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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 13-15, 21,22, 27, 30, 46-47, 63, 88, 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0204718 in view of Hines et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0060809 and further in view of Lawson, III et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0290560.
Zhu et al discloses yarns comprising 40-70 wt% modacrylic fibers, 5-20 wt% para aramid fiber, 10-40 wt% m- aramid fibers, (see paragraph 0007-0009), which can further include 1-5 wt% antistatic fibers, see paragraph 0026. The yarns can be formed into woven and knitted fabrics. See paragraph 0030. The fabrics can have a basis weight of 8-12 osy. See paragraph 0031. Example 2 discloses a fabric having a construction of 27 ends X21 picks per CM, (68 ends X52 picks per inch. See paragraph 0060. The fabrics can be formed into garments. The yarns can have sizes as claimed. See examples. Cellulosic and/or nylon fibers are not required to be present. The fabric would have some degree of flame resistance. With regard to the protection to weight ratio, since Zhu teaches the same fibers in the same amounts formed into garments, especially when modified by the elastomeric fibers of Hines, one of ordinary skill would either expect the claimed protection to weight ratio to be present, or would have been able to control the degree of protection through the selection of the relative proportions of each type of fiber and any additives which are included.
Zhu differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose incorporating elastomeric fibers into the yarns.
However, Hines teaches yarns formed from fiber blends including modacrylic fibers, wherein the yarns further comprise elastomeric filaments in amounts of 5-30% by weight. See paragraphs 0019, 0047, 0063, 0093, 0151, claim 34. With regard to new claim 93, Hines teaches employing an elastomeric filament as a core yarn which is covered with other yarns. See paragraph 0151.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate elastomeric yarns and fibers into the yarns and fabrics disclosed by Zhu in order to impart stretch and recovery properties to the fabric which would enhance comfort and durability, especially to fire resistant fabrics including aramids which can be stiff and heavy, (see paragraph .
The presence of the elastomeric yarns would impart stretch in at least one dimension, depending on how they were disposed in the fabric. With regard to the particularly claimed degree of elasticity, since Hines teaches incorporating the elastic yarns into the structure in the claimed amounts, either the fabric would necessarily possess the claimed stretch and recovery or else it would have been obvious to have selected the amount of elastomeric fibers and the structure of the fabric such as the direction in which the elastomeric filaments were placed which imparted the desired degree of elasticity.
Zhu differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach that the fabric is devoid of post-formation dyes.
However, Lawson teaches that it was known to solution dye flame retardant fibers including aramids and modacrylic fibers. See paragraph 0003, 0006. Lawson teaches that solution dyed fibers, in particular flame resistant solution dyed fibers, retain their color far better than piece-dyed or yarn-dyed fibers after significant exposure to heat, flame and/or UV-light See paragraph 0006. Lawson teaches suitable fibers for solution dyeing include aramid and modacrylic fibers See paragraph 0027. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have solution dyed the fibers of Zhu in order to provide a fabric having improved color retention when exposed to heat, flame or UV light.
Claim(s)1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 48, 63, 88, 91-92 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0204487 in view of Hines et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0060809 and further in view of Lawson, III et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0290560 .
Zhu discloses a method of dying a blend of modacrylic and aramid fibers. The modacrylic is present in a range of 1-99 wt% and the aramid is present in a range of 99-1 wt%. See paragraphs 0006-0007. The aramid can be meta or para aramid or both. See paragraph 0009-00013 The fiber blend can further comprise an antistatic component present as a fiber. See paragraph 0014. The antistatic fiber can be present in an amount of 1-5 wt.%. See paragraph 0016. The fibers can be formed into yarns. See paragraph 0017. The yarns can be formed into woven or knitted fabrics. See paragraph 0018. Zhu discloses a fabric including 70 wt % modacrylic fibers, 15 wt% meta aramid fibers, 5 wt% para aramid fibers. The modacrylic and meta aramid are present in ranges within the claimed ratios. With regard to the particular process by which the yarns and fibers are dyed, since the instant claims are drawn to a product, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any process differences result in an unobvious difference between the claimed invention and the prior art product.
Zhu differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose incorporating elastomeric fibers into the yarns or the claimed degree of stretch.
However, Hines teaches yarns formed from fiber blends including modacrylic fibers, wherein the yarns further comprise elastomeric filaments in amounts of 5-30% by weight. See paragraphs 0019, 0047, 0063, 0093, 0151, claim 34.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate elastomeric yarns and fibers into the yarns and fabrics disclosed by Zhu in order to impart stretch and recovery properties to the fabric which would enhance comfort and durability.
The presence of the elastomeric yarns would impart stretch in at least one dimension, depending on how they were disposed in the fabric. With regard to the particularly claimed degree of elasticity, since Hines teaches incorporating the elastic yarns into the structure in the claimed amounts, either the fabric would necessarily possess the claimed stretch and recovery or else it would have been obvious to have selected the amount of elastomeric fibers and the structure of the fabric such as the direction in which the elastomeric filaments were placed which imparted the desired degree of elasticity.
Zhu differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach that the fabric is devoid of post-formation dyes.
However, Lawson teaches that it was known to solution dye flame retardant fibers including aramids and modacrylic fibers. See paragraph 0003, 0006. Lawson teaches that solution dyed fibers, in particular flame resistant solution dyed fibers, retain their color far better than piece-dyed or yarn-dyed fibers after significant exposure to heat, flame and/or UV-light See paragraph 0006. Lawson teaches suitable fibers for solution dyeing include aramid and modacrylic fibers See paragraph 0027. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have solution dyed the fibers of Zhu in order to provide a fabric having improved color retention when exposed to heat, flame or UV light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have solution dyed the fibers of Zhu in order to provide fibers having a particular appearance or color.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0204487 in view of Hines et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0060809 and Lawson, III et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0290560 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Sanchez et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0237599.
Zhu et al does not clearly teach employing single yarns.
However, Sanchez teaches employing single yarns as ripstop yarns in fire retardant fabrics in amounts as claimed. See paragraph 0028-0029.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated single yarns as ripstop yarns in the fabric of Zhu in order to provide ripstop properties.
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0204487 in view of Hines et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0060809 and Lawson, III et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0290560 as applied to claims above, and further in view of TR 202003654A2.
Zhu in view of Hines does not teach a structure with an elastomeric core.
However, TR ‘654 teaches forming yarns having an elastomeric core and a sheath of fibers including modacrylic, m and p aramid fibers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed a yarn having an elastomeric core and the modacrylic and aramid fibers as the sheath, in order to provide a yarn having stretch and recovery wherein the exposed yarns have improved strength and fire resistance.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding elastomeric fibers and solution dyeing the fibers to provide a fabric having the degree of elasticity and the claimed appearance. However, adding elastomeric fibers to fabrics is a known and conventional way of imparting stretch to a fabric. Hines teaches adding elastomeric fibers can impart 2 or 4 way stretch to fabrics. See paragraph 0151. Additionally, Lawson teaches that solution dyeing provides an improvement to flame resistant fabrics. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to solution dye the fibers and a reasonable expectation of success because Lawson teaches that the same types of fibers which are claimed are suitable for solution dyeing.
With regard to jet-dyeing, none of Zhu1, Lawson or Hines requires jet-dyeing and none of the art is limited to Lycra fibers. Additionally, obviousness does not require and the action does not state that any changes are simple, but rather one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to make the modification and a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, in order to provide a fabric having stretch and recovery as well as improved color retention.
With regard to the dyeing method, Lawson is no limited to PBI and para aramid fibers. Lawson clearly teaches modacrylic and aramid fibers. See paragraph 0027.
With regard to the statement that Hines and Lawson separately describe a different combination of fibers than Zhu1, it is not required that each reference is identical or anticipates the invention. Zhu1 teaches yarns comprising 40-70 wt% modacrylic fibers, 5-20 wt% para aramid fiber, 10-40 wt% m- aramid fibers, (see paragraph 0007-0009), which can further include 1-5 wt% antistatic fibers, see paragraph 0026. The yarns can be formed into woven and knitted fabrics. See paragraph 0030. The fabrics can have a basis weight of 8-12 osy. See paragraph 0031. Example 2 discloses a fabric having a construction of 27 ends X21 picks per CM, (68 ends X52 picks per inch. See paragraph 0060. The fabrics can be formed into garments. The yarns can have sizes as claimed. See examples. Thus, Zhu1 teaches the claimed yarns and fabrics except for the particular way in which the fibers/yarns are dyed and the inclusion of elastomeric fibers to impart stretch. The secondary references clearly teach these features and provide a reason to combine the teachings of the secondary references with Zhu1.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have been able to predict that the fibers could be solution dyed or that elastomeric filaments could be incorporated. However, Lawson states that such fibers can in fact be solution dyed. Hanes teaches incorporating elastomeric filaments into similar fabrics. These teachings would have provided a rationale and a reasonable expectation of success to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Lawson and Hanes in order to provide yarns and fabrics with improved color fastness and elasticity, which is, by definition, stretch and recovery.
Applicant advances the same arguments with regard to Zhu2, and also argues that Zhu2 is specifically directed to jet-dyeing. However, the fact that Zhu2 uses one type of dyeing does not negate the teaching of Lawson that solution dyeing improves color fastness for the claimed types of fibers.
With regard to the particular amounts of fibers, the amounts claimed fall within the ranges disclosed in the prior art as set forth above.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 4/20/26 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims based upon Zhu in view of Lawson as set forth in the last Office action because:
Applicant argues that the LYCRA brochure submitted with the RCE describes features of commercially available elastomeric fibers, which include heat setting and pressure dyeing, while the instant claims are directed to a yarn that includes an elastomeric filament and fiber dyed modacrylic fibers or a fabric comprising such a yarn, wherein the yarn or fabric is devoid of a post formation dye.
However, the Lycra brochure teaches that Lycra fibers can be made with spun in black color. Further, Lycra states at page 2, column 2 that Lycra T582L/T582Z fibers are not degraded by any dye class now in commercial use. Additionally, dyeing the fibers during the formation of the elastomeric fibers would still meet the limitations of no post formation dye, since the dyeing would be during the formation of the fibers. Finally, the teaching of Hines is not limited to Lycra but also teaches employing silicone, fluoroelastomer, polyurethane, fire resistant elastic, rubber and the like.
Applicant argues that jet dying includes a step of employing heated liquid steam that can activate an elastomeric filament. However, none Zhu1, Hines and Lawson require a jet dyeing step and with regard to Zhu2, Lawson clearly teaches a benefit from solution dyeing the same types of fibers which would provide a motivation and reasonable expectation of success in solution dyeing rather than using jet dyeing.
The Declaration states that the change of dyeing method is not simple and can affect the properties of the resulting fabric.
However, the rejection does not state that the change is simple. Obviousness is not a test of whether a modification is simple or not simple, but rather whether it would have been obvious. In the instant case, since the Lawson teaches a benefit which results when flame resistant fibers are fiber dyed, there would have been a reason for one of ordinary skill to do so. Additionally, with regard to the flame resistance of the fabric after fiber/solution dyeing, since Lawson is also specifically concerned with flame resistant fibers, there would have been at least a reasonable expectation that changing the way the fibers of Zhu are dyed would still maintain the flame resistant properties.
The Declaration states that it is known that changing the dyeing method can significantly change the stretch of the resulting fabric. The Declaration states that one of ordinary skill would not have been able to predict that changing from jet dyeing to fiber dyeing would result in a fabric which meets the requirements of ASTM F1506. However, the test for obviousness is not absolute certainty but a reasonable expectation of success. In the instant case, since Lawson is also directed to flame resistant fibers and fabrics, there would be a reasonable expectation that changing the dye method would still result in a suitable flame resistant fabric with improved color retention.
The Declaration states that Lawson does not teach the identically claimed fiber blend. However, Lawson is not relied on for this teaching. Zhu teaches the claimed fiber blend. Lawson teaches a benefit in fiber dyeing relative to solution dyeing of flame resistant fibers, wherein the flame resistant fibers are not limited to para aramid fibers and polybenzimidazole fibers, but include aramid and modacrylic fibers See paragraph 0027.
The Declaration and Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered. Based on the totality of the record, the rejection is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights