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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A composite fiber in which two types of segments A and B are present in a fiber transverse section, wherein the segment B has a cross-sectional area smaller than a cross-sectional area of the segment A, and is formed of two types of polymers combined in a side-by-side type or an eccentric core-sheath type”. With such language, it can be construed that the “two polymers combined in a side-by-side type or an eccentric core-sheath type” could be referring to the case where either 1) the two polymers are A & B in a side-by-side or eccentric core-sheath relationship or 2) the two polymers that are in a side-by-side or eccentric core-sheath relationship are both in segment B. It is believed Applicant intended to recite option 2) and the claims have been examined as such. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaihara et al. (JPS52114772).
Regarding claims 1-2, Kaihara et al. teaches a composite fiber in which two types of segments A and B are present in a fiber transverse cross section, wherein the segment B has a smaller cross-sectional area than the segment A, and is formed from two types of polymers combined in a side-by-side manner [claims and Fig. 2]. Furthermore, in the fiber cross-section of the composite fiber disclosed in document 2, three or more segments B are disposed at the outer periphery of the segment A in the fiber transverse cross section [claims and Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 3, Kaihara et al. teaches the fineness of the segment B of the composite fiber is 0.1 to 1.0 denier. Therefore, the density of PET is calculated as 1.34 g/cm3 and the fiber diameter of PET fibers having a fineness of 1.0 dpf is approximately 10.3 μm which is in the claimed range [0002].
Regarding claims 4-5, The composite fiber disclosed in Kaihara et al. is a sea-island composite fiber having segments A and B as island components, and the sea component is formed from a polymer (component C) that has, among the polymers constituting the sea-island composite fiber, the fastest rate of dissolution in a solvent [claims and Fig. 2]. Furthermore, in the composite fiber disclosed in Kaihara et al., the polymer (component C) that has the fastest rate of dissolution in the solvent is eluted, to produce a multifilament [0010 and claims). The multifilament is obtained by dividing the segments A and B from the composite fiber [0002].
Regarding claim 6, Kaihara et al. teaches a fiber product at least partially comprising the multifilament according to claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Kaihara et al. teaches a multifilament composed of two types of filaments A and B, wherein one or more of the filaments B are present between any two of the filaments A in the multifilament, and the filament B has a smaller fiber diameter than a fiber diameter of the filament A and is formed of two types of polymers combined in a side-by-side type or an eccentric core-sheath type [Fig. 2 and claims].
Regarding claim 8, Kaihara et al. teaches the fineness of the segment B of the composite fiber is 0.1 to 1.0 denier. Therefore, the density of PET is calculated as 1.34 g/cm3 and the fiber diameter of PET fibers having a fineness of 0.1 dpf is approximately 3.2 μm which is in the claimed range [0002].
Regarding claim 9, a woven or knitted fabric at least partially comprising the multifilament according to claim 7 [0002].
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 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaihara et al. (JPS52114772) in view of Shiotani et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0214545).
Regarding claim 10, Kaihara et al. are silent regarding the claimed water repellent finish. However, Shiotani et al. teaches a fluorine free water repellent finish for textiles including wovens and knits in order to provide excellent desoiling properties with high water and oil repellency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the water repellent finish of Shiotani et al. in Kaihara et al. in order to providing excellent desoiling properties with high water and oil repellency and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11-13, Kaihara et al. teaches a multifilament composed of two types of filaments A and B, wherein one or more of the filaments B are present between any two of the filaments A in the multifilament, and the filament B has a smaller fiber diameter than a fiber diameter of the filament A and is formed of two types of polymers combined in a side-by-side type or an eccentric core-sheath type [Fig. 2 and claims]. Kaihara et al. are silent regarding the claimed sliding angle of water drop and fluorine content. However, Shiotani et al. teaches a fluorine free (and therefore possesses the claimed fluorine content) water repellent finish for textiles including wovens and knits with sliding angle of water drop of 20 degrees or less and difference in sliding angles of water drop before and after repeating washing is in the claimed range (Shiotani et al. teaches the water repellency is maintained even after 20 washes in 0436) in order to provide excellent desoiling properties with high water and oil repellency and to be environmentally friendly. It is noted that even though Shiotani et al. does not teach the method of testing the sliding angle by washing, 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 Shiotani et al. meets the requirements of the claimed fabric, Shiotani et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the water repellent finish of Shiotani et al. in Kaihara et al. in order to providing excellent desoiling properties with high water and oil repellency and be environmentally friendly and arrive at the claimed invention.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
US Pat. 4,792,354 teaches water repellent finish used for textiles.
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