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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on1/22/24 has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 4-8 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.
Claim 4 recites -the blended padding according to claim 1 having a form of a blended fiber ball, a blended padding sheet or an opened fiber. The scope of the claim is unclear and thus indefinite as is unclear what the metes and bounds and/or structure of a blended fiber ball or an opened fiber means. Applicant has not defined by Applicant's specification. Please provide clarity as to what is meant by these terms. For the purposes of examination, any fabric with the blend of the cellulose and polyester will meet this claim's limitation.
Claims 5-8 are also rejected as they depend from Claim 4.
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, 2 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020180391 issued to Mihara et al.
Regarding Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a blended padding comprising a polyester fiber and a water-repellent regenerated cellulose fiber, wherein the water-repellent regenerated cellulose fiber comprises a compound containing at least one acidic group selected from the group consisting of a carboxyl group and a sulfonic acid group, the fiber surface is bonded with a cross-linking agent and a hydrocarbon-based water repellent containing a polymer having (meth) acrylic ester as a basic unit of a monomer, and the polyester fiber and the water-repellent regenerated cellulose fiber are included in a mass ratio of 30:70 to 90:10; Applicant is directed to the JP 2020180391 issued to Mihara et al.
Mihara et al. disclose a water repellent fabric and a method for producing the same. [Abstract]. The water-repellent fabric may be a woven fabric or a knitted fabric [paragraph 32 under the Description heading]. The water-repellent fabric is made from regenerated cellulose fibers, wherein the water-repellent regenerated cellulose fibers contain a compound containing one or more acidic groups selected from the group consisting of carboxyl groups and sulfonic acid groups and a crosslinking agent [paragraphs 7-8 under the Description heading].
At paragraph 10, under the Description heading the instant reference teaches that the regenerated cellulose fiber can be a rayon fiber contains a compound containing one or more acidic groups selected from the group consisting of a carboxyl group and a sulfonic acid group, and a cross-linking agent and a non-fluorine-based water repellent agent are applied to the fiber surface.
At paragraphs 11-18, under the Description heading, the instant reference teaches that the compound containing a carboxyl group is not particularly limited, but for example, a (meth) acrylic acid-based polymer is preferable from the viewpoint of easily imparting a carboxyl group to the regenerated cellulose fiber. At paragraph 23, under the Description heading, the instant reference specifically teaches using a (meth) acrylic acid ester.
At paragraph 33, under the Description heading, the instant reference teaches that the water-repellent fabric may be composed of only the water-repellent regenerated cellulose fibers, or may contain other fibers. Examples of other fibers include regenerated cellulose fibers other than the water-repellent regenerated cellulose fibers, natural fibers, synthetic fibers and the like. Examples of other regenerated cellulose fibers include rayon, cupra, solvent-spun cellulose, polynosic and the like. Examples of natural fibers include cotton, linen, wool, silk and the like. Examples of the synthetic fiber include acrylic fiber, polyester fiber, polyamide fiber, polyolefin fiber, polyurethane fiber and the like. The synthetic fiber may be a single fiber or a composite fiber.
At paragraph 34, under the Description heading, the instant reference teaches that the regenerated cellulose fiber is present in an amount of 10% by mass or more.
At paragraph 85, under the Description heading, the instant reference teaches that the can be used for clothing, industrial base materials, and the like. Examples of clothing include underwear, underwear, shirts, jumpers, sweaters, pants, training wear, tights, abdominal wraps, mufflers, hats, gloves, socks, earmuffs, and the like. Examples of the industrial base material include carpets, bedding, furniture and the like.
Regarding the limitation of the polyester fiber and the water-repellent regenerated cellulose fiber are included in a mass ratio of 30:70 to 90:10; as shown above at paragraph 34, under the Description heading, the instant reference teaches that the regenerated cellulose fiber is present in an amount of 10% by mass or more. They do not explicitly teach the mass ratio of 30:70 to 90:10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed the fabric with the mass ratio of 30:70 to 90:10, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such 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 (2007). As the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts of cellulose and polyester they are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. A skilled artisan would easily modify the amounts of either fiber to benefit from the properties of having more cellulose or polyester in the final product.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the blended padding according to claim 1, wherein the water-repellent regenerated cellulose fiber comprises a water-repellent rayon; Applicant is direct to At paragraph 10, under the Description heading the instant reference teaches that the regenerated cellulose fiber can be a rayon fiber contains a compound containing one or more acidic groups selected from the group consisting of a carboxyl group and a sulfonic acid group, and a cross-linking agent and a non-fluorine-based water repellent agent are applied to the fiber surface.
Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the blended padding according to claim 1 having a form of a blended fiber ball, a blended padding sheet or an opened fiber; The instant reference teaches a fabric which is planar, hence a sheet.
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the blended padding according to claim 4, wherein at least one of the requirements that a ratio (FP1/FP0) of a fill power (FP1) after washing once to a fill power (FP0) of unwashed blended fiber ball is 76% or more, and a ratio (FP10/FP0) of a fill power (FP10) after washing ten times to the fill power (FP0) of the unwashed blended fiber ball is 63% or more is satisfied when the blended fiber ball is washed by a C4M method in accordance with JIS L 1930; With regards to requirements of washing in accordance with the JIS L 1930 method, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claims, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Mihara et al.
It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same combination of fibers and final end use). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Mihara et al. product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the blended padding according to claim 4, wherein a compression ratio of the blended padding sheet after washing ten times measured by the following formula (III)' is 32% or more; Compression ratio (%) = {(Ha-Hb)/Ha} x 100 ... (III)' Ha: An average value of heights of the four corners measured as follows. Stacking four blended padding sheets each having a square shape of 20 cm on a side, and placing a thick plate of 33 g having a square shape of 20 cm on a side on top of the sheets and leaving it at rest for 30 seconds, and thereafter, measuring the heights of the four corners with the thick plate placed thereon, and calculating an average value. Hb: An average value of heights of the four corners measured as follows. After measuring Ha, placing a wight of 500 g on the thick plate and leaving it at rest for 30 seconds, and thereafter, measuring the heights of the four corners with the thick plate and the weight placed thereon, and calculating an average value. Washing: A C4M method washing in accordance with JIS L 1930; With regards to requirements of washing and compression against the JIS L 1930 standards, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claims, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Mihara et al. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same combination of fibers with the same final end use). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Mihira et al. product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the blended padding according to claim 4, wherein at least one of the requirements that a ratio (H1/H0) of a compression ratio (H1) after washing once to a compression ratio (H0) of unwashed blended padding sheet is 80% or more, and a ratio (H10/H0) of a compression ratio (H10) after washing ten times to the compression ratio (H0) of the unwashed blended padding sheet is 55% or more is satisfied when the blended padding sheet is washed by a C4M method in accordance with JIS L 1930; With regards to requirements of washing and compression against the specific standards of JIS L 1930, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claims, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Mihara et al. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same combination of fibers with the same final end use). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Mihara et al., product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the blended padding according to claim 4, wherein moisture absorption calculated from a mass W0 in an absolute dry state and a mass W after being left at rest at 40°C under a condition of 90% RH to absorb moisture is 3% or more at least after 1 hour and after 7 hours of being left at rest; With regards to requirements of the moisture absorption, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties as desired in the aforesaid claim, would be inherent if not obvious to the composite of Mihara et al.
It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same combination of fibers and final end use). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Mihara et al., product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 9, where Applicant seeks a padding material for clothing or bedding comprising a blended padding according to claim 1; Applicant is directed to paragraph 85, under the Description heading, the instant reference teaches that the can be used for clothing, industrial base materials, and the like. Examples of clothing include underwear, underwear, shirts, jumpers, sweaters, pants, training wear, tights, abdominal wraps, mufflers, hats, gloves, socks, earmuffs, and the like. Examples of the industrial base material include carpets, bedding, furniture and the like.
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks a clothing, whose interior is filled with a blended padding according to claim 1; Applicant is directed to paragraph 85, under the Description heading, the instant reference teaches that the can be used for clothing, industrial base materials, and the like. Examples of clothing include underwear, underwear, shirts, jumpers, sweaters, pants, training wear, tights, abdominal wraps, mufflers, hats, gloves, socks, earmuffs, and the like. Examples of the industrial base material include carpets, bedding, furniture and the like. Any of the aforesaid are known in industry to be filled with padding, especially pants, hats, gloves etc.
Regarding Claim 11, where Applicant seeks a bedding, whose interior is filled with a blended padding according to claim 1; Applicant is directed to paragraph 85, under the Description heading, the instant reference teaches that the can be used for clothing, industrial base materials, and the like. Examples of clothing include underwear, underwear, shirts, jumpers, sweaters, pants, training wear, tights, abdominal wraps, mufflers, hats, gloves, socks, earmuffs, and the like. Examples of the industrial base material include carpets, bedding, furniture and the like. Any of the aforesaid are known in industry to be filled with padding, especially comforters.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2020180391 issued to Mihara et al. in view of JP4907953B2 issued to Yokoyama.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the blended padding according to claim 1, wherein the polyester fiber comprises at least one fiber selected from the group consisting of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fiber, a polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT) fiber, a polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) fiber, a polyethylene naphthalate fiber (PEN), a polylactic acid (PLA) fiber, a polycaprolactone (PCL) fiber and a polybutylene succinate (PBS) fiber; At paragraph 33, under the Description heading, the instant reference teaches that the water-repellent fabric may be composed of only the water-repellent regenerated cellulose fibers, or may contain other fibers. Examples of other fibers include regenerated cellulose fibers other than the water-repellent regenerated cellulose fibers, natural fibers, synthetic fibers and the like. Examples of other regenerated cellulose fibers include rayon, cupra, solvent-spun cellulose, polynosic and the like. Examples of natural fibers include cotton, linen, wool, silk and the like. Examples of the synthetic fiber include acrylic fiber, polyester fiber, polyamide fiber, polyolefin fiber, polyurethane fiber and the like. The synthetic fiber may be a single fiber or a composite fiber. Mihara et al. fail to explicitly suggest that the polyester of choice can be a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fiber, a polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT) fiber, a polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) fiber, a polyethylene naphthalate fiber (PEN), a polylactic acid (PLA) fiber, a polycaprolactone (PCL) fiber and a polybutylene succinate (PBS) fiber. This is remedied by the teachings of JP4907953B2 issued to Yokoyama.
Yokoyama is from the same art of endeavor as they teach making filling or batting which is equivalent to padding material.
Yokoyama teaches making the padding material using a mix of cellulosic based and polyester fibers. At paragraph 16, of Yokoyama he teaches that the polyesters can include polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyhexamethylene terephthalate, polytetramethylene terephthalate, poly-1,4-dimethylcyclohexane terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polypivalolactone, or copolymers of the same.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used any of the chosen polyester as the polyester in Mihara et al.'s fabric. One would have been motivated for example to use PET with rayon to improve the padding’s stiffness, shape retention, and washability where durability is key.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPUB 20100281662 teaches a cellulosic fiber, in particular a lyocell fiber which has improved opening characteristics and therefore is particularly useful for blending with feathers, in particular with down, to such a fiber fill fiber and to the use of this fiberfill fiber in mixtures for bedding and clothing. It may be used in mixture with downs and/or feathers or alternatively in mixture with polyester, polylactic acid and/or polypropylene.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights