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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of claims 1-18, in the reply filed on January 30, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 19-47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-18, claim 1 recites a “cured thermoplastic polymer…wherein said cured thermoplastic polymer comprises a coating material.” Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0031 defines “thermoplastic polymer” as a “material that becomes pliable or moldable at a certain elevated temperature and solidifies upon cooling.” Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0043 recites that the “curing process fixes the polymer materials by cross-linking adjacent polymer chains.” Thermoplastic polymers are not ordinarily known in the art as being curable, as curing requires cross-linking, which would prevent a “thermoplastic polymer” from becoming pliable at a certain elevated temperature and solidifying upon cooling. Although Applicant’s specification does not recite that the thermoplastic polymer is capable of remelting, which is a characteristic of thermoplastic polymer, the specification does not recite that the thermoplastic polymer is incapable of remelting either. Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is claimed.
Alternatively, it is unclear if the recitation of “thermoplastic polymer” is merely referencing the precursor material, or if the recitation of “thermoplastic polymer” is referencing the final material.
Regarding claims 8-11, claim 8 recites “specialty fibers.” It is unclear exactly what the scope of the claimed limitation necessarily entails.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites multiple sentences. The claim must be in one sentence form only. Additionally, the claim recites “[p]articularly preferred synthetic fibers include” the claimed fibers. It is unclear if the recited fibers are merely exemplary and not required by the claim, or are preferred embodiments which are necessarily required by the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “such as” when referencing an antibacterial fiber and flame retardant fibers. It is unclear if the recited fibers are merely exemplary and not required by the claim, or are preferred embodiments which are necessarily required by the claim.
Additionally, the claim recites “other material infused,” “mixed chemistry”, and “high-purity” antimony trioxide. It is unclear what the scope of each limitation necessarily entails.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “a pore former a hydrophobic material and hydrophilic material.” The verbiage of the claim renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2013/0059112 to Tam.
Regarding claims 1-17, Tam teaches modified high tenacity fibers with a plasma or a corona treatment without reducing the physical strength properties of the fibers (Tam, Abstract). Tam teaches that the fiber surfaces are at least partially covered by a fiber surface finish and removing at least a portion of the fiber surface finish from the fiber surfaces, and subjecting the fibers to a treatment (Id., paragraphs 0009-0011). Tam teaches that “fibers” includes filaments, and that “yarn” is a single strand consisting of multiple fibers (Id., paragraph 0013). Tam teaches that the plasma or the corona treatment will modify the fibers at the fiber surfaces, such as pitting or roughing the fiber surfaces, such as burning small pits or holes into the surface of the fibers (Id., paragraphs 0024-0032). Tam teaches treating the fibers immediately before coating the fibers with a polymeric binder or resin, wherein the treatments improve the anchorage of the coatings to fiber surfaces (Id., paragraphs 0023-0024, 0034). Tam teaches that the polymers forming the fibers include polyolefin fibers such as polyethylene and polypropylene fibers, polyamide fibers, and polyethylene terephthalate fibers (Id., paragraphs 0044-0045).
Regarding the claimed cured thermoplastic polymer, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, Tam teaches that the polymeric binder includes ethylene-propylene copolymers, polyurethane elastomers, polyvinylchlorides, polyacrylates, polyesters, polyamides, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, as well as other low modulus polymers and copolymers curable below the melting point of the fibers (Id., paragraphs 0056-0059). Tam teaches that the polymeric binder may also include fillers such as carbon black or silica, and may be extended with oils (Id., paragraph 0058). As best Examiner can determine, since Tam teaches a thermoplastic polymer, such as set forth in Applicant’s specification, and suggests curing, the polymeric binder when cured appears to be within the scope of the claimed cured thermoplastic polymer.
Regarding claims 2-6, Tam does not appear to teach the claimed average size and gap volume. However, Tam establishes a substantially similar fiber as claimed, having a substantially similar surface gaps as claimed, for a substantially similar purpose of anchoring a coating to the fiber surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface modified fibers of Tam, and adjusting and varying the average size of the pits and the pit volume, such as within the claimed ranges, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine suitable parameters of the fiber structure set forth in Tam, based on the predictably desirable properties such as degree of anchoring and fiber structure, suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Tam teaches that the polymeric binder may be applied onto the entire surface area of the individual fibers or only onto a partial surface area of the fibers (Tam, paragraphs 0063-0065).
Regarding claim 7, it is noted that the fibers of Tam include up to the claimed range.
Regarding claims 8-11, Tam teaches that the polymers forming the fibers include polyolefin fibers such as polyethylene and polypropylene fibers, polyamide fibers, and polyethylene terephthalate fibers. Note that the claimed fibers are recited alternatively and are interpreted as when the fibers are present as claimed, then they comprise the claimed fibers.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Tam teaches that the fiber may still have a portion of its surface area covered by a very thin coating of the fiber finish (Tam, paragraph 0016), wherein the fiber finish will comprise a combination of one or more lubricants, emulsifiers, anti-static agents, wetting and cohesive agents, and antimicrobial compounds (Id., paragraph 0019). Note that anti-static agents are ordinarily known in the art as cationic or anionic. Additionally, Tam teaches that plasma treatment adds polarity to the fiber surface (Id., paragraph 0027), which would be within the scope of the claimed surfactant.
Regarding claim 14, Tam teaches that the polymeric binder may also include fillers such as carbon black or silica, and may be extended with oils.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Tam teaches fibrous composites including a fabric comprising interconnected fibers (Tam, paragraph 0035), and a plurality of overlapping, non-woven fiber plies (Id., paragraphs 0066-0070).
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam in view of USPN 3,714,096 to Biale.
Regarding claims 1-18, as set forth above, Tam teaches that the polymeric binder includes ethylene-propylene copolymers, polyurethane elastomers, polyvinylchlorides, polyacrylates, polyesters, polyamides, and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, as well as other low modulus polymers and copolymers curable below the melting point of the fibers. Tam teaches that low modulus polymeric matrix binder materials include vinyl ester polymers (Tam, paragraph 0058). Additionally, Biale teaches a latex of a vinyl ester polymer which has the property of forming self-curing films without the use of an extraneous curing additive, wherein the latex is useful as a binder, particularly for non-woven fibers (Biale, Abstract). Biale teaches that the polymer comprises a major proportion of a vinyl ester monomer, typically vinyl acetate, which is interpolymerized with polymerizable comonomers, and a cure catalyzing amount of an acrylic acid (Id.). Biale teaches that the interpolymer forms clear films that resist discoloration and have a high resiliency and compressibility, which cures rapidly and completely (Id., column 2 lines 3-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface modified fibers of Tam, wherein the vinyl ester binder comprises vinyl acetate interpolymerized with acrylic acid, as taught by Biale, motivated by the desire of forming conventional surface modified fibers using a binder known in the art as being predictably suitable for binding fibers, wherein resisting discoloration and having high resiliency and compressibility, and curing rapidly and completely are predictably desirable.
Since the prior art combination teaches a self-curing binder comprising acrylic acid copolymerized with vinyl acetate, the binder would appear to be a cured thermoplastic polymer as claimed.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam, as applied to claims 1-17, in view of “Adjusting the interfacial adhesion via surface modification to prepare high-performance fibers” to Han.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-6, the claimed average size of the gaps would appear to be obvious in view of the prior art. Additionally, Han teaches surface modification treatment of fibers to improve the interfacial adhesion strength (Han, Abstract). Han teaches fiber surface modification by corona-discharge treatment and plasma treatment (Id., pages 3-4). Han teaches that the max average surface roughness was up to 171 nm (Id., page 7), and that with plasma treatment, the depth on the surface of the fiber only involves tens of nanometers by plasma irradiation (Id., page 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface modified fibers of Tam, wherein the corona or plasma treatment results in a depth, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Han, motivated by the desire of forming conventional surface modified fibers having a surface depth known in the art as being predictably suitable for improving interfacial adhesion strength.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam in view of Biale, as applied to claims 1-18, and further in view of Han.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-6, the claimed average size of the gaps would appear to be obvious in view of the prior art. Additionally, Han teaches surface modification treatment of fibers to improve the interfacial adhesion strength (Han, Abstract). Han teaches fiber surface modification by corona-discharge treatment and plasma treatment (Id., pages 3-4). Han teaches that the max average surface roughness was up to 171 nm (Id., page 7), and that with plasma treatment, the depth on the surface of the fiber only involves tens of nanometers by plasma irradiation (Id., page 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface modified fibers of the prior art combination, wherein the corona or plasma treatment results in a depth, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Han, motivated by the desire of forming conventional surface modified fibers having a surface depth known in the art as being predictably suitable for improving interfacial adhesion strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786