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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11 21 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023808 (Terai et al.) in view of DE 102008026151.
Regarding claim 1, ‘808 discloses: seat belt webbing [fabric in fig. 3 and 4 are capable of use as a seat bell webbing], comprising: (a) a plurality of strands of infra-red reflecting yarn [3; fig. 4; par. 22; 4; par. 23]; and (b) a plurality of strands of infra-red absorbing yarn [2; fig. 4, par. 22] interwoven with the strands of infra-red reflecting yarn to form the seat belt webbing [fig. 4 shows yarns 2, 3, and 4 being interwoven with each other] with a pattern that is identifiable when the seat belt webbing is subjected to infra-red light [fig. 3 and 4; yarns 3 and 4, inherently, define a pattern and are ‘identifiable’ under infrared light].
‘808 does teach each of the infra-red absorbing yarns include infrared absorption dye or pigment and nylon and polyester which are both inherently thermoplastic.
‘808 is only missing the disclosure that the IR absorber and the thermoplastic material in the yarn are formed as a homogeneous mixture rather than a dyed/pigmented mix with the thermoplastic polymers.
However, DE 102008026151 does teach a fabric for use in various applications requiring infrared absorption and/or reflection including explicitly in that of car seat covers and interior vehicle trim.
The attached translated document provided explicitly states (it is noted the translation is grammatically incorrect but is reproduced here exactly how it is presented in the attached machine translation):
“Of the essence of the invention provides a process for the preparation of a colored Yarn (or a corresponding thread with a defined length) the base of a thermoplastic material characterized is that the plastic is melted, in the molten state with infrared radiation transmitting or reflecting color particles mixed and the plastic mixture is subsequently deformed into a yarn.
By means of the production method according to the invention, a uniform distribution of the color particles within the matrix of the yarn formed by the (base) plastic can be achieved, whereby the bonding of the color particles to the plastic is improved. At the same time, the Ver drive through a simple and inexpensive application and a low environmental impact, since - unlike the known dyeing - almost all color particles are bound to the plastic.”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the textile arts to modify the IR absorbing particles being dyed/pigmented into the yarn structure taught by ‘808 to be manufactured as taught by DE 102008026151 so that the particles are homogenously mixed with the thermoplastic polymer material achieving a more uniform distribution of the particles in the yarn inner structure as well as enhancing the bonding of the color particles in the yarn inner structure as opposed to the less uniform distribution and bonding of color particles of known dyeing of yarns which only incorporates color particles on the outer surface of the polymer of the yarn.
Regarding claim 3 and 21, ‘808 discloses: the infra-red absorber has a peak wavelength sensitivity of 940 nanometers [‘808 discloses infrared light absorption; infrared light is by definition ‘extending from the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum at .74 micrometers to 1mm…’; this range converted to nm is 740nm to 1000000nm; 940 nm is a discrete datapoint within the inherent range of infrared light wavelength thereby the claimed peak wavelength sensitivity is disclosed by the ‘808 statement that yarns 2 absorb infrared light that inherently absorbs the claimed wavelength datapoint 940 nm].
Regarding claim 10, ‘808 discloses: the strands of infra-red absorbing yarn comprise: a thermoplastic [polyester fiber, par. 23; is inherently thermoplastic].
Regarding claim 11 and 27, ‘808 discloses: the pattern comprises at least one elongated stripe of strands of infra-red absorbing yarn running along the length of the seat belt [yarn 2 shown in fig. 4 does form a stripe of infrared absorbing yarn along the length and will be repeated as fig. 4 is only a section of the fabric produced; also fig. 3 clearly shows ‘IA’ regions forming longitudinal ‘stripes’ along the seat belt webbing fabric].
Claim(s) 4 same scope as claim 22: and claim 5 same scope as claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023808 (Terai et al.) in view of DE 102008026151 and further in view of JP 2006283242.
The combined teachings as stated above do teach polyester yarn with infrared absorption material in a homogenous mixture.
The combined teachings do not teach the type of infrared absorption material being lanthanum hexaboride, the particle size, nor the proportional composition of lanthanum hexaboride to the polyester.
However, JP ‘242 is referenced as it explicitly teaches, “a near-infrared light-shielding fiber having a layer made of a fiber-forming resin in which fine-grained lanthanum hexaboride is dispersed…The fiber-forming resin is not particularly limited, but it is preferable to use nylon resin, polyester resin, and polypropylene in view of availability, fiberization, and cost [‘Best mode’ section of translated JP ‘242 document in PTO-892]”.
Further, JP ‘242 teaches the particle diameter of lanthanum hexaboride is 1 micrometer or less (equivalent to greater than 0 up to 1000nm); absorbs or has ‘sensitivity’ in the vicinity of 1000nm and specifically recites the use of “fine grained” lanthanum hexaboride.
There is no showing of evidence/data that the claimed particle sizes nor claimed proportional ranges provide an unexpected result in that the lanthanum hexaboride in instant application is used in a similar manner to the cited prior art.
With respect to claimed particle size range in claim 4 and 22, the explicitly recited range from JP ‘242 encompasses and includes the claimed particle size range, thereby fully disclosing and establishing the prima facie obviousness that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention would have known from the teachings of JP ‘242 to use fine grained lanthanum hexaboride particles including those that are 50 to 80 nm with polyester polymer to form a yarn that exhibits desired infrared absorption properties.
With respect to claimed compositional proportions of lanthanum hexaboride to polyester polymer in claim 5 and 23; JP ‘242 discloses explicitly the polymer base as polyester and the content of the particulate lanthanum hexaboride is .01 to 20g/kg. 20g/kg of lanthanum hexaboride to polyester is equivalent to 2 parts lanthanum hexaboride to 10000 parts polyester; thereby fully disclosing and establishing the prima facie obviousness that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention would have known from the teachings of JP ‘242 to use fine grained lanthanum hexaboride particles with polyester polymer in a proportion of 20g/kg of lanthanum hexaboride to polyester or 2 parts lanthanum hexaboride to 10000 parts polyester to form a yarn that exhibits desired infrared absorption properties.
Claim(s) 6 same scope as claim 24; and claim 7 same scope as claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023808 (Terai et al.) in view of DE 102008026151 and further in view of CN 202139477.
The combined teachings above teach all of intervening claims 1 and 2 above including infrared absorbing yarn from polyester but do not teach the materials recited in claims 6 and 24 nor the proportional composition required in claims 7 and 25.
CN ‘477 is referenced as it teaches a yarn comprising polyester and indium tin oxide to provide a textile material having high transmittance in the visible light range and high infrared reflectance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the yarns taught in ‘808 to potentially further include indium tin oxide in the yarn to provide the yarn/textile with high transmittance in the visible light range and high infrared reflectance.
CN ‘477 does not explicitly teach the claimed proportional composition of indium tin oxide to the amount of polyester.
However, the explicit disclosure from CN ‘477 is that indium tin oxide is used as a modifier that increases visible light transmittance and infrared reflectance. One of ordinary skill in the textile engineering arts would understand that as one increases or decreases the amount of indium tin oxide in the polymer mix the resultant visible light transmittance and infrared reflectance due to the presence of indium tin oxide will increase or decrease.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the proportion of indium tin oxide in the polymer mix to provide a textile with the desired amount of visible light transmittance and infrared reflectance through routine experimentation and expected optimization of the proportional amount of indium tin oxide used in the yarn.
Claim(s) 8 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023808 (Terai et al.) in view of DE 102008026151 and further in view of KR 101815492.
‘808 discloses all of intervening claims 1 and 2 above including infrared absorbing yarn from polyester but do not teach the materials recited in claim 8 nor the proportional composition required in claim 8 and 26.
KR ‘492 is referenced as it teaches a fiber/textile composition comprising polyester and various known additives to provide a textile material having infrared light absorbing functions.
KR ‘492 explicitly discloses: “…in recent years, and the ultraviolet and infrared cut powder and the blocking agent using a metal oxide to block the near-infrared light or ultraviolet light and developed to be transmitted through such a glass of glass or apartment balcony glass or building of the vehicle, using these blockers coating or the like clothing or for imparting ultraviolet and ability to block the near-infrared light by a post-processing method for laminating techniques it has been developed.
In the general formula as an example Republic of Korea Patent Publication No. 10-2006-0024328 No. WyOz (However, W is tungsten, O is oxygen, 2.2≤z / y≤2.999) infrared shield, characterized in that fine particles of tungsten oxide is denoted by materials which discloses particle-dispersed body, Korean Patent Publication No. 2001-0091286 discloses the sun, characterized in that zinc magnesium oxide containing titanium obtained by treating a sintered complex oxide composed of three components of zinc oxide, magnesium oxide and titanium dioxide there fiber is disclosed having a cooling effect caused by light reflection [Background art section of translated document attached to instant PTO-892].”. This citation teaches use of tungsten oxide and zinc oxide to increase/vary the amount of light reflection of the fiber.
KR ‘492 does not explicitly teach the claimed proportional composition of tungsten oxide and zinc oxide to the amount of polyester.
However, the explicit disclosure from KR ‘492 is that tungsten oxide and zinc oxide are used as modifiers that increases visible light transmittance/reflectance of the fiber. One of ordinary skill in the textile engineering arts would understand that as one increases or decreases the amount of tungsten oxide and zinc oxide in the polymer mix the resultant visible light transmittance/reflectance due to the presence of tungsten oxide and zinc oxide will increase or decrease.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the proportion of tungsten oxide and zinc oxide in the polymer mix to provide a textile with the desired amount of visible light transmittance and reflectance through routine experimentation and expected optimization of the proportional amount of tungsten oxide and zinc oxide in the textile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The current rejection above cites the same prior art and fully addresses arguments regarding the prima facie obviousness previously noted that the IR absorbing material and thermoplastic polymer already taught by ‘808 which are ‘mixed’ with each other in a dyed/pigmented structure is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the dyed/pigmented yarn structure to that of the teachings of ‘151 which as noted above teach a homogenous mix of color effect particles and thermoplastic polymer rather than known dyeing/pigmenting to increase bonding and uniformity of the color effect particles and polymer in a yarn.
The examiner has never asserted than either of the references alone provide claimed “homogeneous mixture of infra-red absorber and thermoplastic”.
It is noted above and previously that ‘808 does already teach a yarn that is a mix of IR absorbing particles which are color/wavelength effecting particles and thermoplastic polymer.
The only disclosure from ‘808 that is lacking with respect to claims is that the ‘mix’ is a ‘homogenous mixture’.
‘151 is referenced to teach that it is known to use a homogeneous mixture of color effect particles into a yarn structure rather than known dyeing processes because a homogenous mixture will provide enhanced bonding and even distribution of the color effect particles in the resulting yarn.
‘151 is not relied upon for the disclosure of IR absorbing material nor the thermoplastic. ‘151 is only relied upon for the teaching of using a homogenous mixture structure rather than a dyed structure because a yarn with homogenous mixture structure has enhanced bonding and even distribution of the materials in the yarn.
Assertions regarding the problem solving teachings of the ‘151 reference with respect to the instant alleged invention’s problem solving goals are incorrect. “Enhanced bonding” as taught by ‘151 would absolutely also provide less ‘wearing off’ of the materials in the homogeneous mixture. Further, a prima facie obviousness reasoning and rationale does not need to teach the exact stated purpose of the applicant’s alleged invention. The reasoning/rationale must show that the prior art combination provides a known advantageous result. Instantly, ‘151 is noted as explicitly teaching that use of homogeneous mixed structure results in improved bonding and distribution of the materials being mixed over that of known dyed structures.
As this is the only argument provided and no amendments are offered the rejection remains and is considered to be proper.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732