Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/427,188

FIREPROOF, FIRE-RESISTANT, AND FLAME-RETARDANT TEXTILE MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
SINGH-PANDEY, ARTI R
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tejidos Royo S L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
570 granted / 807 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
856
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 807 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Objections Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities, appropriate correction is required: Claim 15 recites the composition of the fibers coating the surface of the continuous filament which can be modacrylic, meta-aramid, para-aramid, polyamide-imide, polyacrylate, polyacrylonitrile, PBI, PBO, fire-resistant viscose, fire-resistant modal, carbon, preox, chlorinated, wool, cotton, lyocell, polyamide, polyester, regenerated cellulose, and recycled cellulose fibers; It is suggested that there should be no dash between polyamide-imide, fire-resistant viscose, fire-resistant modal; PBI, PBO and preox should be spelled out as polybenzimidazole, polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole and oxidized polyacrylonitrile fiber, as it is the first instance found in the claims; .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 14, 15, 19, 20 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 14 states “The textile material according to claim 13, wherein a mixture of fibers externally coating the continuous filament comprises virgin fibers and recycled fibers, and comprises at least one of natural, artificial, or synthetic origin with fireproof or flame-retardant properties,” is unclear as whether the last feature of natural, artificial, and/or synthetic origin with fireproof or flame-retardant properties applies to the recycled fibers only or both the virgin fibers and the recycled fibers. For the purposes of examination, the Office will understand that anything listed in this claim will have the fireproof or flame retardant properties. Claim 15 states-“the textile material according to claim 14, wherein the fibers coating the surface of the continuous filament are a mixture of recycled fibers and virgin fibers selected from: modacrylic, meta-aramid, para-aramid, polyamide-imide, polyacrylate, polyacrylonitrile, PBI, PBO, fire-resistant viscose, fire-resistant modal, carbon, preox, chlorinated, wool, cotton, lyocell, polyamide, polyester, regenerated cellulose, and recycled cellulose fiber, ” what is chlorinated? Claim 19 states –“The textile material according to claim 18, wherein the continuous filament is at least one of parallel, textured, twisted, assembled, or braided, and wherein the continuous filament includes a copolymer which is at least one of elastic, rigid, or recycled.” It is unclear what is meant by an assembled filament? Additionally, for a filament to be braided you would need more than one filament. Claim 20 recites the limitation " wherein the yarns have a number of turns per meter of yarn in accordance with a twist constant between values of 75 kt and 150 kt." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that this claim be dependent from claim 19 and not 13, as twisting is not discussed in Claim 13. Further, in this claim it is not unclear as to what is meant by- in accordance with the twist constant between values of 75 kt and 150 kt. What does the unit “kt” stand for?. The unit for twisted filament is typically expressed as Turns Per Meter (TPM) or Turns Per Inch (TPI). These units measure the number of helical turns the filament undergoes per unit length, which is crucial for determining the filament's strength and texture. Please clarify what is meant here. 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) 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-A-111 850 762 issued to Yingjie in view of USPUB 202300151513 issued to Parker et al. Applicant is directed to the teaching of Yingjie teaches a fireproof, fire-resistant, and flame-retardant textile material [abstract, ¶ 0001], e.g. a glove), which is formed by high strength yarns (4) containing recycled fibers originating from a textile material [claim 3, working examples and ¶¶ 0006-0010]. The textile is formed from core-spun yarns (4) made from continuous (long) filaments (6) [fig. 1] having a denier of 100D -1500D which when converted falls within Applicant’s claimed range of between 22 dTex and 440 dTex (22dtex =19.80D and 440dtex=396 D) [¶ 0022 and claim 7]. The fibers (1, 2) covering the surface of the continuous filament (6) in the textile material according to Yingjie [¶¶ 0008-0012] can be a mixture of recycled fibers and virgin fibers selected from: para-aramid, cotton, lyocell, polyamide, polyester, regenerated cellulose. The textile can be woven or knitted, and formed from twisted yarn [abstract and working examples]. Yingjie does not disclose the specific weave patterns of the woven fabric having at least one of weaves, 3/1, 2/1 twill, 1/1, 2/1, 2/2 taffeta, sateen, double fabrics, or ripstop. