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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “one or micro” should read --one or more micro--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7, 12, 13, 18, and 19 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.
In regards to Claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In regards to Claims 6 and 12, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a plurality of micro and/or nano-sized structures”, and the claim also recites “between substantially 3 and substantially 50 micro and/or nano-sized structures” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further, Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “substantially 5% or more by volume”, and the claim also recites “between substantially 60% and substantially 80% by volume” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In regards to Claim 18, the phrase “comprising at least one water-repellent yarn according to claim 1” is unclear, as Claim 1 is drawn to a fiber. As such, the limitations of Claim 18 are unknown.
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 20 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nieto et al (WO 2010014555).
In regards to Claim 1, Nieto teaches a water-repellent fiber (Figure 4) for a yarn and/or a fabric or textile, wherein the fiber comprises:
a hydrophobic material (Pages 8, 9); and
a shape or configuration comprising one or more micro and/or nano-sized structures (Page 10, lines 29-30 teach a dpf of 0.5. Given a density for polymethylpentene of 0.833g/cm3, the diameter would be approximately 9.16µm for the entire fiber. Figure 4 teaches lobes, which would obviously be smaller than this number, but still within the range claimed, which would be considered micro and/or nano-sized).
In regards to Claim 2, Nieto teaches the one or more micro and/or nano-sized structures have a size of between substantially 10nm and substantially 100µm (Page 10, lines 29-30 teach a dpf of 0.5. Given a density for polymethylpentene of 0.833g/cm3, the diameter would be approximately 9.16µm for the entire fiber. Figure 4 teaches lobes, which would obviously be smaller than this number, but still within the range claimed, which would be considered micro and/or nano-sized).
In regards to Claim 3, Nieto teaches the one or more micro and/or nano-sized structures form at least part of or are located on an outer surface of the fiber (Figure 4).
In regards to Claim 4, Nieto teaches the fiber comprises a cross-sectional shape or configuration that forms or provides the one or more micro and/or nano-sized structures (Fig. 4).
In regards to Claim 5, Nieto teaches the one or more micro and/or nano-sized structures comprise one or more projections from and/or recesses in the outer surface of the fiber (Fig. 4).
In regards to Claim 6, Nieto teaches a plurality of micro and/or nano-sized structures (Figure 4).
In regards to Claim 7, Nieto teaches a spacing between adjacent micro and/or nano-sized structures is between substantially 100 nm and substantially 10µm (Page 10, lines 29-30 teach a dpf of 0.5. Given a density for polymethylpentene of 0.833g/cm3, the diameter would be approximately 9.16µm for the entire fiber. Figure 4 teaches lobes, which would obviously be smaller than this number, but still within the range claimed, which would be considered micro and/or nano-sized).
In regards to Claim 8, Nieto teaches the hydrophobic material is or comprises a hydrophobic polymeric material (Page 9, poly-4-methyl-1-pentene).
In regards to Claim 9, Nieto teaches the fiber comprises a mixture of the hydrophobic polymeric material and one or more other polymeric materials (Page 8, bicomponent, polyester and Page 9, poly-4-methyl-1-pentene).
In regards to Claim 10, Nieto teaches the mixture comprises or is arranged in a core-sheath structure, an island-in-sea structure or a random blend structure (Page 4 line 29 - Page 5 line 15).
In regards to Claim 11, Nieto teaches the hydrophobic polymeric material is or comprises a polymethylpentene polymer (Page 9, poly-4-methyl-1-pentene).
In regards to Claim 12, Nieto teaches the mixture comprises substantially 5% or more by volume of the hydrophobic polymeric material (Page 9, lines 13-19).
In regards to Claim 13, Nieto teaches the one or more other polymers are or comprise one or more of an α-olefin, a polyester, a nylon and a thermoplastic polymer (Page 8, line 10).
In regards to Claim 14, Nieto teaches the polymethylpentene polymer is or comprises a 4-metyl-1-pentene polymer (Page 9, poly-4-methyl-1-pentene).
In regards to Claim 15, Nieto teaches the polymethylpentene polymer is or comprises a copolymer of 4-methyl-1-pentene with one or more α-olefins (Page 9, line 4 polypropylene copolymers, line 6, poly-4-methyl-1-pentene).
In regards to Claim 16, Nieto teaches the fiber being formed into a yarn (Page 10 line 34 - Page 11 line 2).
In regards to Claim 20, Nieto teaches a method of manufacturing a water-repellent fiber for a yarn and/or a fabric or textile the method comprising:
forming a fiber comprising a hydrophobic material (Page 9, poly-4-methyl-1-pentene); and
providing the fiber with a shape or configuration comprising one or more micro and/or nano-sized structure (Figure 4).
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(s) 17-19 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieto et al in view of Stuckey et al (20130291286).
In regards to Claim 17, while Nieto essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach the yarn comprises between substantially 15 twists/m and substantially 2000 twists/m. Stuckey, however, teaches that when forming yarns from similar materials, it is well known to twist a yarn within this range (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have twisted the fibers of Nieto into a yarn using the twist/m as taught by Stuckey, so as to form a proper yarn. Yarn formation requires twist to maintain the integrity of the yarn. Applicant’s range of 15-2000 twists/m is essentially the working range of yarn twist amounts used in the twisting arts, and the ordinarily skilled artisan, wanting to form a yarn, would know to twist the yarn as claimed. Stuckey teaches this amount is well known in the art.
In regards to Claim 18, Stuckey teaches the yarn can be plied (Abstract).
In regards to Claim 19, Stuckey teaches the plied yarn comprises between substantially 15 twists/m and substantially 2000 twists/m (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least Dugan (20090130160) Figures, Goda et al (7560159) Figures, Abstract, and Kent et al (5922462) Figures teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights