DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 03/26/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1, 4, and 9, and cancelled claims 2-3 on 06/02/2025.
Claims 1 and 4-14 are pending, of which claims 9-13 are withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected.
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
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 4,027,346) (Wada) in view of Polat et al. (US 2007/0232179) (Polat), taken in view of evidence provided by Chemical Book (Polyethylene Terephthalate).
Regarding claims 1 and 8
Wada teaches a knitted or woven fabric, a fiber structure, comprising polyester fiber and a hydrophilic polyester resin treatment agent, wherein the hydrophilic polyester resin treatment agent comprises a linear block copolymer in which a polyester group and a polyethylene glycol group are linked together at their terminals. The block copolymer possesses a molecular weight in the range of 3,000 to 10,000 in view of sufficient modifying effects and durable properties. The block copolymer is uniformly and effectively absorbed or penetrated into the polyester fiber to impart excellent hydrophilic, dust proofing, antisoil redeposition and antistatic properties to the polyester fibers. See, e.g., abstract, col. 1, lines 5-10, col. 2, lines 41-55, col. 4, lines 22-28, col. 4, line 47 – col. 5, line 30, col. 7, lines 42-48, col. 9, line 65 – col. 10, line 5.
With respect to the difference, Polat teaches a fiber structure comprising polyester fibers and a hydrophilizing agent, wherein the polyester fibers and the hydrophilizing agent comprise complementary segments that are associated with one another. The complementary segment of the polyester fiber is polyethylene terephthalate. The hydrophilizing agent comprises a dimeric polyethylene terephthalate backbone, the complementary segment, and hydrophilic substituents, polyethylene glycol, associated with the complementary segment of the polyester fiber. The complementary segments aid in the durability of the association or bond formed between the hydrophilizing agents and the polyester fibers. See, e.g., abstract, paragraphs [0002], [0008-0013], [0023], [0028], [0047], [0050], and [0052].
Polat and Wada are analogous art as they are both drawn to modifying polyester fibers with a hydrophilizing agent comprising a polyester-ether block copolymer.
In light of the motivation as provided by Polat, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polyester group of Wada, such that it is a dimer polyethylene terephthalate, in order to provide the block copolymer a complementary segment that associates with a complementary segment of the polyester fiber such that the association between the block copolymer and polyester fiber has improve durability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
The molecular weight of a polyethylene terephthalate is about 228 in view of evidence provided by Chemical Book. Therefore, the molecular weight of a polyethylene terephthalate dimer is about 456.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with polyester, a common synthetic fiber, possessing crystalline regions and amorphous regions as polyester is a semicrystalline polymer. Since the hydrophilic polyester resin treatment is uniform on the polyester fiber, since the block copolymer possesses a complementary segment comprising a polyethylene terephthalate dimer and hydrophilic polyethylene glycol groups, and since polyester resin treatment’s function is to hydrophilize the polyester fiber, it follows the polyester fibers of Wada in view of Polat comprise an amorphous portion and at least a part of the polyester group is absorbed in the amorphous portion of the polyester fibers, and the polyethylene glycol hydrophilic group extends along the surface of the polyester fibers to hydrophilize the surface of the polyester fibers.
While Wada in view of Polat does not explicitly measure an antifouling property according to the gray scale assessment specified in JIS L 0805 (2005), water absorbability according to the falling-drop method specified in JIS L 1907 (2004), or diffusivity according to the diffusible residual water content method, method A-1, specified in ISO 17617 (dropping 0.6 mL of water), Wada teaches the hydrophilic polyester resin treatment imparts excellent hydrophilic, dust proofing, stain removing, antisoil redeposition and antistatic properties.
Given that the material and structure of the modified polyester fiber of Wada in view of Polat is substantially identical to the modified polyester fiber as used in the present invention, and given the polyester resin treatment improves hydrophilic and antifouling properties, as set forth above, it is clear that the polyester fibers, and thus the knitted or woven fabric as the knitted or woven fabric is comprised of the polyester fibers, of Wada in view of Polat would intrinsically possess an antifouling property of grade 4 or higher according to the gray scale assessment specified in JIS L 0805 (2005), water absorbability of 10 seconds or less according to the falling-drop method specified in JIS L 1907 (2004), and diffusivity of 55 minutes or less according to the diffusible residual water content method, method A-1, specified in ISO 17617 (dropping 0.6 mL of water), as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 4,027,346) (Wada) in view of Polat et al. (US 2007/0232179) (Polat), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Karasawa et al. (US 2013/0011450) (Karasawa)
Regarding claims 4-7
Wada in view of Polat teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Wada further teaches applying an anti-bacterial agent to the polyester fibers. Col. 8, lines 47-50. Wada does not explicitly measure the antibacterial property according to a test specified in JIS L 1902 (2015).
