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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10 and 12-15 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 4, 9 and 11 have been cancelled. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claims 1, 5 and 7, filed on 10/15/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10 over Roberts et al. (US Patent No. 3,048,467) in view of Hagerty et al. (US 2008/0081885 A1 ), further in view of Loyan et al. (US 2018/0279705 A1), made of record in the office action mailed 7/16/2025, has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites the limitation: “wherein polyethylene yarn has a tensile strength.” 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, 3, 5-8 and 10 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.
Applicant’s specification does not provide support for the skin cooling fabric having a stiffness according to ASTM D 4032 of 0.11 to 0.23 kgf. Although Tables 1 and 2 show that particular values of stiffness within this range are obtained for Examples 1-5, Examples 4 and 5 are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as the yarns in these examples do not include a plurality of filaments having a fineness of 1 to 5 denier. Claims 3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US Patent No. 3,048,467) in view of Hagerty et al. (US 2008/0081885 A1), further in view of Henssen (US 2011/0300366 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, Roberts teaches multifilament low denier per filament polyethylene and polypropylene yarns that can be produced at high commercially practicable winding speeds from certain high density olefin resins, which fibers are characterized by high strength and toughness, desirable chemical resistance and abrasion resistance, very low moisture absorption, good electrical insulating characteristics, and other desirable properties as disclosed (col. 1 lines 21-29). Roberts teaches that preparation of the yarns can be accomplished by the process of the invention by the use of high density polyethylene having a density in g/cc of at least about 0.945, preferably about 0.95 to 0.97, and a melt index in dgm./min of about 6 to 20, preferably about 8 to 15 (col. 1, lines 50-71). The stretched-oriented low denier per filament multi filament textile fibers of polyethylene so obtained are characterized by having an elongation at break of no more than 40 percent and normally not less than 10 percent, stiffness values of 30 to 100 grams per denier (g.p.d.), tenacity of at least 3 g.p.d. and preferably from about 4 to 7 g.p.d., and a stability to sunlight of about 40 hours to 100 hours (col. 2, lines 64-71). Roberts teaches producing solidified multifilament yarn with filaments each measuring from about 1 to 15 denier (col. 2, lines 23-27). In an embodiment, Roberts also teaches a 50-filament yarn of 191 denier (Example 2, particularly col. 7, lines 32-35).
Roberts does not explicitly disclose wherein the polyethylene polymer has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 50,000 to 99,000 g/mol and a number average molecular weight (Mn) of 10,500 to 14,000 g/mol, or wherein the polyethylene yarns have a crystallinity of 55 to 85 %.
However, Hagerty teaches ethylene based polymers (Abstract, [0013] and [0034]). Preferred polymers may have an Mn (number-average molecular weight) value from 300 to 1,000,000, or between from 700 to 300,000 ([0201]). For low weight molecular weight applications, such as those copolymers useful in lubricating and fuel oil compositions, an Mn of 300 to 20,000 is contemplated, or less than or equal to 10,000 ([0201]). In some embodiments, the polymer has a Mw/Mn of from about 2 to 60, while in other embodiments the polymer produced has a Mw/Mn of from about 5 to 50 ([0203]). In one embodiment, the polymer produced has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 40,000 or more, preferably 60,000 or more, preferably 100,000 or more, preferably 120,000 or more, preferably 150,000 or more ([0202]).
Hagerty also teaches that weight percent degree of crystallinity is calculated from the measured density of the sample and known densities of crystalline and amorphous polyethylene according to the equation: 100×(1/ρ−1/ρa)/(1/ρc−1/ρa), as described in the Handbook of Polyethylene, published by Marcel Dekker, Inc ([0222]). In this calculation, ρ is the measured sample density, ρc is the unit cell crystalline density, and ρa is the amorphous density ([0222]). The value of ρc is taken to be 1.000 g/cm3, while the value of ρa is commonly accepted as 0.853 g/cm3 ([0222]). In one embodiment, there can be produced ethylene based polymers having a density in the range of from 0.86 g/cc to 0.97 g/cc ([0199]). As calculated by the examiner for polyethylene densities in this range (and particularly for the narrower range of densities taught above by Roberts), a density of 0.945 g/cc corresponds to a crystallinity of about 66%, and a density of 0.97 g/cc corresponds to a crystallinity of about 82%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the polyethylene yarns of Robert, in which the polyethylene has a density of greater than 0.945 g/cc (or from 0.95 to 0.97 g/cc), would have a degree of crystallinity of from about 66% or higher (or from 69% to about 82%), because Hagerty teaches that these crystallinities can be estimated based on the density of the polyethylene (see [0222] and [0199] of Hagerty, and col. 1, lines 50-71 of Roberts). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the polyethylene of Roberts with an Mw of 40,000 or more, preferably 60,000 or more, and with an Mn of 300 to 20,000, in order to obtain melt spun polyethylene fibers that are useful in woven or non-woven forms for products such as diaper fabrics, medical garments and geotextiles, as suggested by Hagerty ([0202]-[0203] and [0222]).
Roberts in view of Hagerty does not explicitly disclose wherein the fabric is a skin cooling fabric. In addition, with respect to the claimed crystallinity, Henssen is additionally applied below.
