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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/18/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended and claims 17-19 are cancelled due to Applicant's reply dated 04/18/2025. Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 21-24 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claims 17-19 as set forth in the previous Office Action are moot because claim 17-19 are cancelled due to the Applicant's amendment dated 04/18/2025.
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-14, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as set forth in the previous Office Action is not overcome due to the Applicant’s reply dated 04/18/2025. The rejection is herein revised to reflect the amended claim language.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 11-14, 21, and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett (US 2005/0091961 A1) in view of Campbell (US 2003/0203688 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s reply dated 04/18/2025.The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett in view of Campbell and Behnke (US 4,120,914) is overcome due to the Applicant’s reply dated 04/18/2025.The rejection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett in view of Campbell and Truesdale (US 2020/0367584 A1) is overcome due to the Applicant’s reply dated 04/18/2025.The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-10 of the reply dated 04/18/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-14, and 21-24 as set forth in the previous Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's argument –On pages 6-8, Applicant argues that the instant specification recites the single yarns that make up the ply-twisted yarns can include other materials as long as the function or performance of the yarn or fabric made from that yarn is not compromised.
Examiner's response –While the instant specification does recite the single yarns may include other materials (pg. 17, lines 11-13), this broad statement is not sufficient support for the specific sheath construction claimed.
The instant specification recites the sheath of the at least one second yarn is formed of halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers and can further comprise heat-resistant polymeric fiber, cut-resistant heat-resistant polymeric fiber, flame-resistant fiber, and 1-5 weight percent antistatic fiber (pg. 10, lines 20-21; pg. 15, lines 11-16; pg. 16, lines 3-7). Accordingly, while there is sufficient support for the at least one second yarn to generically include halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers that further comprise heat-resistant polymeric fiber, cut-resistant heat-resistant polymeric fiber, flame-resistant fiber, and 1-5 weight percent antistatic fiber, this is not sufficient support for the full scope of the claimed sheath which requires 89.13 to 100 weight percent halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers, and 0 to 10.87 weight percent of a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber.
Additionally, as discussed in the rejection below, there are three specific examples provided in the instant specification of different sheath constructions:
A second yarn comprising a sheath of 100% modacrylic staple fiber (see Example 1 on instant pgs. 20-21);
A second yarn comprising a sheath of 100% modacrylic staple fiber (see Example 2 on instant pg. 21);
A second yarn comprising a sheath that includes 89.1 wt% modacrylic and 10.8 wt% of a meta-aramid staple fiber blend, wherein the fiber blend consists of 93 wt% poly(metaphenylene isophthalamide), 5 wt% poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide), and 2 wt% carbon-core nylon (see Example 3 on instant pgs. 22-23).
That is, while there is sufficient support for the two specific embodiments of 1) a second yarn comprising a sheath of 100% modacrylic staple fiber, and 2) a second yarn comprising a sheath that includes 89.1 wt% modacrylic and 10.8 wt% of a meta-aramid staple fiber blend, wherein the fiber blend consists of 93 wt% poly(metaphenylene isophthalamide), 5 wt% poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide), and 2 wt% carbon-core nylon, this is not sufficient support for the full scope of the claimed sheath which requires 89.13 to 100 weight percent halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers, and 0 to 10.87 weight percent of a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber. For example, the full scope of the claimed sheath includes 95 weight percent halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers and 5 weight percent of a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber. No where in the specification is there sufficient support for this specific embodiment.
Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims are considered to have new matter.
Applicant's argument –On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the claims as amended, which requires the sheath of the at least one second yarn to consist of 89.13 to 100 weight percent halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers, and 0 to 10.87 weight percent of a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber.
Examiner's response –The newly cited reference Patz (US 2006/0105658 A1) provides motivation to include a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber in the sheath of the claimed at least one second yarn, as described in greater detail in the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For ease of reading, it is recommended to replace “suitable for used” with “suitable for use” in line 1 of claim 1.
For ease of reading, it is recommended to replace “at least one first yarn is cut-resistant heat-resistant polymeric fiber” with “at least one first yarn is a cut-resistant heat-resistant polymeric fiber” in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 5 is missing the second parenthesis in the term “poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide”.
For ease of reading, it is recommended to replace “metal filament” with “a metal filament” in claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, from which all other claims depend, includes the limitation wherein the sheath of the at least one second yarn consists of: i) 89.13 to 100 weight percent halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers, and ii) 0 to 10.87 weight percent of a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber.
The instant specification recites that the sheath of the at least one second yarn includes at least 1-5 weight percent antistatic fiber, based on the total weight of the at least one second yarn (pg. 16, lines 3-11). The instant specification further recites the sheath of the at least one second yarn can further comprise heat-resistant polymeric fiber, cut-resistant polymeric fiber, and flame-resistant fiber and the heat-resistant polymeric fiber, cut-resistant polymeric fiber, and flame-resistant fiber are preferably staple fibers (instant pg. 15). The instant specification recites the specific embodiments of Examples 1 and 2 each including a second yarn comprising a sheath of 100% modacrylic staple fiber (see instant pgs. 20-21). Additionally, the instant specification recites the specific embodiment of Example 3 including a second yarn comprising a sheath that includes 89.1 wt% modacrylic and 10.8 wt% of a meta-aramid staple fiber blend (93 wt% poly(metaphenylene isophthalamide), 5 wt% poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide), and 2 wt% carbon-core nylon). That is, the instant specification only appears to recite three instances (Examples 1-3) of a sheath of the at least one second yarn that meets the limitation of the claimed ranges i) and ii). However, these three instances are not sufficient to cover the full scope of the claimed ranges of 89.13 to 100 weight percent halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers and 0 to 10.87 weight percent of a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber. For example, there is not support in the specification for a sheath of the at least one second yarn consisting of 95 weight percent halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers and 5 weight percent of a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber.
Accordingly, while the instant specification provides support for: 1) a sheath of the at least one second yarn comprising staple fibers of heat-resistant polymeric fiber, cut-resistant polymeric fiber, and flame-resistant fiber; 2) the sheath of the at least one second yarn including at least 1-5 weight percent antistatic fiber; 3) the specific embodiment of a sheath of the at least one second yarn comprising 100 wt% modacrylic and 0 wt% other staple fibers; and 4) the specific embodiment of a sheath of the at least one second yarn comprising 89.1 wt% modacrylic and 10.8 wt% of the meta-aramid staple fiber blend specifically including 93 wt% poly(metaphenylene isophthalamide), 5 wt% poly(paraphenylene terephthalamide), and 2 wt% carbon-core nylon, there is not sufficient support for the full range of “89.13 to 100 weight percent halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers”, nor is there sufficient support for the full range of “0 to 10.87 weight percent of a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber”. For this reason, claim 1 is considered to have new matter.
Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 21-24 are rejected for being dependent upon claim 1.
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 1-9, 11-14, and 21-24 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 “at least one first yarn comprising at least 50 weight percent heat-resistant polymeric fiber, wherein at least 30 weight percent of the polymeric fiber present in the at least one first yarn is cut-resistant heat-resistant polymeric fiber”. It is unclear if “the polymeric fiber” is referring the “heat-resistant polymeric fiber” or if “the polymeric fiber” is referring to other polymeric fibers within the at least one first yarn. If “the polymeric fiber” is referring to the “heat-resistant polymeric fiber”, it is recommended to replace “the polymeric fiber” with “the heat-resistant polymeric fiber”. If “the polymeric fiber” is referring to other polymeric fibers within the at least one first yarn, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the polymeric fiber” will be interpreted as referring to the heat-resistant polymeric fiber.
Claim 1 recites a sheath of at least one second yarn consists of i) 89.13 to 100 wt% halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers, and ii) 0 to 10.87 wt% of a blend of meta-aramid fiber, para-aramid fiber, and antistatic fiber. That is, the only fibers required to be staple fibers are the halogenated self-extinguishing fibers. Claim 1 further requires the weight percentage of each type of fiber to be “based on the total weight of the staple fibers in the sheath of the at least one second yarn”. That is, claim 1 encompasses the embodiment where the sheath consists of halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers and a blend of meta-aramid, para-aramid, and antistatic continuous fibers. In this embodiment (where the only staple fibers present are the halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers), it is unclear how the sheath may contain 89.13 wt% of halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers based on the total weight of halogenated self-extinguishing staple fibers. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as wherein i) and ii) are based on the total weight of the fibers in the sheath of the at least one second yarn.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the inorganic fiber" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 21-24 are rejected for being dependent upon indefinite claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11-14, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett (US 2005/0091961 A1) in view of Patz (US 2006/0105658 A1) and Campbell (US 2003/0203688 A1).
Supporting evidence provided by Hübner (US 7,284,398 B2).
Regarding claims 1-5, 11-14, 21, and 23-24, Prickett teaches a ply-twisted yarn comprising: (a) at least one single yarn having a sheath/core construction with a sheath comprising cut-resistant staple fibers and a core comprising an inorganic fiber (hereinafter “yarn A”) (claim 2); and (b) at least one single yarn comprising cut resistant staple fiber and at least one elastomeric filament and being free or substantially free of inorganic fibers (hereinafter “yarn B”) (¶ [0010]-[0012]). A representation of this ply-twisted yarn can be seen in Fig. 1, wherein yarn A is represented by 2 and yarn B is represented by 3 (¶ [0017] and [0028]). Fabric made from such ply-twisted yarns may be woven or knitted, may be used for gloves, and have the advantages of being highly cut resistant, soft, flexible, and form fitting (¶ [0024], [0069], and [0073]) (claims 21 and 23-24).
Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yarn A generally comprises 1-50 weight percent of the inorganic core, and thus comprises 50-99 weight percent of the sheath comprising cut-resistant staple fibers (¶ [0034]). The inorganic core is preferably a single metal filament (¶ [0043]) (claim 14). The preferred cut-resistant staple fibers of the sheath are poly(p-phenylene terephthalamide (PPD-T, a para-aramid fiber) and examples of yarn A include PPD-T as the only fiber of the sheath (claims 3-5)(¶ [0038] and [0079]-[0082]). Accordingly, yarn A comprises 50-99 weight percent of PPD-T. The instant specification recites para-aramid fibers, and specifically PPD-T fibers, are heat resistant polymeric fibers and have a cut resistance of 500 grams force or higher per F2992-15 (pg. 6, lines 4-6 and 20-27). Accordingly, the PPD-T is cut resistant, heat resistant, and satisfies the ASTM F2992-15 limitation (claims 1 and 3-5).
Yarn B may be in the form of a sheath/core wherein the elastomeric filament is the core (see element 6 in Fig. 1) and the staple fiber is the sheath (see element 7 in Fig. 1) (¶ [0028] and [0046]). Examples of yarn B include PPD-T staple fibers as the only fiber of the sheath (¶ [0084]). The preferred elastomeric filament is a continuous filament and is preferably a spandex fiber (¶ [0047] and [0050]) (claim 13). The elastomeric filament comprises 2-25 weight percent of the total sheath/core single yarn and thus the sheath comprises 75-98 weight percent of the total sheath/core single yarn (¶ [0049]) (claim 12).
While Prickett teaches the ply-twisted yarn is directed to protective clothing and the preferred sheath for the elastomeric single yarn (b) is PPD-T (para-aramid) fiber (¶ [0002] and [0067]), Pricket fails to teach the sheath includes a blend of meta-aramid, para-aramid, and antistatic fiber. However, Prickett does not appear to limit the fibers of the sheath to PPD-T, and teaches the sheath may be a blend of cut resistant fibers (PPD-T) with less cut resistant fibers (¶ [0015] and [0041]).
Patz teaches flash fire and flame resistant materials that may be wrapped around an elastomeric fiber core, wherein examples thereof include Nomex N305, among others (¶ [0016]). As evidenced by Hübner, Nomex N305 includes 75% meta-aramid, 23% PPD-T (para-aramid), and 2% antistatic fibers (see Hübner, col. 5, lines 37-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the PPD-T with a flash fire and flame resistant material taught by Patz to increase the flash fire and flame resistance of Prickett’s ply-twisted yarn.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Nomex N305, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable flash fire and flame resistant materials taught by Patz and possessing the benefits taught by Patz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional ply-twisted yarns comprising flash fire and flame resistant materials having the benefits taught by Patz in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
Prickett in view of Patz fail to teach the sheath includes a halogenated self-extinguishing fiber.
Campbell teaches a yarn for safety apparel that comprises a blend of at least about 70 percent modacrylic fibers combined with at least about 3 percent high performance, high energy absorptive fibers (¶ [0002] and [0017]-[0018]). Examples of high performance, high energy absorptive fibers include aramid fibers such as meta-aramid and poly-paraphenylene terephthalamide (PPD-T) staple fibers (¶ [0011], [0013] and Table 1). The modacrylic fibers provide highly satisfactory flame resistance and an affinity for luminescent cationic dyestuffs, and the yarn blend as a whole additionally provides added strength and energy absorption needed to meet the arc thermal performance standards of ASTM F 1506 and NFPA 70E (¶ [0012] and [0020]).
Campbell teaches the yarn may particularly comprise between about 90 percent to 97 percent modacrylic fibers (claim 5 and Table 1). Additionally, Campbell teaches embodiments in which modacrylic staple fibers are blended with PPD-T fibers or meta-aramid fibers (¶ [0021]-[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sheath of yarn B to further comprise between about 90 percent to 97 percent modacrylic staple fibers. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide fibers having highly satisfactory flame resistance, and affinity for luminescent cationic dyestuffs and to arrive at a yarn with sufficient strength and energy absorption to meet the arc thermal performance standards of ASTM F 1506 and NFPA 70E, as taught by Campbell.
In particular, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically modify the sheath of yarn B, because it would have been choosing to modify either yarn A or yarn B, and choosing to modify either the core or sheath, and this would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a fiber possessing the benefits taught by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional fibers comprising the blend of Campbell and benefits thereof in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As seen in Fig. 1 above, the elastomeric filament core of yarn B appears to be fully covered by the sheath (¶ [0028]). Prickett further teaches Fig. 3 as an example of the construction of yarn B, wherein the core appears to be almost fully covered by the sheath (¶ [0049]). Accordingly, yarn B is expected to meet the limitation of at least 90% of the core is covered by the sheath. Alternatively, as Pricket teaches the fibers of the sheath shield the core and teaches PPD-T fibers are cut resistant (¶ [0032] and [0035]-[0038]), and Campbell teaches modacrylic fibers provide flame resistance (¶ [0012] and [0020]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fully cover the core of yarn B with the sheath to further shield the core of yarn B with cut resistance and flame resistance, as taught by Prickett and Campbell.
The instant specification recites a preferred halogenated self-extinguishing fiber is a fiber made from a modacrylic polymer (see instant pg. 12, lines 1-3). Accordingly, yarn B comprises a sheath of halogenated self-extinguishing fibers of modacrylic (claim 11). Additionally, as yarn B comprises a sheath comprising 90-97% modacrylic fibers, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the modacrylic fibers to be in contact with the spandex core (claim 1).
The modified ply-twisted yarn of Prickett in view of Patz and Campbell comprises:
Yarn A: a sheath/core fiber comprising 1-50 weight percent of a metal inorganic core and 50-99 weight percent of PDD-T fibers; and
Yarn B: a sheath/core comprising 2-25 weight percent of a spandex core and 75-98 weight percent of a staple fiber blend comprising:
About 90-97% modacrylic fibers (which is 68-95% of the total sheath/core fiber);
At least about 3% Nomex N305 (a blend of meta-aramid, para-aramid, and antistatic fibers);
With respect to the claimed weight percent, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett (US 2005/0091961 A1) in view of Patz (US 2006/0105658 A1) and Campbell (US 2003/0203688 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Behnke (US 4,120,914).
Regarding claims 6-9, while Prickett teaches the preferred staple fibers of the sheath of the yarn A is PPD-T (¶ [0038]), Prickett does not teach the sheath is limited to PPD-T. Additionally, Prickett fails to teach the yarn A further comprises a flame resistant fiber that is not cut-resistant.
