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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2016/0376747 A1) in view of Magill (US 2003/0035951 A1).
Wang teaches the creation of a composite fabric having self-regulating infrared emissivity comprising a plurality of meta fibers arranged into a yarn, wherein the meta fibers comprise hydrophobic and hydrophilic polymeric materials that are spinnable, such as nylon and polyethylene terephthalate, respectively. Wang abstract, ¶¶ 29, 42, 49. The meta fibers may have a sheath-core structure and further comprise a plurality of optical nanostructures embedded within the core. Id. ¶¶ 31–33, 83, Figs. 1D, 1E. Because the fibers may be formed from both the hydrophilic and hydrophobic polymeric materials and the optical nanostructures are embedded in the fibers, the optical nanostructures are embedded in the hydrophobic component. See id. ¶¶ 33, 43–46. Additionally, it would have been obvious to make the Wang meta fiber with a hydrophobic core and a hydrophilic sheath as the artisan is merely selecting from a finite list of number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The meta fibers possess an environment (temperature and/or moisture) responsive modulation mechanism configured to adjust a relative disposition between the optical structures to control the electromagnetic coupling therebetween, thus regulating the infrared emissivity of the composite fabric to maintain a user of the fabric in a temperature/moisture comfort zone. Id. abstract. The environment responsive mechanism may include a temperature responsive polymer layer on the fiber capable of expansion/shrinkage depending on the applied temperature, or a moisture responsive fiber changing its shape depending on the moisture level to affect spacing between the optical nanostructures. Id. The fabric may further provide active self-regulation of air convection and thermal energy transport. Id. ¶¶ 18, 38, 45, 90.
Wang fails to teach that the fiber has an eccentric sheath-core configuration, wherein the core contains optical nanostructures.
Magill teaches the formation of multi-component fibers comprising a sheath 58 and core 57 structure, wherein the core comprises thermoregulating material 61 dispersed therein. Magill abstract, ¶ 53, Fig. 2. The sheath/core fibers may have conventional or eccentric internal configurations, wherein the weight percentages of the sheath and core are determined by the desired final properties (e.g., core weight proportion is 33 percent relative to the sheath). See id. Fig. 1, ¶¶ 43–45.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to look to Magill for guidance as to suitable configurations and their relative weights when making sheath/core fibers with stimuli responsive components.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected as the meta fibers of Wang provide for the claimed hydrophobic and hydrophilic components of spinnable polymer material and a plurality of optical nanostructures embedded in said hydrophobic component and as such, it is reasonable to presume that the meta fibers respond in the claimed manner to the recited relative humidity levels. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials. The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed property of decreased spacing between neighboring meta fibers when the moisture level is higher than a predetermined relative humidity level and increased spacing when the moisture level is lower than a predetermined relative humidity level would obviously have been present one the Wang product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 5 is rejected as the response to modulations of the spacing between the neighboring meta fibers, the yarn configuration reversibly changes through contracting or expanding of said yarn in response to fluctuations in humidity. See Wang ¶¶ 20–22, 29–30, 130–132, 160. Claim 6 is rejected as the meta fibers may have a diameter of 10 microns. Id. ¶ 86. Claim 10 is rejected as the optical nanostructures comprise carbon fibers, graphene, graphene oxide, silver nanowires, copper nanowires, silicon nanowires, gold nanowires, gold nanoparticles, and combinations thereof. Id. ¶ 40. Claim 11 is rejected as the optical nanostructure 16 is embedded in the polymer material of the hydrophobic component, and the manner in which the nanostructure is added is merely a product-by-process limitation that does not affect the finally formed fiber. See Wang Figs. 1D, 1E, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The optical nanostructures in the Wang fiber serve to respond to moisture and temperature stimuli via modulation mechanism configured to adjust a relative disposition between the optical structures to control the electromagnetic coupling therebetween, thus regulating the infrared emissivity of the composite fabric to maintain a user of the fabric in a temperature/moisture comfort zone. Id. abstract. As such, the quantity of optical nanostructures in the Wang fiber is a result-effective variable affecting the degree to which the fibers respond to the stimuli. Consequently, absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed weight percentages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the only embodiment that teaches the bimorph MCT fiber fabricated from hydrophobic and hydrophilic materials involves a composite fiber that is enveloped by a carbon nanotube coating and shown in Figure 6, rather than the bimorph fiber concept embodied in Figs. 1D, 1E and relied upon by the Examiner to render the claimed invention obvious. This argument is unpersuasive as the embodiment shown in Figures 1D and 1E are alternative embodiments of bimorph MCT fibers, wherein the meta element 16 may be present in either the sheath or the core of the fiber. See Wang ¶¶ 43, 55–58, 82, 92, Figs. 1D, 1E. Furthermore, the structure and orientation of the fibers shown in Figures 1D and 1E are not limited to just thermoresponsive fibers and as such are available to both thermoresponsive and moisture-responsive fibers of the prior art. See id. ¶¶ 43, 63, 134–136, claims 14, 18.
Applicant then argues that Magill relies upon temperature regulating material comprised of phase change materials to achieve reversible thermal regulation through latent heat absorption and release but fails to teach an eccentric sheath-core configuration of elongated members, wherein the core is hydrophobic and containing a plurality of optical nanostructures, and a hydrophilic sheath. As set forth above, the Examiner relies upon Wang to teach a sheath-core fiber, wherein the core is hydrophobic and containing a plurality of optical nanostructures, and a hydrophilic sheath, while looking to Magill to teach an eccentric sheath-core configuration, wherein the core contains optical nanostructures.
Applicant next argues that the fibers of Magill are used exclusively for thermal regulation and have nothing to do with fluctuations in humidity as set forth in the instant invention and does not include optical nanostructures embedded in the hydrophobic component of a sheath core fiber. Additionally, Applicant contends that the phase change materials of Magill could be used with or functionally integrated into the nanomaterials of Wang and as such there is no motivation to combine the two references to arrive at the claimed invention. As set forth above, Wang teaches the incorporation of optical nanostructures into the core of a sheath-core fiber, wherein the nanostructures are responsive to changes in moisture and/or humidity. Furthermore, Wang teaches that the fiber contains a hydrophobic core and a hydrophilic sheath surrounding that core. As such, Wang provides the nexus between the primary reference’s optical nanostructures and the phase change materials of Magill in that sheath-core fibers may be modified with materials such that the fibers are altered due to changes in environmental conditions. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to similar materials like those of Magill for suitable fiber structure orientations – eccentric sheath/core – that could be used to make fibers like those of Wang that are affected by changes in environmental conditions.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786