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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirokazu et al. (JP 2011/196006).
Regarding claim 1, Hirokazu et al. teaches a synthetic fiber having a loss tangent peak temperature in the claimed range (106-120 degrees Celsius is taught, a loss tangent peak value in the claimed range (0.15-0.18 is taught) and dry heat shrinkage in the claimed range (8-14% is taught) [Abstract, claim 5].
Regarding claim 2, Hirokazu et al. teaches when the peak value of loss tangent of the synthetic fiber described in Hirokazu et al. exceeds 0.18, the mechanical characteristics deteriorate and the molecular mobility becomes too high, resulting in a reduction in colorfastness to light, and indicates that when said peak value is less than 0.15, the amount of the amorphous portion decreases, resulting in deterioration of cationic dye affinity. Hirokazu et al. also teaches such similar loss tangent peak temperatures and loss tangent peak values. Therefore, with regard to the synthetic fiber described in Hirokazu et al., the claimed loss tangent area is considered to be inherent to the fiber of Hirokazu et al.
Regarding claim 3, the claimed property in claim 3 is not explicitly detailed by Hirokazu et al. However, given Hirokazu et al. teaches such similar loss tangent peak temperature, loss tangent peak value and dry heat shrinkage, the claimed property of claim 3 is necessarily inherent to the fiber of Hirokazu et al.
Regarding claim 4, It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed loss tangent peak temperature and that taught by Hirokazu et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”. It is noted the present claims can be met by a loss tangent peak temperature of 120.0000000001 which is almost identical to that taught by Hirokazu et al.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the loss tangent peak temperature disclosed by Hirokazu et al. and the loss tangent peak temperature disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the loss tangent peak temperature, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the loss tangent peak temperature disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the loss tangent peak temperature disclosed in Hirokazu et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanji et al. (KR 860000179) as evidenced by JP 4147450 (hereinafter referred to as ‘450).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Tanji et al. teaches a synthetic fiber having a loss tangent peak temperature in the claimed range (for e.g about 138-140 degrees Celsius is taught, a loss tangent peak value in the claimed range (about 0.15 is taught) [Figure 2 and Abstract]. Tanji et al. even teaches “Conventional garment nylon 66 fibers have a T .sub.max (° C.) of 110 ° to 140 ° C. and a (tan δ) .sub.max of 0.09 to 1.15.1.15.”. Tanji et al. is silent regarding the claimed dry heat shrinkage, but teach the fiber is used in apparel. However, as evidenced by ‘450 it is usually 15% or less if used in apparel and therefore given the level of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by ‘450, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed dry heat shrinkage.
Regarding claim 2, Tanji et al. teaches such similar loss tangent peak temperatures and loss tangent peak values and teaches the relationship between the two that would yields the claimed loss tangent peak temperatures and loss tangent peak values. Therefore, with regard to the synthetic fiber described in Tanji et al., the claimed loss tangent area is considered to be inherent to the fiber of Tanji et al.
Regarding claim 3, the claimed property in claim 3 is not explicitly detailed by Tanji et al. However, given Tanji et al. teaches such similar loss tangent peak temperature, loss tangent peak value and dry heat shrinkage, the claimed property of claim 3 is necessarily inherent to the fiber of Tanji et al.
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokazu et al. (JP 2011/196006).
Regarding claim 2, Hirokazu et al. teaches when the peak value of loss tangent of the synthetic fiber described in Hirokazu et al. exceeds 0.18, the mechanical characteristics deteriorate and the molecular mobility becomes too high, resulting in a reduction in colorfastness to light, and indicates that when said peak value is less than 0.15, the amount of the amorphous portion decreases, resulting in deterioration of cationic dye affinity. Hirokazu et al. also teaches such similar loss tangent peak temperatures and loss tangent peak values. Therefore, with regard to the synthetic fiber described in Hirokazu et al., the claimed loss tangent area is considered to be inherent to the fiber of Hirokazu et al. and in the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed loss tangent area to arrive at the claimed area value of loss tangent in the temperature range between 30°C and 130°C in the claimed range in order to obtain the desired mechanical properties and dye affinity and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed loss tangent peak temperature and that taught by Hirokazu et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”. It is noted the present claims can be met by a loss tangent peak temperature of 120.0000000001 which is almost identical to that taught by Hirokazu et al.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the loss tangent peak temperature disclosed by Hirokazu et al. and the loss tangent peak temperature disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the loss tangent peak temperature, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the loss tangent peak temperature disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the loss tangent peak temperature disclosed in Hirokazu et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanji et al. (KR 860000179) as evidenced by JP 4147450 (hereinafter referred to as ‘450) or over Tanji et al. (KR 860000179) in view of JP 4147450 (hereinafter referred to as ‘450).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Tanji et al. teaches a synthetic fiber having a loss tangent peak temperature in the claimed range (for e.g about 138-140 degrees Celsius is taught, a loss tangent peak value in the claimed range (about 0.15 is taught) [Figure 2 and Abstract]. Tanji et al. even teaches “Conventional garment nylon 66 fibers have a T .sub.max (° C.) of 110 ° to 140 ° C. and a (tan δ) .sub.max of 0.09 to 1.15.1.15.”. Tanji et al. is silent regarding the claimed dry heat shrinkage, but teach the fiber is used in apparel. However, as evidenced by ‘450 it is usually 15% or less if used in apparel and therefore given the level of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by ‘450, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed dry heat shrinkage. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the dry heat shrinkage of ‘450 in Tanji in order to ensure it is useful in clothing and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Tanji et al. teaches such similar loss tangent peak temperatures and loss tangent peak values and teaches the relationship between the two that would yields the claimed loss tangent peak temperatures and loss tangent peak values. Therefore, with regard to the synthetic fiber described in Tanji et al., the claimed loss tangent area is considered to be inherent to the fiber of Tanji et al. and in the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed loss tangent area to arrive at the claimed area value of loss tangent in the temperature range between 30°C and 130°C in the claimed range in order to obtain the desired mechanical properties and dye rate, flexibility and dyeability and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claimed property in claim 3 is not explicitly detailed by Tanji et al. However, given Tanji et al. teaches such similar loss tangent peak temperature, loss tangent peak value and dry heat shrinkage, the claimed property of claim 3 is necessarily inherent to the fiber of Tanji et al.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2017/0198414 teaches synthetic fibers with loss tangent peak temp in the claimed range.
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 at 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