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 Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.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 and 7, filed on 5/22/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation “wherein the polyethylene yarn has crystallinity of 60 to 85 %,” although claim 7 limits crystallinity to a range of 66 to 69%.
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 cooling properties in order to obtain clothing such as undergarments and 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 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “Physical and tactile properties like stiffness and contact cold sensation (Qmax) cannot be separated from the fine structural parameters of the polymer-namely molecular weight distribution (Mw and Mn) and precise matrix crystallinity. Henssen broadly discloses a high-performance polyethylene having a broad Mw range of 60,000 to 300,000 g/mol and a preferred crystallinity of at least 75%, and most preferably at least 90%. In sharp contrast, claim 1 is restricted to an exceptionally narrow structural window: an Mw of 50,000 to 99,000 g/mol, an Mn of 10,500 to 14,000 g/mol, and a highly specific, low crystallinity of 66 to 69%. Because the structural parameters of the claimed yarn do not map onto the teachings of Henssen, the resulting fabric properties cannot be legally presumed inherent.”
Regarding this contention, as applied above, modified Roberts teaches Mw, Mn and crystallinity values that overlap with the claimed ranges. Hagerty teaches polyethylene fibers having an Mw of 40,000 g/mol or more, preferably 60,000 g/mol or more, as well as an Mn of 300 to 20,000 g/mol for low molecular weight applications ([0201]-[0202]). Roberts teaches a PE density range of at least about 0.945 g/cc, preferably about 0.95 to 0.97 g/cc, which as calculated according to the formula disclosed by Hagerty, corresponds to a crystallinity of from about 66% or higher (or from 69% to about 82%), which overlaps with the claimed range. Although modified Roberts teaches broader ranges than those claimed, modified Roberts meets the claimed limitations in the absence of a showing to the contrary, such as evidence showing criticality of the claimed ranges.
Applicant contends the following: “Roberts is directed to coarse polyolefin textile fibers for industrial applications such as geotextiles, filters, and heavy medical garments. Henssen is explicitly directed to extreme industrial cut-resistant fibers. Any passing reference in Henssen to "improved softness and comfort" (paragraph [0035]) is purely ancillary and evaluated relative to otherwise rigid, harsh cut-resistant bulletproof or protective industrial fabrics. A person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) seeking to develop a high-comfort, soft, skin-cooling garment for direct, prolonged skin contact would have had no motivation to look to high-modulus, industrial cut-resistant fibers like those of Henssen.”
Regarding this contention, Roberts teaches fibers that may be used in a wide range of industrial, household and apparel applications, such as, for example, in weather and mildew resistant tarpaulin, tents and bags, upholstery, carpets, draperies, sheets, blankets, suiting, gloves, socks, underwear and the like (col. 1, lines 35-43). Hagerty teaches fibers for use in woven or non-woven form to make filters, diaper fabrics, medical garments, geotextiles, etc. ([0212]). Henssen teaches articles, in particular clothing, e.g. outerwear, garments, raiment and d, including but not limited to gloves, aprons, chaps, pants, shirts, jackets, coats, socks, undergarments, vests, hats and the like (Abstract and [0039]-[0040]). Therefore, Roberts, Hagerty and Henssen all teach fibers that are used in clothing, including garments such as undergarments and diaper fabrics that would normally be worn as skin-contacting garments. A person having ordinary still in the art would therefore have reasonably considered Henssen for what it teaches with respect to various types of clothing and also more specifically to undergarments.
Applicant contends the following: “In fact, the present specification proves that routine selection within Henssen's broad ranges leads to failure. As demonstrated by the comparative data in the present specification, when the molecular weight of the polyethylene yarn is allowed to rise into Henssen's broader range (e.g., up to an Mw of 180,000 g/mol), the resulting fabric stiffness sharply increases to 0.25 kgf. Such a high stiffness produces a rigid, coarse tactile feel that is completely unsuitable for high-comfort apparel.”
Regarding this contention, although applicant’s Comparative Example shows results for a PE yarn having an Mw of 180,000 g/mol, an Mn of 25,714 g/mol and a crystallinity of 73%, the examiner notes that the PE yarn in this Comparative Example has different melt index, tensile strength, tensile modulus, elongation at break and crystallinity properties than the PE yarns taught by Roberts. More specifically, while the ranges for these properties in applicant’s Comparative Example all fall outside of the claimed ranges (e.g., a tensile strength of 15.5 g/de compared to a claimed tensile strength of 3.5 to 8.5 g/de), the respective properties taught by Roberts all fall within or overlap with the claimed ranges (e.g., a tenacity of preferably from about 4 to 7 g.p.d.). The examiner also notes, for instance, that while Roberts teaches PE yarns having stiffness values of 30 to 100 g.p.d., the PE yarn in applicant’s Comparative Example has a tensile modulus of 350 g/de. Therefore, it is unclear how applicant’s examples demonstrate that the claimed Mw, Mn and crystallinity ranges are critical when compared to the prior art.
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 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
Prosecution Insights