DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments, declarations, and claim amendments filed on October 27, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended and claims 2 and 9-10 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 pending for examination.
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, 3-8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a heating fabric comprising a carbon-based fiber that generates heat when current is applied and has a fineness of 100 to 3,500 De, wherein the carbon-based fiber comprises: a fiber and a carbon doping layer formed on at least a portion of a surface of the fiber and comprising a binder and carbon particles fixed to the binder and has a far-infrared radiation energy of 1x102 W/m2·µm, does not reasonably provide enablement for the carbon-based fiber satisfying conditions (1) and (2) at the same time. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
With respect to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to a heating fabric for curing inner wall concrete comprising a carbon-based fiber that generates heat when a current is applied and has a fineness of 100 to 3,500 De, wherein the carbon-based fiber comprises: a fiber, and a carbon doping layer formed on at least a portion of a surface of the fiber and comprising a binder and carbon particles fixed to the binder, has a far-infrared radiation surface energy of 1x102 W/m2·µm, and satisfies the conditions (1) and (2) (Wands Factors (A) and (B)).
Blackmore (US 2006/0119011) teaches in situ heating during curing of concrete structures, wherein electrically conductive and resistively heatable components in a conductive circuit path are connected to an external power source (paragraph [0023]). The concrete is cured by applying electrical energy to the electrically conductive members (paragraph [0004]). An electrical component is a rod, wire, or fiber containing carbon or graphite woven into a fabric or tape (paragraphs [0025], [0061]). Blackmore further teaches that 5V applied to a 1P6K carbon fiber reaches 274F (134oC) in 15 minutes (Fig. 2C). Therefore generally curing with carbon fabric is known with respect to the prior art. However, the significance of the conditions (1) and (2) and the properties a, b, and c used in the conditions is not recognized by the prior art, even though the prior art achieves the same function (Wands factors (C) and (D)).
Mo (US 2018/0127901) teaches a heating sheet comprising a carbon-coated fiber as weft (paragraph [0009]). Example 1 of Mo uses a polyethylene terephthalate fiber treated with a solution of 20% by weight carbon black and 60% by weight polyurethane (paragraph [0102]). Therefore the structure of the claimed carbon-based fiber is known in the art and is suitable for use in heating fabrics. However, the significance of the conditions (1) and (2) and the properties a, b, and c used in the conditions is not recognized by the prior art, even though the prior art has the claimed structure and achieves the same function. It cannot be determined based on the information provided in the specification whether the structure and materials of the carbon coated fiber of Mo are sufficient to simultaneously satisfy the conditions (1) and (2) (Wands factors (C) and (D)).
With respect to property a, the fiber dimensional change ratio (%) is a ratio of the changes in length of the fiber in hot water measured under the conditions of 100oC and 30 minutes (Wands factors (C) and (D)).
With respect to property b, it has been clarified that the property is a thermal shrinkage force measured in N. According to ASTM D5591, the shrinkage force is measured in a dry heat at a temperature of about 180oC (Wands factors (C) and (D)).
With respect to property c, the resistance (kΩ) is a property known in the art known to depend in large part on the material it is made as well as the size and shape of the object used (Wikipedia; “Electrical resistance and conductance”). Therefore the ordinary artisan would recognize the size, shape, and type of carbon used to be necessary in order to determine the resistance, however the specification does not provide these details, particularly when the resistances of the Examples vary widely from 5-550 kΩ (Wands factors (C) and (D)).
Based on the above information, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the variables a, b, and c would change depending on the type and size of the material used (Wands factors (C) and (D)).
With respect to the predictability in the art, in general it seems known how to adjust the fiber shrinkage rate, thermal stress, and resistance of a composite in isolation by varying the material and/or size used. However, as discussed above, these values a, b, and c are correlated to each other (meaning whenever one is adjusted the values for the others will change as well, especially the fiber dimensional change ratio and the thermal stress), are measured at different temperatures and under different conditions, and the equations for conditions (1) and (2) are complicated. Therefore the ordinary artisan would find it difficult to predict whether a material would meet both conditions claimed (Wands Factor (E)).
Examples are provided starting on page 16 of the specification. Materials and measurements for methods for the properties a, b, and c are described for Example 1 on page 15, lines 25-33. For Examples 2-19 the fiber dimensional change ratio, thermal stress, resistance, fineness, Young’s modulus, elongation, and type were changed according to Tables 1 to 5 (instant specification; page 16, lines 15-19) (Wands Factor (G)).
However, the Examples do not disclose how the variation of properties a, b, and c were achieved. If the same materials were used in the same manner as Example 1, the ordinary artisan would expect the fiber dimensional change ratio, thermal stress, and resistance to remain constant as chemical compositions and their properties are typically inseparable. The Examples therefore provide no guidance as to what was structurally or materially changed between the Examples 1-19 such that the carbon-based fibers exhibit the properties a, b, and c shown in Tables 1-5. It is additionally noted that the values of the conditions are lower than what is claimed in claim 1. Across the examples condition (1) varies from 0.0027-0.29 compared to less than 0.35 in claim 1, and condition (2) varies from 0-1.8, compared to less than 2.3 in claim 1.
Furthermore, the values of fiber dimensional change ratio and thermal stress are not measured under the same conditions, therefore it is difficult for the ordinary artisan to predict how changing one would affect the other. Examples 2, 11, and 15 all have a fiber dimensional change ratio of -2.9, however Example 2 has a thermal stress of 0.7 N whereas Examples 11 and have much larger thermal stresses of 2.7 N and 1.8 N respectively. As discussed above, both the fiber dimensional change ratio and the thermal stress are measured after a change in temperature. It is unclear from the examples what is changed to enable the fiber dimensional change ratio to remain the same while varying the thermal stress. Additionally the largest thermal shrinkage in Example 3 of -6.4% has a comparatively low thermal stress of 1.6 N, whereas the large thermal stress of 6.1 N in Example 5 is in response to the relatively small dimensional change of -2.4%. The Examples do not sufficiently explain how the materials are manipulated to achieve these different fiber dimensional change ratios and thermal stresses (Wands Factor (F)).
The use of three different properties which are interrelated and change with material and size measured at different temperatures in different environments used in two complex conditions that must be met simultaneously would require a large amount of experimentation (Wands Factor (H)).
Based on the above, particularly the lack of guidance in the Examples concerning how the properties are adjusted between examples and the complexity of the conditions which would require an undue level of experimentation, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 3-8 and 11-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) based on their dependency from claim 1, rejected above.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 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 have been overcome in light of the Declaration filed October 27, 2025 providing and attesting to the accuracy of the translation of the Korean standard.
The 112(a) scope of enablement rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and declarations filed on October 27, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 8-11 of the response Applicant provides Tables 11-15 showing variable changes in isolation and summarizes how the variables a, b, and c may be adjusted through the fineness, material used, and carbon content.
The supplementary data is not convincing to show how the fiber dimensional change ratio, thermal stress, and resistance can be predictably varied by changing the constitution of the carbon-based fiber. The supplemental information provided the Examples appear to show at least three parameters which affect the variables a, b, and c: the fineness, the fiber type, and the content of the binder/carbon particle. It is noted that the weight percentages of the binder/carbon particle are considered based on the total of the binder and the carbon particle and therefore are only considered one parameter as changing one necessarily changes the other.
Table 11 of the response on pages 8-9 shows constant fineness and concludes that as the fineness increases a tends to decrease non-linearly, b has no significant increase when the fineness is low but has visible increase starting as fineness increases from 3,000De to 4,000De, and c has a general tendency to increase as fineness increases but when the fineness becomes excessively higher there is a tendency for fineness to decrease. Generally, the supplemental data shows that changes in fineness affect the values of properties a, b, and c simultaneously.
Table 12 of the response on page 10 shows the fiber types PET and Nylon and concludes that a change in fiber type from PET to Nylon results in a decrease in the values of a (however, the change in a is greater when the carbon content is high), and an increase in the value of b (however, the change in b is greater when the carbon content is high). The Examiner further notes, however, when comparing Comparative Example 2 to Example 7 it can be seen that changing the fiber type from PET to nylon results in a significant change to the properties a, b, and c such that the conditions (1) and (2) are no longer satisfied. The difference between the comparison of Examples 1 and 17 and Comparative Example 2 and Example 7 appears to be the binder/carbon particle content. It can also be seen from Table 12 that a change in carbon content for Nylon provides a significant change in the variables a and b but no change in b and a less significant change in a for the PET fiber Therefore, the supplemental data shows that the binder/carbon particle content and the fiber type are interrelated, as acknowledged by Applicant.
Table 13 of the response on page 10 shows the fiber types PET and PAN and concludes that when the carbon content is low, a change in fiber type from PET to PAN increases the value of a and decreases the value of b and when the carbon content is high, a changed in fiber type from PET to PAN decreases the value of a and increase the value of b. The Examiner further concludes that generally, the supplementary data appears to show that the binder/carbon particle content is interrelated to the fiber type used, and the fiber type used affects the values of the properties a, b, and c simultaneously.
Page 10 of the response also provides Table 14 showing the fiber types PAN and PP and concludes that a change in fiber type from PAN to PP results in an increase in the value of a and also an increase in the value of b. The Examiner notes that due to only one data point for each fiber type being presented, it is not clear from the data whether carbon content affects the changes as seen in Tables 12 and 13.
Table 15 shows the content of binder/carbon and concludes that as the carbon content increases, the value of c decreases on page 11. The Examiner further notes, however, that changing the carbon content also affects the variables a and b. In general, the supplemental data appears to show the changes in the binder/carbon particle content affect the values for properties a, b, and c simultaneously, with no discernible trend for the change in properties a and b and property c at high carbon particle loadings.
It can be concluded that the variables a, b, and c can be increased or decreased via changes in single variables of fineness, carbon content, and fiber type as acknowledged on page 11 of the response, however analysis of the Tables 11-15 show that the parameters of fiber fineness, fiber type, and binder/carbon particle content individually affect each of the properties a, b, and c simultaneously. It can also be seen that at least the binder/carbon particle content and the fiber type used are interrelated, and therefore cannot be adjusted independently of each other. Additionally, few of the parameter changes provided discernible trends in the changes in the values of a, b, and c.
For example, the summary on page 11 states at (i) that in order to reduce to value of a the fineness may be increased. However, according to (iv) this increase in fineness will also increase the value of b. If the value of b is increased outside of an acceptable range then according to (iii) the fiber material may be changed from PET to PAN, assuming the carbon content is low. However, changing the material from PET to PAN when the carbon content is low increases the value of a according to (ii), which is contrary to the initial desired of decreasing a. Therefore it can be seen from the summary that just for trying to achieve appropriate values for a and b undue experimentation will be required. However, c will also be changing with these changing parameters as acknowledged by (v) and (vi). Therefore, simultaneously achieving the necessary values of a, b, and c would require undue experimentation.
Furthermore it is noted that the fiber parameters needed to achieve the properties a, b, and c was only one consideration in the predictability argument. An additional complicating factor is that after the values for the properties a, b, and c are determined they must then also simultaneously satisfy the complicated conditions (1) and (2). From the supplemental data it can be seen that the properties a, b, and c cannot be simply predicted for a certain fiber, and the values of a, b, and c necessary to simultaneously satisfy conditions (1) and (2) cannot be simply calculated. Therefore satisfying both simultaneously would require a large amount of undue experimentation. As such, the supplemental data shows the unpredictability and undue experimentation required to arrive at a carbon-based fiber that simultaneously satisfies conditions (1) and (2).
It is noted that the specification as originally filed does not provide suitable ranges for the weight percent of the binder or the carbon particles. Additionally, it is noted that Examples 2 to 19 and Comparative Examples 1 to 7 were identified on page 16, lines 15-19 as being manufactured in the same manner as Example 1. Page 15 at line 28 indicates that a PET fiber is used, however the supplemental data indicates that fibers other than PET were used such as nylon, PAN, and polypropylene. As identified on page 11 of the response, page 8, lines 25-31 of the specification identify the use of polyamide and the genus acrylate-based and olefin-based fibers however as mentioned above the specification as filed appears to indicated that PET fibers are used for all the examples. As such the supplemental data relies on information that is not present in the specification as originally filed. While it was considered when determining whether the values of a, b, and c are predictable when the composition of the carbon-based fiber is changed, the supplemental data was not considered when considering the guidance provided in the disclosure as the information was not provided at the time of filing.
On page 12 of the response Applicant submits a Table 6 showing an Additional Comparative Example 4 in which physical properties measured experimentally and the claimed conditions (1) and (2) are exceeded, thus presenting an example in which the upper limiting values of Conditions (1) and (2) are adequately covered.
While the Additional Comparative Example 4 provides additional information for structure and values of a, b, and c which do not meet the claimed conditions, it does not provide support for the scope of conditions (1) and (2), particularly it does not show that values of 0.29-0.35 for condition (1) and values of 1.8-2.3 for condition (2) are capable of being achieved by the claimed invention. As such, when considering the scope of the claim compared to the scope of the Examples and direction provided by the inventor, there are values of conditions (1) and (2) which are claimed but not represented by the Examples. This fact was taken into consideration when determining the predictability and experimentation required to arrive at the claimed invention as described above.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789