Henssen teaches a yarn providing a fabric manufactured thereof with good resistance against cutting as well as thermoregulation properties (Abstract). Preferably, the cut-resistant fibers are organic fibers having a crystallinity of at least 50%, more preferably at least 75%, most preferably at least 90% ([0024]). In a preferred embodiment, the cut-resistant fibers are fibers composed of polyethylene having preferably a substantially circular or flat or oblong cross-section, most preferably circular ([0023]). It was observed that when in contact with a person's body, fabrics containing inventive yarns wherein the cut resistant fibers have increased crystallinity values show enhanced performance in keeping the body temperature at lower values for longer times (a cooling fabric as claimed) ([0024]). It was also observed that the person wearing said fabric begins to sweat later than when wearing known cut-resistant fabrics having the same construction ([0024]). A melt spinning process is used, the polyethylene starting material used for manufacturing thereof preferably has a weight-average molecular weight (Mw) between 60,000 and 600,000, more preferably between 60,000 and 300,000 ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the polyethylene yarns of Roberts in view of Hagerty would have cooling properties because Henssen teaches that polyethylene yarns having similar crystallinities and molecular weights show enhanced performance in keeping the body temperature at lower values for long times when in contact with a person's body (Henssen: [0023]-[0024]). It would also (or alternatively) have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the fibers with crystallinities of at least 50%, and to thereby have provided the fabrics with cooling properties, in order to obtain clothing such as sports related apparel having temperature regulation properties, as suggested by Henssen ([0035] and [0038]-[0040]; also Abstract).
With regard to the claimed contact cold sensation (Qmax) and stiffness properties, the examiner notes that applicant has provided at page 7 lines 17-19 and 26-29, page 8 lines 12-18, page 11 lines 20-26, page 12 lines 3-10 and 20-24, and page 13 lines 16-19 of the specification as-filed (or [0048], [0050], [0053], [0082], [0084], [0087] and [0092] as-published in US 2022/0380948 A1) specific structural examples which provide the structure and properties claimed. The examiner notes that the structure of modified Roberts, as applied herein, is either the same as or is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant. Thus, it is the position of the Office that the composition of modified Roberts would have the claimed properties as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the references teach similar materials as the claimed structure, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. Thus, absent an objective showing to the contrary, the examiner expects the fabric taught by modified Roberts to have the claimed properties.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Hagerty teaches that, in some embodiments, the polymer has a Mw/Mn of from about 2 to 60, while in other embodiments the polymer produced has a Mw/Mn of from about 5 to 50 ([0203]).
Regarding claim 5, with respect to the claimed thermal conductivity and heat transfer coefficient properties, modified Roberts remains similarly as applied above to claim 1. In addition, Henssen teaches examples of fabrics having areal densities such as 219 gr/m2 ([0053] and the Table).
Regarding claim 6, Henssen teaches that the fabric may be of any construction known in the art, e.g. woven, knitted, plaited, braided or non-woven or combinations thereof ([0037]). Hagerty teaches that fibers include melt spinning, solution spinning and melt blown fiber operations for use in woven or non-woven form to make filters, diaper fabrics, medical garments, geotextiles, etc. ([0212]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10, and with respect to the claimed stiffness properties, that both endpoints (0.11 and 0.23) are explicitly disclosed, along with intermediate values (0.12 and 0.22), which underscores that the inventors contemplated not merely isolated points but the continuum between them.
Regarding this contention, although Tables 1 and 2 show that values of stiffness including the claimed endpoints were obtained for Examples 1-5, Examples 4 and 5 are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, as the yarns in these examples do not include a plurality of filaments having a fineness of 1 to 5 denier as claimed.
Applicant previously contended, in arguments filed on 10/8/2024, the following: “Furthermore, Hessen discloses a PE crystallinity that overlaps with the present invention, but it is noteworthy that Hessen discloses ultra-high molecular weight PE (UHMWPE) fibers as preferred (see paragraph [0023]). According to the present specification, (1) UHMWPE fiber can only be produced by the gel spinning method due to its high melt viscosity, which causes environmental problems and requires high cost, and (2) when HMWPE with a lower molecular weight (Mw 20,000 to 250,000) is used to overcome this problem, it has the limitation of poor weaveability and tactility.”
Regarding this contention, Henssen teaches that the fibers may be manufactured by any technique known in the art, preferably by melt or gel spinning ([0023]). Henssen further teaches that, if a gel spinning process is used to manufacture said fibers, preferably an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) is used ([0023]). However, Henssen does not teach gel spinning as being preferable to melt spinning, and Henssen does not teach UHMWPE as being preferable to the lower molecular weight polyethylene disclosed as being suitable for the melt spinning process. Henssen teaches that, preferably, the polyethylene fibers, in a preferred embodiment of the inventive yarn, are melt spun polyethylene fibers ([0035]). An inventive fabric containing such a yarn shows improved cut-resistance, superior thermoregulating properties and also an improved softness and comfort ([0035]). Therefore, based on the teaching of Henssen, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose melt spun polyethylene fibers, with the use of polyethylene having a weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of between 60,000 and 300,000, in order to obtain fabrics having the disclosed combination of properties, including improved softness and comfort. Henssen also teaches that the fabric of the invention may be of any construction known in the art, e.g. woven, knitted, plaited, braided or non-woven or combinations thereof ([0037]). Woven fabrics may include plain weave, rib, matt weave and twill weave fabrics and the like ([0037]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2007/0003761 A1 (Miyazono) teaches textiles comprising fibers having a residual elongation percentage of 5% to 30%, an elastic modulus of incipient tension of no less than 15 cN/dtex, and a tensile strength of preferably no less than 1.0 cN/dtex and preferably no greater than 25 cN/dtex ([0022]-[0026] and [0072]-[0074]). The fibers may be made of polyethylene ([0051]). The fibers can be used for clothing which can release heat to the outside of the body and gives a cool feeling when making contact ([0156]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 on 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789