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 filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2020/0308735 to Adams in view of USPAP 2018/0313006 to Stanhope.
Claim 1, Adams discloses a flame resistant fabric having a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the fabric is formed of a plurality of yarns comprising first yarns and second yarns and wherein:
i. the first yarns comprise a first fiber blend comprising thermally stable fibers, cellulosic fibers, and modacrylic fibers, wherein the thermally stable fibers constitute less than 25 wt. % of the first fiber blend, and wherein the thermally stable fibers are selected from the group consisting of para-aramid fibers, meta-aramid fibers, polybenzoxazole fibers, polybenzimidazole fibers, poly {2,6-diimidazo[4,5-b:4’5’-e]- pyridinylene-1,4(2,5-dihydroxy)phenylene} fibers, polyacrylonitrile fibers, liquid crystal polymer fibers, glass fibers, carbon fibers, melamine fibers, polyetherimide fibers, pre-oxidized acrylic fibers, polyamide-imide fibers, polytetrafluoroethylene fibers, polyetherimide fibers, polyimide fibers, polyimide-amide fibers, and any combination thereof;
ii. the modacrylic fibers and the cellulosic fibers of the first fiber blend collectively constitute at least 60 wt. % of the first fiber blend;
iii. the first fiber blend comprises more modacrylic fibers than thermally stable fibers;
iv. the first fiber blend comprises more cellulosic fibers than thermally stable fibers;
v. the second yarns comprise a second fiber blend that is different from the first fiber blend and that comprises modacrylic fibers and cellulosic fibers, wherein the second fiber blend comprises about 40-60 wt. % modacrylic fibers and about 40-60 wt. % cellulosic fibers and is devoid of para-aramid fibers, meta-aramid fibers, polybenzoxazole fibers, polybenzimidazole fibers, poly{2,6-diimidazo[4_5- b:4’5’-e]-pyridinylene-1,4(2,5-dihydroxy)phenylene} fibers, polyacrylonitrile fibers, liquid crystal polymer fibers, glass fibers, carbon fibers, melamine fibers, polyetherimide fibers, pre-oxidized acrylic fibers, polyamide-imide fibers, polytetrafluoroethylene fibers, polyetherimide fibers, polyimide fibers, and polyimide-amide fibers;
vi. the first yarns are provided in only one of a weft direction or a warp direction of the fabric;
vii. the second yarns are provided only the other of the weft direction or the warp direction of the fabric;
ix. the fabric has a char length of 6 inches or less and an after flame of 2 seconds or less when tested pursuant to ASTM D6413 (2022); and
x. the fabric exhibits thermal shrinkage of no more than 10% in each of the warp direction and the weft direction in accordance with NFPA 2112 (2023) (see entire document including [0020]-[0035], [0046], [0049] and [0055]).
Either Adams teaches the claimed fabric with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of each component, such as claimed, based on the desired/required fabric properties for the intended application. Regarding the claimed fabric having a weight between 8 to 12 ounces per square yard (osy), Adams discloses that the fabric “can be of any weight” and discloses that in some embodiments the weight may be between 5 to 7 osy [0051]. Stanhope discloses that it is known in the art to construct flame resistant protective clothing fabrics with a weight between 2 to 12 osy (see entire document including the title and [0043]). Therefore, either Adams teaches the claimed fabric weight with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the fabric of Adams with any suitable fabric weight, such as between 8 to 12 osy, based on the desired/required fabric weight for the intended application.
Claim 2, the modacrylic fibers and the cellulosic fibers of the first fiber blend collectively constitute at least 70 wt. % of the first fiber blend [0030].
Claim 3, the modacrylic fibers and the cellulosic fibers of the first fiber blend collectively constitute at least 80 wt. % of the first fiber blend [0030].
Claim 4, the thermally stable fibers comprise aramid fibers [0030].
Claim 5, the thermally stable fibers constitute less than 20 wt. % of the first fiber blend [0030].
Claim 9, the modacrylic fibers and the cellulosic fibers of the second fiber blend constitute at least 90 wt. % of the second fiber blend ([0034] and [0035]).
Claim 10, the second fiber blend consists of the modacrylic fibers and the cellulosic fibers ([0034] and [0035]).
Claim 11, the first fiber blend comprises about 8-20 wt. % thermally stable fibers, about 40-55 wt. % modacrylic fibers, and about 30-45 wt. % cellulosic fibers [0030].
Claim 12, the thermally stable fibers comprise aramid fibers [0030].
Claim 13, the second fiber blend comprises about 45-55 wt. % modacrylic fibers and about 45-55 wt. % cellulosic fibers ([0034] and [0035]).
Claim 14, the fabric has an overall fabric fiber blend and wherein the thermally stable fibers comprise less than about 10% of the overall fabric fiber blend ([0022], [0030], [0034] and [0035]).
Claim 15, the first yarns are predominantly exposed on the first side of the fabric and the second yarns are predominantly exposed on the second side of the fabric [0022].
Claim 16, at least some of the cellulosic fibers in the first fiber blend are non-flame resistant [0029].
Claim 17, at least some of the cellulosic fibers in the second fiber blend are non-flame resistant [0032].
Claim 18, Adams discloses a garment formed with the fabric of claim 1 and having a face side and a body side ([0002] and [0022]).
Claim 19, the first yarns of the fabric are predominantly exposed on the first side of the fabric, the second yarns of the fabric are predominantly exposed on the second side of the fabric, the first side of the fabric is exposed on the body side of the garment, and the second side of the fabric is exposed on the face side of the garment [0022].
Claim 20, Adams discloses a flame resistant fabric having a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the fabric is formed of a plurality of yarns comprising first yarns and second yarns and wherein:
i. the first yarns comprise a first fiber blend comprising about 8-20 wt. % thermally stable fibers, about 40-55 wt. % modacrylic fibers, and about 30-45 wt. % cellulosic fibers, wherein the thermally stable fibers comprise aramid fibers and optionally fibers selected from the group consisting of polybenzoxazole fibers, polybenzimidazole fibers, poly{2,6-diimidazo[4,5-b:4’5’-e]-pyridinylene-1,4(2,5- dihydroxy)phenylene} fibers, polyacrylonitrile fibers, liquid crystal polymer fibers, glass fibers, carbon fibers, melamine fibers, polyetherimide fibers, pre-oxidized acrylic fibers, polyamide-imide fibers, polytetrafluoroethylene fibers, polyetherimide fibers, polyimide fibers, polyimide-amide fibers, and any combination thereof;
ii. the modacrylic fibers and the cellulosic fibers of the first fiber blend collectively constitute at least 70 wt. % of the first fiber blend;
iii. the first fiber blend comprises more modacrylic fibers than cellulosic fibers;
iv. the second yarns comprise a second fiber blend that is different from the first fiber blend and that comprises about 40-60 wt. % modacrylic fibers and about 40-60 wt. % cellulosic fibers, wherein the second fiber blend is devoid of para-aramid fibers, meta-aramid fibers, polybenzoxazole fibers, polybenzimidazole fibers, poly{2,6- diimidazo[4,5-b:4’5’-e]-pyridinylene-1,4(2,5-dihydroxy)phenylene} fibers, polyacrylonitrile fibers, liquid crystal polymer fibers, glass fibers, carbon fibers, melamine fibers, polyetherimide fibers, pre-oxidized acrylic fibers, polyamide-imide fibers, polytetrafluoroethylene fibers, polyetherimide fibers, polyimide fibers, and polyimide-amide fibers;
v. the first yarns are provided in only one of a weft direction or a warp direction of the fabric;
vi. the second yarns are provided in only the other of the weft direction or the warp direction of the fabric;
viii. the fabric has a char length of 6 inches or less and an after flame of 2 seconds or less when tested pursuant to ASTM D6413 (2022); and
ix. the fabric exhibits thermal shrinkage of no more than 10% in each of the warp direction and the weft direction in accordance with NFPA 2112 (2023) (see entire document including [0020]-[0035], [0046], [0049] and [0055]).
Either Adams teaches the claimed fabric with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of each component, such as claimed, based on the desired/required fabric properties for the intended application. Regarding the claimed fabric having a weight between 8 to 12 ounces per square yard (osy), Adams discloses that the fabric “can be of any weight” and discloses that in some embodiments the weight may be between 5 to 7 osy [0051]. Stanhope discloses that it is known in the art to construct flame resistant protective clothing fabrics with a weight between 2 to 12 osy (see entire document including the title and [0043]). Therefore, either Adams teaches the claimed fabric weight with sufficient specificity or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the fabric of Adams with any suitable fabric weight, such as between 8 to 12 osy, based on the desired/required fabric weight for the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserts that every fiber blend in Adams includes aramid fibers and that Adams fails to teach or suggest second yarns devoid of aramid fibers. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Adams discloses that “In some embodiments, different cellulosic fibers…and/or inherently flame resistant fibers (e.g., para-aramid, meta-aramid, and/or modacrylic, etc.) are used in the fiber blend of the second yarns” [0035]. Therefore, Adams teaches that the second yarns may be devoid of aramid fibers and may instead include modacrylic fibers. Further, Adams discloses that “In some embodiments, the inherently flame resistant fibers used in the fiber blend of the second yarns are modacrylic fibers and/or aramid fibers” [0035]. Therefore, Adams again clearly teaches that the second yarns may be devoid of aramid fibers and may instead include modacrylic fibers.
The applicant also asserts that all the second yarn examples of Adams include aramid fibers. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because all the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art even though the art teachings relied upon are phased in terms of a non-preferred embodiment or even as being unsatisfactory for the intended purpose, In re Boe, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966); In re Smith, 65 USPQ 167 (CCPA 1945); In re Nehrenberg, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960); In re Watanabe, 137 USPQ 350 (CCPA 1963). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have “relatively acceptable dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility,” but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.” Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789