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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8-12 and 19-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 1-7 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2019/0271104 to Mason or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2019/0271104 to Mason in view of USPAP 2020/0071882 to Chambers.
Claims 1 and 13, Mason discloses an inherently heat insulating, heat storing, and heat generating material comprising: first fibers inherently having a function of generating heat through moisture absorption; second fibers having a diameter smaller than a diameter of the first fibers and inherently having functions of insulating heat and storing heat; and a binding material inherently binding together the first fibers, inherently binding together the second fibers, and inherently binding together the first fibers and the second fibers, wherein the binding material contains a thermoplastic resin (see entire document including [0003], [0013]-[0018], [0045]-[0053] and [0073]).
Mason explicitly discloses that the fiber blend may include one type of fiber having a first denier and second type of fiber (made from a differing material) including a second denier, wherein the first denier is smaller or larger than the second denier [0046]. As the disclosure of Mason teaches both possibilities (the first fiber denier being smaller or larger than the second fiber denier), Mason teaches that the first fibers may have a larger denier (diameter) than the second fibers. At a minimum, the claimed diameter limitation is obvious because there is such a small finite number of possibilities (two) disclosed by Mason. When there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex. The examiner takes official notice that the density of rayon and acrylic are similar with the density of rayon generally falling between 1.46 and 1.54 g/cm3 while the density of acrylic generally falling between about 1.15 to 1.19 g/cm3.
Claims 2 and 14, a material of the first fibers may be rayon ([0052]-[0053]).
Claims 3 and 15, a material of the second fibers may be acrylic ([0052]-[0053]).
Claims 4 and 16, Mason discloses that the first and second fibers may have a ratio of the diameter of the two fibers in a range of 0.05 or more and 0.8 or less [0046]. Specifically, Mason discloses that the smaller denier may be 0.7 to 1.0 and the larger denier may be 1.1 to 8.0 [0046].
Claim 5, Mason discloses the use of a binding material [0049] but does not appear to mention the specifically claimed binding material. Chambers discloses that it is known in the art to include a binding material that has a core formed of polyester and a covering layer of the thermoplastic resin covering the core (see entire document including [0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the binding material of Mason from any suitable binding materials, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claims 6 and 17, Mason discloses that a number of fibers with a fiber length shorter than an average fiber length may be 1% or more and 95% or less of a total number of the first fibers and the second fibers ([0045] and [0046]).
Claims 7 and 18, Mason does not appear to mention the use of a surfactant but Chambers discloses that it is known in the art to include a surfactant to enhance stability and/or processability and/or to make the product more desirable for the intended use [0049]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a surfactant to enhance stability and/or processability and/or to make the product more desirable for the intended use.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights