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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment submitted on December 18, 2025, has been entered. Claims 2 – 3 and 7 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4 – 6, and 8 - 10 have been amended and claim 13 has been added. Therefore, the pending claims are 1, 4 – 6, and 8 - 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 states that the polyimide fibers are 45 – 55 mm and the regenerated cellulose and modacrylic fibers are 45 to 64 mm. Claim 12 recites that all three fibers are 45 to 64 mm. Hence claim 12 fails to further limit the size of the regenerated cellulose and modacrylic fibers because the range is exactly the same and the claim makes the size range of the polyimide fibers larger. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4 – 6, and 8 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (2018/0057973) in view of Matsumoto et al. (WO 2016/194766 English Machine Translation).
Yang discloses a flame retardant yarn/fabric/clothing containing a blend of 20% to 80% modacrylic fibers, 10% to 50% cellulose fibers, and 1% to 50% polyimide fibers (abstract). Example 2 has a blend with 1% polyimide fibers and Example 3 has a blend with 8% polyimide fibers. Further, Ohzeki et al. teaches that only a small amount of polyimide fibers needs to be added to the blend to have an impact on char length (paragraph 69 - 70). Additionally, the cellulose fibers can be chosen from regenerated cellulose fibers such as viscose, rayon, or lyocell (paragraph 13). Example 8 includes 28% lyocell fibers in the fiber blend. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose a blend comprising fiber amounts from the claimed range.
While Yang discloses using fibers with 38mm in examples Yang does not teach if other length fibers can be used. Matsumoto et al. is drawn to a fire retardant fiber blend mode from acrylic fibers, such and cellulosic fibers and aramid fibers (abstract). Additionally, Matsumoto et al. discloses that from the viewpoint of strength, the fiber lengths of the acrylic fiber, the flame retardant rayon fiber, the lyocell fiber and the para aramid fiber are all preferably 38 to 127 mm (Page 4, Last paragraph). Further, Matsumoto et al. discloses that the fibers used in the examples mostly have a length of 51mm (Fiber Section). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the length of fibers can be between 38mm and 127mm, specifically 51 mm, for the fibers used in the fiber blend disclosed by Yang, since Matsumoto et al. discloses that the different lengths do not impact the strength of the blend.
While some of the examples have char lengths of less than 50mm these examples do not use the same blend as claimed, most of the samples have cellulose fibers instead of lyocell and some examples have a higher amount of polyimide than claimed. Although the limitations of char length are not explicitly taught by Yang and Matsumoto et al. for the claimed blend, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations would be met by the combination of the two references. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. a similar combination of fiber materials in overlapping amounts) and in the similar production steps (i.e. blending the fibers together to create a yarn) used to produce the fire retardant fabric. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. Thus, claims 1, 7, and 10 - 12 are rejected.
Additionally, the modacrylic fibers are chosen from fibers in which the content of acrylon is 35% to 85%, comprises a vinyl chloride-acrylon copolymer, a vinylidene chloride-acrylon copolymer, or a vinyl chloride-vinylidene chloride-acrylon copolymer, and preferably the vinyl chloride or the modacrylic or the total weight of both in the modacrylic accounts for 40-60% of that of the modacrylic to produce a better flame retardance (paragraph 10). In addition, dyeing groups containing sulfonic groups account for 0.5% to 1% (paragraph 10). Additionally, the modacrylic also includes a modacrylic containing one or more antimony oxides, and a better flame retardance may be achieved when the content of the antimony oxide(s) accounts for above 2.5% of the weight of the modacrylic (paragraph 21). Thus, claims 4 and 5 are rejected.
While Yang discloses that rayon can be used as the cellulose fiber and the at the rayon fibers can be sourced from those available on the market, Yang fails to teach using a fire-retardant rayon with phosphorous. Matsumoto et al. is drawn to fire-retardant fabric made from a blend of fibers including rayon (abstract). Matsumoto et al. discloses that the rayon component can be a fire-retardant fibers containing a phosphorous flame-retardant. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose a fire-retardant rayon containing phosphorous to improve the fire retardancy of the finished product. Therefore, claims 6 and 8 are rejected.
Yang teaches that the examples are made of woven fabric (paragraph 37). Thus, claim 9 is rejected.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Matsumoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu (2013/0055490).
The features of Yang et al. and Matsumoto et al. have been set forth above. While Yang discloses that the example fabrics have a basis weight of 250 gsm (paragraph 61), Yang et al. fails to teach if this weight is preferred or if other fabric weights can be used. Zhu is drawn to protective woven clothing including flame resistant fibers (abstract). The fabric can include yarns made from a blend of modacrylic and lyocell fibers (paragraph 55). The woven fabric can have a basis weight between 135 to 407 gsm when used as garments such as pants, shirts, etc. (paragraph 41). With the examples teaching that the fabric has a finished of weight 203 gsm (paragraph 57). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose fabric weights between 135 to 407 gsm for clothing garments used as shirts and pants, as taught by Zhu, for the fabric of Yang, so that the fabric can be used in different end products such as clothing like pants and shirts. Therefore, claims 13 is rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the relationship between the longer length fibers in the yarn blend and the improved char length (response, pages 4 – 6). However, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In other words, the prior art suggestions of is sufficient motivation to suggest the use of the longer fibers and make the claimed invention obvious, even if the prior art uses different reason to combine and suggests different improvements. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Further, the applicant points to the evidence shown in Table 1 of the specification. Which shows that the use of 51mm fibers improves the char length. As set forth above, the finding of a new advantage from an obvious combination does not make an obvious invention patentable. Further, it is noted that the evidence provide in Table 1 does not cover the entire scope of the claimed invention. For instance, the claim recites that the modacrylic fibers are 50 – 60%, but the table uses 55% and 57%. These points do not fully represent that entire range. This is also true for the polyimde fibers which are claimed as being from 3% to 8%. Would the fabric have the same improvement with 3% polyimide fibers. Additionally, the regenerated cellulose fibers are claimed as being 20 – 40%, but the examples have a total of 37% regenerated fibers. Two of those examples is a combination of lyocell and rayon fibers and one sample is all lyocell fiber. It is not clear what the properties would be if the blend is closer to 20% regenerated fibers or only rayon fibers. Or even other amounts of rayon and lyocell fibers combined. Finally, the examples only use 51mm length fibers. It is unclear what would happen when different length fibers within the claimed range of 45 to 64 mm are used. The results only show the different between 38 mm and 51 mm. Would 45 mm show the same improvement? Since the evidence in Table 1 doesn’t show clear improvements for the entire scope of the claimed invention and the prior art provides motivation to use the claimed fiber lengths, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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.
jlj
September 19, 2025
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789