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 .
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 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 Roberts, 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.
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.
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 8/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zhu1 includes a post formation dye. However, as set forth above, Lawson teaches that fibers which are solution dyed have improved color retention and therefore it would have been obvious to have solution dyed the fibers of Zhu1. Similarly, with regard to Zhu, it would have been obvious to have employed solution dyeing of the fibers rather than post-formation dye in order to provide improved properties to the fibers as taught by Lawson.
With regard to the claimed degree of stretch, since Hines teaches providing elastic fibers in the claimed amount either the fabric of Zhu and Zhu1 would necessarily possess the claimed degree of stretch or else it would have been obvious to have incorporated the fibers into the fabrics such that the desired degree of stretch was obtained. .
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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