Behnke teaches a blend of stable fiber components for use in protective clothing comprising about 50 weight percent poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) fibers and about 50 weight percent poly(p-phenylene terephthalamide) fibers (col. 1, lines 5-14). Such a fiber blend may be used in the form of yarns (col. 3, lines 48-50). Behnke teaches the fiber blend provides a fabric having desirable aesthetic properties and an overall fabric shrinkage of 5% or less when exposed to conditions simulating burning fuel. (col. 1, lines 67-6 to col. 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fiber blend of Behnke as the sheath of yarn A, wherein the sheath comprises about 50 weight percent poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) fibers and about 50 weight percent poly(p-phenylene terephthalamide) fibers, based on the teaching of Behnke. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a fabric having desirable aesthetic properties and an overall fabric shrinkage of 5% or less when exposed to conditions simulating burning fuel, as taught by Behnke.
Claims 21-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prickett (US 2005/0091961 A1) in view of Patz (US 2006/0105658 A1) and Campbell (US 2003/0203688 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Truesdale (US 2020/0367584 A1).
Regarding claims 21-24, Prickett in view of Patz and Campbell fail to teach the woven or knit fabric has a maximum after-flame time of two seconds or less and weight loss of 5 weight percent or less when testes per NFPA-2112-2018.
Truesdale teaches water repellant and flame resistant fabrics comprising a plurality of spun yarns comprising a plurality of flame resistant fibers, which may be p-aramid fibers (¶ [0006] and [0033]). The fabric may be woven or knitted and may specifically be used in gloves (¶ [0033] and [0051]). Truesdale teaches the fabric may be intended to meet certain flame resistance and/or water repellency requirements, including those of NFPA 2112 (2018) (¶ [0035] and [0041]). The fabric provides protective garments that are water repellant, resistant to surface abrasion, flame resistant, and are fluorine-free due to industry demands (¶ [0005] and [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ply-twisted yarn of Prickett in view of Patz and Campbell as the yarns of the water repellant and flame resistant fabric of Truesdale. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain the advantages of being highly cut resistant, soft, flexible, and form fitting, as taught by Prickett; to have improved flash fire and flame resistance, as taught by Patz; to have highly satisfactory flame resistance, and affinity for luminescent cationic dyestuffs and to arrive at a yarn with sufficient strength and energy absorption to meet the arc thermal performance standards of ASTM F 1506 and NFPA 70E, as taught by Campbell; and to provide protective garments that are water repellant, resistant to surface abrasion, flame resistant, and are fluorine-free due to industry demands, as taught by Truesdale.
While Prickett in view of Patz, Campbell, and Truesdale fail to specifically teach the type of protective garment, as described above, Prickett teaches the ply-twisted yarns may be used in gloves and Truesdale teaches the water repellant and flame resistant fabric may be used in gloves.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically select gloves as the protective garment, because it would have been choosing from a list of suitable protective garments taught by Prickett and Truesdale, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of a protective garment of Prickett in view of Patz, Campbell, and Truesdale and possessing the benefits taught by Prickett, Patz, Campbell, and Truesdale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional protective garments comprising fabric of Prickett in view of Campbell and Truesdale having the benefits taught by Prickett, Patz, Campbell, and Truesdale in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
While Prickett in view of Patz, Campbell, and Truesdale fail to specifically teach the gloves have a maximum after-flame time of two seconds or less and weight loss of 5 weight percent or less when testes per NFPA-2112-2018, Truesdale does teach the finished fabric is intended to meet all flame resistance and/or water repellency requirements, as applicable, of one or more of the following, NFPA 1951, NFPA 2112 (2018), etc. (¶ [0035] and [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a glove that meets all flame resistance requirements to NFPA 2112 (2018), because it would have been choosing from a list of standards that Truesdale teaches the finished fabric is intended to meet, which would have been a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of the fabric of Prickett in view of Patz, Campbell, and Truesdale and possessing the benefits taught by Prickett, Patz, Campbell, and Truesdale. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional gloves meeting alternative standards taught by Truesdale having the benefits taught by Truesdale in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
The instant specification recites that the NFPA 2112-2018 standard requires fabrics to have an afterflame time of not more than 2 seconds (pg. 2, lines 8-17). Additionally, the instant specification recites the standard has the additional requirement for flame-resistant gloves, in that the material consumed in the flame resistance testing should not exceed 5.0 percent of the specimen’s original weight (pg. 2, lines17-22). As the gloves of Prickett in view of Patz, Campbell, and Truesdale meet the requirements of NFPA 2112 (2018), the limitations of claim 22 are met.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAELYN R WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/BRAELYN R WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1786