With respect to the difference, Karasawa teaches a knitted fabric comprising polyester fibers. The polyester fiber comprises a pyridine-based antimicrobial agent deposited on its surface. To obtain high washing durability, the antimicrobial agent possesses a molecular weight from 200 to 700. The antimicrobial agent provides antibacterial properties of 2.2 or more based on the antibacterial property test specified in JIS L 1902. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0003], [0011], [0028-0030], [0034-0035], [0042-0043], and Table 2.
Karasawa and Wada in view of Polat are analogous art as they are both drawn to knit fabrics comprising polyester fiber.
In light of the motivation as provided by Karasawa, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit a pyridine-based antimicrobial agent possessing a molecular weight of 200 to 700 on the surface of the polyester fibers of Wada in view of Polat, in order to provide an antibacterial property with wash durability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Since the antimicrobial agent is deposited on the fiber surface, and since the block copolymer of the polyester resin treatment penetrates or adsorbs onto the fiber surface, it follows the antimicrobial agent is fixed to the surface of the molecule of the hydrophilic polyester resin treatment agent on the polyester fibers.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection are withdrawn.
In view of the arguments regarding Huang on pages 7-8 and Karasawa on pages 11-2 of the remarks filed 06/02/2025, it is agreed Huang and Karasawa do not teach the presently claimed. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections, set forth above.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 06/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as set forth below.
Applicant primarily argues Wada does not disclose a polyester group is a dimer and has a molecular weight of 200 to 1000. Remarks, page 9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
While Wada does not explicitly disclose a polyester group is a dimer and has a molecular weight of 200 to 1000, Wada is not closed off from such modification. Instead, Polat is relied on to teach this limitation for the advantage of durable association between the hydrophilizing agent and the polyester fiber, as discussed in the rejection above.
Applicant further argues Wada does not disclose the polyester group is adsorbed into an amorphous portion of the polyester fiber. Instead, Wada generally describes application of block copolymers to the fiber surface to impart stain resistance and hydrophilicity, without any reference to internal absorption or molecular level interactions. Remarks, pages 9-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
As discussed in the rejection above, Wada teaches the treating agent is adsorbed onto the fiber products effectively and penetrate into the fiber surface layer. Col. 1, lines 60-68, col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 3. Therefore, Wada teaches internal absorption of the treating agent. Furthermore, given the block copolymer of Wada’s function is to impart hydrophilic properties, it follows one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the hydrophilic portions, i.e., polyethylene glycol, present on the surface of the fiber to provide hydrophilic properties and thus expect the polyester group of the block copolymer to penetrate the fiber surface layer. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s opinion Wada in view of Polat teaches the polyester group is adsorbed onto the fiber product or penetrates into the surface layer of the polyester fiber, as discussed in the rejection above.
Applicant further argues Wada teaches copolymer architectures such as polyester-polyethylene glycol-polyester and polyethylene glycol-polyester-polyethylene glycol. These arrangements do not satisfy the recitation the hydrophilic polyester resin treatment agent is a linear block copolymer in which a polyester group and a polyethylene glycol group are linked together at their terminals. Remarks, pages 9 and 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
It is the Examiner’s opinion one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a block copolymer possessing the architectures such as polyester-polyethylene glycol-polyester and polyethylene glycol-polyester-polyethylene glycol is a linear block copolymer. Furthermore, since the block copolymers possess ABA patterns, it follows monomer A and monomer B are linked together at their terminals, therefore a polyester group is linked to a polyethylene glycol group together at their terminals. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s opinion the block copolymer of Wada reads on the claimed limitation.
Applicant further argues Wada does not disclose a single polyethylene glycol group is terminally positioned to extend along the fiber surface as recited in claim 1. This structural feature is important to the claimed fiber structure’s performance, specifically its antifouling properties. Remarks, pages 9-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Given the block copolymer of Wada’s function is to impart hydrophilic properties, given a portion of the block copolymer is adsorbed or penetrates into the fiber surface layer, and given the polyester group is a complementary segment to the polyester fiber and provides durable association, it follows one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the hydrophilic portions, i.e., polyethylene glycol, present on the surface of the fiber to provide hydrophilic properties and thus expect the polyester group of the block copolymer to penetrate the fiber surface layer for a durable association. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s opinion Wada in view of Polat teaches the polyethylene group extends along the surface of the polyester fibers to hydrophilize the surface of the polyester fibers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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 at (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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789