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose at least one wrapping yarn wrapped around an outer periphery of the light-reflective yarn to form a reflective composite yarn, the light-reflective yarn constituting a core yarn of the reflective composite yarn, the outer periphery of the light-reflective yarn and the at least one wrapping yarn are covered by the wrapping layer.
However, Karayianni teaches yet another yarn, wherein Karayianni teaches at least one wrapping yarn (24, Fig. 2) wrapped around an outer periphery of the yarn (outer surface of 22, Fig. 2, Col. 14, lines: 7-16) to form a composite yarn (20, as shown in Fig. 2), the yarn constituting a core yarn of the composite yarn (22 is the core).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light-refelective yarn as disclosed by Yao in view of Nowak, by incorporating at least one wrapping yarn on its outer periphery as taught by Karayianni, wherein with this combination the limitation “the outer periphery of the yarn and the at least one wrapping yarn are covered by the wrapping layer” is taught since the at least one wrapping yarn is added onto the surface of the light reflective yarn of Yao, which was previously already underneath the wrapping layer as taught by Nowak in claim 1, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the yarn.
Regarding claim 24, Yao in view of Nowak, further in view of Karayianni disclose the light-reflective yarn (combination of 20, 32, and 52, Fig. 11 of Yao) and the at least one wrapping yarn (24 of Karayianni) form a twisted yarn (as shown in Fig. 2 of Karayianni), the twisted yarn constitutes the core yarn of the reflective composite yarn, and the outer periphery of the twisted yarn is covered by the wrapping layer (examiner notes since the at least one wrapping yarn is added onto the surface of the light reflective yarn of Yao, which was previously already underneath the wrapping layer as taught by Nowak in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the twisted yarn would also be covered by the wrapping layer).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights