DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 02/10/2026 wherein claims 1, 10, 16 and 23 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-19 and 21-23 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/10/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13-19 and 21-23 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Green et al. (EP 1287197; of record) in view of Zilberman (US 2007/0134305) have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive and is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 8/11/2025.
In regards to the 103 rejection, Applicant asserts the following:
A) the claimed invention requires the polymer be dispersed or suspended in a polymeric matrix within the yarn. Moreover, the yarn includes second segments which are permeable or substantially permeable to the biologically beneficial active compound. The coating of Zilberman is formed on the fiber, and because the coating is formed on the surface of the fiber, this indicates that Zilberman is not permeable to the material being used as a coating.
In response to A, Green teaches that their yarn, fabric, or film may include natural (cotton, wool, and the like) or synthetic fibers (polyesters, polyamides, polyolefins, and the like) either by itself or in any combinations or mixtures of synthetics, naturals, or blends or both types. Synthetic materials include polymers such as polyolefins, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and polybutylene, halogenated polymers, such as polyvinyl chloride, polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate, polyester/polyethers, polyamides, such as nylon 6 and nylon 6,6, polyurethanes.
Greene’s yarn is to also possess a finish composition containing a non-ionic or anionic binder agent on at least a portion of the substrate, or wherein the at least one portion of said treated yarn is covered with the binder agent wherein the binder is selected from the group consisting of cross-linked imidazolidinones, acrylic binders, etc. Greene teaches that the finish is applied to the yarn by way of imbibing the material in a solution comprising the finish material and as the present invention provides the polymer matrix to the yarn in such a way it is reasonable to conclude that the prior art would result in a similar structural outcome.
In all, Greene suggests that their yarn comprise combinations/mixtures of synthetic, natural or blends, a yarn material having a polymer suspended or dispersed therein and include a finish composition applied to the yarn wherein the finish composition comprises cross-linked hydrophobic polymers by way of imbibing the yarn in a solution of the finish material. Both of these yarn structures described by Greene would result in a yarn having a polymer suspended or dispersed in the matrix of the yarn. It is noted that the terms ‘dispersed’ and ‘suspended’ in the context of the claimed yarn are understood to mean ‘to be distributed throughout’ (see Merriam-Webster definition for ‘disperse’).
As to the coating of Zilberman being contrary to that claimed, the Examiner is not persuaded as nothing in the claims precludes the coating from having a bioactive agent. Moreover, a yarn having coated and uncoated sections would have been obvious as a) a coating of yarn fibers and b) discontinuous coatings of yarn fibers are taught in the prior art. Selection of one or the other would have been obvious as such structures were known to exist for similar structures.
Further, Applicant’s argument that because a coating is formed on the surface of the fiber indicates that the fiber is not permeable to the material being used for the coating, otherwise the material used for the coating of Zilberman would be absorbed by the fiber is not considered persuasive as this is nothing more than conjecture without any supporting evidence. See MPEP 2145(I).
Rejections, of Record
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (EP 1287197; of record) in view of Zilberman (US 2007/0134305)
Green describes yarns and fabrics having a durable non-electrically conductive topically applied metal-based finish wherein a substrate, such as a yarn, is treated with a finish composition and then treated with a binder formulation (see abstract and claim 1) (see instant claims 1 and 18). The yarn is to be used in various textiles such as apparel (‘garment’) and gloves (‘skin guard’) (see [0014]) (see instant claims 8, 13 and 19).
The finish composition applied to the yarn comprises an antimicrobial metal compound (i.e. antiseptic, antifungal) (see [0006]) (see instant claim 22) and the binder formulation may be crosslinked imidazolidinones and acrylic polymers (see [0006]). It is noted that the binder is to exhibit no water solubility (water-insoluble) and be hydrophobic (see [0024, 0027]) (see instant claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 16 and 17).
More generally Green teaches that their yarn, fabric, or film include natural (cotton, wool, and the like) or synthetic fibers (polyesters, polyamides, polyolefins, and the like) either by themselves or in any combinations or mixtures of synthetics, naturals, or blends or both types. Synthetic materials include polymers such as polyolefins, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and polybutylene, halogenated polymers, such as polyvinyl chloride, polyesters, such as polyethylene terephthalate, polyester/polyethers, polyamides, such as nylon 6 and nylon 6,6, polyurethanes (see instant claims 1 and 3). Greene’s finish composition comprises a non-ionic or anionic binder agent on at least a portion of the substrate, or wherein the at least one portion of said treated yarn is covered with the binder agent wherein the binder is selected from the group consisting of cross-linked imidazolidinones, acrylic binders, etc as previously noted. Greene teaches that the finish is applied to the yarn by way of imbibing the yarn material in a solution containing the finish material (see Examples) and as the present invention provides the polymer matrix to the yarn in such a way it is reasonable to conclude that the prior art would result in a similar structural outcome.
Regarding the nature of the overlap between Green and the instant claims, Green describes a yarn which is imbibed with a silver solution and then coated with a hydrophobic water-insoluble polymer such as crosslinked acrylic polymers (see [0006]) which overlaps with the claimed composition directed to a yarn comprising a biologically beneficial agent wherein segments of the yarn are coated with a coating that is impermeable or substantially impermeable to the biologically beneficial agent. It’s noted that impermeable coating according to the instant invention encompasses crosslinked acrylic polymers (see [0007-0009] of published application). Thus, both the reference and instant claims describes a yarn comprising a biobeneficial agent (e.g. silver) wherein the yarn is coated with a crosslinked hydrophobic polymer (e.g. a crosslinked acrylic polymer). The properties of releasing the agent on to the skin when the fabric is worn (as recited by claim 1) or the mathematical release rate of the biologically benefit agent (as set forth by claim 21) is inherent to the fabric. See MPEP 2112.01 which states that where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition, said composition must have the same properties, unless shown otherwise.
Additionally, the recitation, for example by claim 1, that ‘the yarn releases the biologically beneficial active compound onto the skin of the wearer at a rate that provides the wearer an efficacious dose of the biologically beneficial active compound’ and ‘wherein, upon absorption by the wearer’s skin, the biologically beneficial active compound provides a biologically beneficial effect to the wearer” are reflective of the compositions intended use. These limitations describe outcomes that occur upon wearing the treated fabric. However, ‘wearing’ the fabric is an intended use as it describes how the composition may be used which does not limit the composition itself. See MPEP 2112.02(II). It is observed that claims 10, 16 and 23 similarly sets forth an intended use limitation.
Green’s treated yarn may be knit/woven into a fabric with non-treated yarns (see [0034]) (see instant claims 6 and 10). The treated yarn may be woven together with untreated yarn wherein the yarn fibers are selected from natural fibers such as cotton, wool, synthetic fibers such as polyesters, polyamides, etc. in any combination, mixtures or blend (see [0009]).
Regarding instant claim 7, Green describes a textile product having an untreated yarn woven with polymer treated yarn and therefore this product because it overlaps with the structure of the instant claims must exhibit the same differences in properties. That is to say, the untreated yarn exhibits greater elasticity than the yarn containing the polymer. Moreover, in the circumstance that the flexibility is directly related to the yarn itself (that yarn identities being unspecified), then this case would be an obvious manipulation of Green simply by conforming to the framework described therein, e.g. blends of natural/synthetic fibers.
Green’s yarn possesses superior wash durability wherein the metal finish is retained in the yarn after at least 10 washes (see [0006]) such that after 30 washes 70% of the antimicrobial metal particles are retained thereby retaining antimicrobial activity (see [0033]) (see instant claims 9, 16, 20 and 21). The application of the finish and binder solutions to the yarn (via bath) would be expected to ‘imbibe’ the yarn with said solutions (see [0034, 0041]) (see instant claims 1 and 5).
Green fails to teach the yarn as possessing a segment which is uncoated/non-occluded and permeable to the biologically beneficial compound.
Zilberman, like Green, is directed to coated fibers for the delivery of therapeutic actives. The coated fibers can be woven in to cloth fibers for use in nets, clothing, containers, towels, underwear and so on (see [0087, 0342]). The fibers of Zilberman are to have active molecules incorporated therein and be controllably released over a period of time by way of the outer coating applied to the surface of the fiber (see [0005]). Zilberman teaches that the coating can cover the fiber core either partially or entirely by forming a layer on the fiber core surface wherein the partial coating can be structured as a multitude of discontinuous patches and/or an application to one side of the fiber core (see [0182, 0285] and claim 48) (see instant claims 1, 11 and 16). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the Green’s yarn such that the coated yarn comprised uncoated segments as such a structure was known to be useful in therapeutically active coated fibers. See MPEP 2143(I)(C) which states that the use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way is supportive of obviousness. See also MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Potentially relevant prior art
US 20040166753; and
US 20140065092
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 extension fee 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 KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights