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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 5, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 25, 2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly cited reference (KR100470298).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008081916 (hereinafter JP ‘916) in view of KR 20040012126 (hereinafter KR ‘126) and KR 100470298 (hereinafter KR ‘298). JP ‘916 disclose a flame retardant leather-like sheet which has a soft texture, excellent surface touch, and excellent appearance. In a leather-like sheet containing a polymer elastic body A inside a polyester ultrafine fiber entangled nonwoven fabric having an average single fineness of 0.5 dtex or less and dyed with a disperse dye (page 6 to page 7). It should be noted that 0.5 dtex is equal to approximately 6.79 μm, which meets the claimed limitation of a fiber diameter of 1-10 μm. Examples of the ultrafine fiber-generating fiber include an extractable fiber in which the island component is fibrillated by the solvent or decomposition of the sea component, or a split fiber that is fibrillated into an ultrafine fiber made of each polymer mechanically or by a treatment agent. Is mentioned. Examples of the polymer constituting the ultrafine fiber include at least one polymer selected from polyethylene terephthalate, polytrimethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, or a melt-spinnable polyester such as a copolymer or a modified product thereof. The average single fiber fineness is preferably 0.3 dtext or less, more preferably from 0.0001 to 0.2 dtex (0.96 -4.30 μm) . The ultrafine fibers can be colored with a pigment typified by carbon black or the like, or can be added with known fiber additives, as long as the effects of the present invention are not impaired. The polymer elastic body A is not particularly limited as long as it is a polymer elastic body used for leather-like sheets. For example, polyurethane resin, acrylic resin, polyvinyl chloride, polyamide, polyester, neoprene, silicone resin, polyamino acid. In particular, it is preferable to use a polyurethane resin (page 10). Furthermore, the ultrafine fibers may be colored with a pigment such as carbon black or may contain known fiber additives, provided that the effects of the present invention are not impaired (page 11). When used as an upholstery material for vehicle seats, it is preferable to insert a woven or knitted fabric into the nonwoven fabric in order to maintain the strength of the leather-like sheet (page 11). Furthermore, pigments, dyes, crosslinking agents, fillers, plasticizers, various stabilizers, etc. may be added as necessary (page 13). Examples of flame retardants for exhaustion treatment include phosphate ester-based, aromatic condensed phosphate ester-based, and phosphate amide-based flame retardants. From the viewpoint of avoiding accelerated deterioration of the leather-like sheet due to hydrolysis of the flame retardant itself, the aromatic condensed phosphate ester-based and phosphate amide-based flame retardants are preferred (page 22).
JP ‘916 disclose the claimed invention except for the teaching of a polyester fiber containing a manganese-based compound.
KR ‘126 disclose fire retardant polyester sea-island type conjugate fiber having excellent fire retardant, fire-resistant durability, UV stability and spinning processability is characterized by using fire retardant polyester polymer containing a flame retardant and an UV stabilizer on an island ingredient. (abstract). The polyester sea-island type conjugate fiber is comprised of fire retardant polyester as the island ingredient and alkali dissolving polyester as a sea ingredient. The fire retardant polyester polymer is obtained by adding the flame retardant (formula I), phosphorous compound (formula II) and manganese salt to copolymerize the flame retardant and to form manganese phosphate (abstract). The content of manganese salt (manganese acetate, etc.) used as a UV stabilizer is preferably 0.1-500 ppm based on the manganese atom in the polymer. The content of the phosphorus compound of the formula (II) to be added together with the manganese salt is preferably 0.1-500 ppm based on the phosphorus based on the polymer. The flame retardant polyester sea-island conjugate fiber according to the present invention uses a flame retardant polyester polymer in which a flame retardant and a UV stabilizer are uniformly contained in a metallic component by chemical bonding, Excellent in UV stability, physical properties and radiation workability. It would have been obvious to have used the manganese compound of KR ‘126 along with the polyester fiber in JP ‘916, motivated by the desire to create a nonwoven fabric with increased UV stability.
While the combination of JP’916 and KR ‘126 do not disclose the particle diameter of the manganese-based compound, or that the manganese element is in an amount of 0.1 ppm-50 ppm, or that the molar ratio satisfies a molar ratio with the formula of 20 < B/A < 200, KR ‘298 disclose a flame-retardant sea-island composite fiber that imparts UV stability along with a flame-retardant function to a polyester sea-island composite fiber, and in particular, to provide a fiber that is at a level similar to that of existing sea-island composite fibers in terms of spinning processability, physical properties, etc (11). UV stability is an important factor affecting light fastness when flame-retardant polyester is used as fiber or film, etc. Therefore, as a result of research to improve UV stability, it was discovered that manganese compounds such as manganese phosphate are effective in improving the UV stability of flame-retardant polyester (17). Therefore, in the present invention, a method of producing a manganese compound within a polymerization system was selected, which is a method of separately introducing a manganese salt and a phosphorus compound represented by chemical formula (II) (19). The yarn using the flame-retardant polyester polymer manufactured in this way has excellent color and flame retardancy, excellent spinnability, and UV stability when molded into a final product. In addition, the melting point drop is low due to the low DEG content in the polymer, and it has excellent thermal stability during post-processing, so it also has excellent workability (23). It is recommended that the content of manganese salt (such as manganese acetate) used as a UV stabilizer be 0.1 to 500 ppm based on the manganese atoms in the polymer. If it is less than 0.1 ppm, it is difficult to obtain the desired UV stability, and if it exceeds 500 ppm, problems with dispersibility arise, which causes problems such as increased pack pressure during radiation (32). In producing the flame-retardant polyester sea-island conjugate fiber, a flame-retardant polyester having a phosphorus content of 6,500 ppm was polymerized in the polymer to be used as a component of the island-shaped conjugate fiber, and DES 2.7 mol%, PEG (molecular weight 4000) %, Etc., Was used as a sea component, and manganese acetate was added at 11 ppm based on manganese atom, phosphoric acid was added at 15 ppm based on phosphorus, and the weight ratio of the conductive polymer to the sea component polymer 7: 3, and then subjected to melt spinning at a spinning speed of 2,800 m / min under the conditions of a spinning temperature of 290 ° C, a cold air temperature of 20 ° C and a cold air flow rate of 0.45 m / And the final monofilament fineness was 0.04 denier after eluting the usable polymer (65). The examiner is equating this teaching to satisfy the claimed molar ratio. The final fabric wherein the flame retardant polyester sea-island conjugate fiber has a single fiber fineness of 0.001 to 0.3 denier (claims 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the teaching of manganese in the amount of 0.1 to 50 ppm and the molar ratio as disclosed in the KR ‘298 reference, motivated by the desire to create a fabric having the desired UV resistance and flame resistance.
In addition, since Applicant has not shown unexpected/critical results due to the claimed particle size, one would have arrived at the claimed particle diameters since it has been held that differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). Therefore, in the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to optimize these manganese particle diameter sizes motivated by the desire to create a nonwoven leather-like fabric with increased UV stability and fire retardance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ULA CORINNA RUDDOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-1481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 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, Srilakshmi K Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729