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have chosen a specific weave pattern for the woven textile such as a 3/1, 2/1 twill, 1/1, 2/1, 2/2 taffeta, sateen, double fabrics, or ripstop. One would have been motivated to do so as the textile weaves fundamentally determine fabric properties, including durability, drape, texture, sheen, and breathability. It should be noted that Yingjie teaches long filaments. Continuous and long are synonymous. Figure 1 shown below shows that the core spun yarns are helical. PNG media_image1.png 662 1250 media_image1.png Greyscale Yingjie does not expressively suggest the breaking strength of the yarn to be between 5 cN/Tex and 75 cN/Tex. However, this is deemed to be inherent, if not obvious to the structure of the yarn used by Yingjie who teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. The surface of yarn is covered with recycled fibers (2) or yarns with recycled fibers, wherein the composition of the yarns of the fireproof textile material contains recycled fibers (2) (i.e. FR recycled fibers) which are mixed with virgin fibers (1) (i.e. aramid 1414), wherein at least one of these fibers has fireproof, fire-resistant, and flame-retardant properties, such that the yarns constituting the textile material has a tenacity of at least 10.5 cN/Tex. Yingjie does not specifically disclose the tenacity as claimed, however the tenacity is deemed to be inherent if not obvious to the structure of the hard filament and aramid 1414 fibers used in the sheath of the yarn. Yingjie teaches a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Yingjie does not teach that the textile material in that the yarns contain at least 20% recycled fibers. A skilled artisan would look to the prior art to find an alternative fireproof, fire resistant, and flame-retardant textile material with core spun yarns having recycled fibers. Applicant’s claims do not define the type of recycled fibers. Hence, the fibers can be simply cotton, wool, FR fibers or inherent fire resistant fibers such as aramid, which are all taught by Yingjie. However, USPUB 20230151513A1 issued to Parker et al. at ¶¶ 0011-0014 disclose that fabrics with arc and flame protection comprising a substantive amount of recycled fibers are known in the art. The composition of the yarns in Parker at taught at ¶¶ 0011-0013. 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 textile material in that the yarns contain at least 20% recycled fibers, 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). One would have been motivated to select the amount of recycled fibers in accordance to the desired level of fire protection, the required ecological standards and/or the economy. Parker teaches that the recycled fibers which the yarns contain in the textile material may originate from the recovery or recycling of pre­consumer and/or post-consumer textile materials ¶¶ 0014 and 0031-0032. Neither reference teaches that the yarns have a Limiting Oxygen Index of between 20 and 50; it is the position of the Office that the claimed LOI, would be inherent if not obvious to the yarn of Yingjie or Parker et al. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same type of yarns both structurally and chemically, along 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 Yingjie or Parker 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPUB 20190186055 issued to O’Hara teaches (see claim 1) a fireproof, fire-resistant, and flame-retardant textile material since it comprises p-aramid, which is formed by yarns (i.e. first core spun yarns) containing recycled fibers originating from a textile material, the yarns are formed by a continuous filament (i.e. an elastomeric filament, see [0061]) with a fiber count of between 22 dTex and 440 dTex (i.e. an inherent feature considering the very broad range) and with a breaking strength of between 5 cN/Tex and 75 cN/Tex (i.e. about 6.9 cN/Tex for elastane), the surface of which is covered with recycled fibers or yarns with recycled fibers (i.e. p-aramid and cotton), wherein the composition of the yarns of the fireproof textile material contains recycled fibers which are mixed with virgin fibers (i.e. cotton fibers), wherein at least one of these fibers (i.e. p-aramid) has fireproof, fire-resistant, and flame-retardant properties, such that the yarns constituting the textile material has a tenacity of at least 10.5 cN/Tex (i.e. an inherent feature). 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601108
Coated lightweight fabric, in particular for a spinnaker
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601109
Polyester fabric for a boat traction structure
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588734
DUSTPROOF WORK SHOE WITH ANTISTATIC INSOLE USING RECYCLED PET AND DUSTPROOF RUBBER OUTSOLE CAPABLE OF BEING STEAM-STERILIZED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582833
Wearable Fabric for Photo-stimulating a Biological System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586695
CONDUCTIVE WIRE, CONDUCTIVE COIL, AND CONDUCTIVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+8.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 807 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month