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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on November 13, 2023 has been entered. Claim 1 is cancelled. Claims 2 – 21 have been added. Claims 2 – 21 are pending.
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 21 and 22 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.
The structure of the comparative flame resistant fabric in claim 20 is indefinite. Claim 20 recites that the tear strength of the fill direction of the claimed fabric is 50% greater than a fabric tear strength in the fill direction of a comparative flame resistant fabric formed only with the spun yarns. In claim 20, the spun yarns are defined as encompassing a wide range of blends comprising 50% – 70% modacrylic fibers, 10% – 25% cellulosic fibers and 15% – 40% aliphatic fibers. Further, the yarn structure of the claimed fabric and the comparative fabric are not specified and the weave density and pattern are not specified either. Hence the comparative fabric can be designed to have a wide range of strength properties. For instance, the comparative fabric can be made with yarns having lower strength properties and using a low density woven fabric which will break at lower levels. Or the comparative fabric can be modified to have tightly twisted, strong yarns that are tightly woven together to make a higher strength fabric. Since the claim fails to clearly identify what structure is being used as the comparative fabric, the claim is indefinite.
The structure of the comparative fabric in claim 21 is indefinite. Claim 21 recites that the comparative fabric is formed with “the plurality of stretch broken yarns or filament yarns provided in the fill direction of the comparative flame resistant fabric and (2) spun yarns provided in a warp direction and the fill direction of the comparative flame resistant fabric and having (a) a yarn breaking strength, when measured pursuant to ASTM D5034 (2013), that is greater than the yarn breaking strength of the spun yarns of the flame resistant fabric and (b) a fiber blend comprising 65% FR rayon, 25% para-aramid fibers, and 10% nylon fibers”. First, is the comparative fabric made from the spun yarns having a blend of 65% FR rayon, 25% para-aramid fibers, and 10% nylon fibers? And do those yarns made from a blend of 65% FR rayon, 25% para-aramid fibers, and 10% nylon fibers have a breaking strength greater than the spun yarn of the flame resistant fabric which would be a blend comprising 50-70% modacrylic fibers, 10-25% cellulosic fibers, and 15-40% aliphatic polyamide fibers, wherein the fiber blend is devoid of aramid fibers, wherein the fiber blend comprises a greater percentage of aliphatic polyamide fibers than cellulosic fibers. Further, the structure of the woven fabric with regards to yarn density, weave pattern, and yarn structure is not defined in the comparative fabric. These features could be varied by the fabric structure choices. Which in turn would mean that the strength properties of the comparative fabric can be changed depending on fabric choices. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what structure to compare the claimed fabric to. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 3, 5 – 7, and 14 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tutterow et al. (2008/0057807).
Tutterow et al. discloses a fire resistant blend of fibers that includes synthetic cellulosic fibers and modacrylic fibers (abstract). The blend can also include other fibers added to the blend (abstract). The cellulosic fibers can be chosen from rayon, FR rayon, lyocell, cellulose acetate, etc. (paragraph 16). The blend may be imparted with a variety of dyes to comply with the standards for high visibility safety apparel, ANSI 107-2004 and MIL-C-83429 and GL-PD-07-12 (Paragraph 13). Tutterow teaches that the blend can also include additional FR fibers in the blend (paragraph 19).
Further, Tutterow et al. teaches an embodiment wherein the modacrylic/cellulosic blend includes additional fibers such as anti-static, anti-microbial, stretch, and/or high tenacity fibers (paragraph 20). The high tenacity fibers can be chosen from nylon fibers (paragraph 20). Further, Tutterow et al. suggest that one embodiment of the invention can include a blend with 30-60% modacrylic fibers, 20-60% synthetic cellulosic fibers, 5 – 30% additional inherently FR fibers, and 5 – 25% nylon fibers (paragraph 50). Additionally, Tutterow suggests that nylon fibers would improve the wear property of the fabric (paragraph 20).
Although the limitations of char length and afterflame of the blend and infrared requirement of the blend are not explicitly taught by Tutterow et al., it is reasonable to presume that said limitations would be met by Tutterow et al. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. a blend of modacrylic fibers, cellulosic fibers, and nylon fibers) and in the similar production steps (i.e. blending the different fibers to form a staple yarn) used to produce the woven fabric. In, the alternative it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the blend to improve the flame resistance and infrared performance. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Tutterow et al. teaches that the fabric can have a weight between 3 – 12 ounces per square yard (paragraph 27). Thus, claims 2, 5 – 7, 14, and 17 are rejected.
While Tutterow discloses that aramid fibers can be used as the additional FR fiber, Tutterow also teaches that many other types of FR fibers can be used as the additional FR fibers such as PBI fibers, PBO fibers, melamine fibers, carbon fibers, pre0oxidized acrylic fibers, PAN fibers, melamine fibers, and polyamide-imide fibers (paragraph 19). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use one of the many non-aramid fibers as the additional FR fibers in the blend taught by Tutterow, since Tutterow et al. discloses that any type of additional FR fibers can be used and does not require the second type of FR fibers be aramid (paragraph 19, claim 9). Thus, claim 3 is rejected.
Fiber Blend 3 disclosed by Tutterow et al. comprises 50% modacrylic, 35% TENCEL, and 10% nylon. Thus, Tutterow et al. discloses that the modacrylic portion of the blend is greater than the TENCEL fibers and the nylon fibers individually or combined. Therefore, claims 15 and 16 are rejected. Additionally, the TENCEL fibers are non-FR lyocell fibers. Thus, claim 18 is rejected.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tutterow et al. (2008/0057807) in view of Ashley et al. (2006/0292953).
The features of Tutterow et al. have been set forth above. While Tutterow et al. discloses a blend comprising modacrylic fibers and cotton, Tutterow et al. does not teach specifically adding more nylon fibers than cellulosic fibers to the blends. Tutterow et al. discloses that nylon fibers are included to blends to improve the wear properties of final fabrics (paragraph 20). Ashley et al. discloses a modacrylic/cellulosic blend that can also include nylon (abstract). Ashley et al. discloses that nylon can be added in amount up to 25% for durability and strength and improving the arc protection (paragraphs 17 and 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that staple fibers blends mix together properties of the individual fibers in the blend based on the total amounts of each fibers. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase the amount of nylon fibers to be greater than cellulosic fibers in a fiber blend to produce fabrics wherein the durability and arc protection are more important to the final product than the moisture absorbency properties contributed by cotton. Thus, claim 4 is rejected.
Claims 8 – 13, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tutterow et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Stanhope et al. (2004/0152378).
The features of Tutterow et al. have been set forth above. While Tutterow et al. discloses that the yarns are woven to make a fabric with various patterns include plain or rip-stop patterns (paragraph 24), Tutterow et al. fails to teach using a patterned fabric with filament or stretch broken yarns running in the warp and weft directions to form a grid pattern. Stanhope et al. is drawn to a flame resistant fabric. Stanhope et al. discloses that it is desirable to produce flame resistant woven fabrics from materials that are both strong and durable (paragraph 4). Further, Stanhope et al. discloses creating a woven fabric with flame resistant body yarns interwoven with relatively tough yarns provided in discrete positions (paragraph 5). The relatively tough yarns can be filament yarn or stretch broken yarns (paragraphs 5 and 39). In addition, the relatively tough yarns can be chosen from polyamide filaments (paragraph 29). The tough yarns are arranged to form a grid pattern in the woven fabric (paragraph 19 – 20). The woven fabric can be produced in various patterns such as plain or rip-stop patterns (paragraph 21). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to improve the strength and durability of the woven flame resistant fabric of Tutterow et al., relatively tough body yarns, as taught by Stanhope et al., can be added to the woven fabric of Tutterow in a grid pattern in discrete positions to improve the durability of the fabric. Further, this creates a rip-stop fabric structure as suggested by Tutterow et al. Thus, claims 8 - 11 are rejected.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of the relatively tough yarns in the fabric. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the more tough yarns added to the fabric, the more the tough yarns will impact the weight and strength properties of the fabric. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the relatively tough yarns should be spaced far enough apart and make up less of the total fabric weight to maximize the advantages of the modacrylic/cellulosic blended yarns, while also understanding that the closer the relatively tough yarns are spaced together the better the tear strength properties in the fabric will be. Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add an amount of 5% - 40% of the total weight of the fabric of the tough yarns to increase the fabric strength properties to a desired level, while retaining the beneficial fire resistance, comfort, and dyeability of the cotton/modacrylic blends. Thus, claim 13 is rejected.
Although the limitations of fabric tear strength and breaking yarn strength are not explicitly taught by Tutterow et al. or Stanhope et al., it is reasonable to presume that said limitations would be met by the combination of the two references. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. a blend of modacrylic fibers, cellulosic fibers, and nylon fibers) and in the similar production steps (i.e. blending the different fibers to form a staple yarn with relatively tough yarns interwoven at discrete portions to improve the strength of the fabric) used to produce the woven fabric. In, the alternative it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the blend to improve the flame resistance and infrared performance. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. Additionally, the strength properties of the ripstop fabric would have improved properties over the comparative flame resistant fabric since the comparative fabric can be made with weaker fibers and a weaker woven structure. Thus, claims 11, 20, and 21 are rejected.
Claim(s) 2 – 7 and 14 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Gibson et al. (2004/0192134 A1) in view of Ashley et al.
Gibson is drawn to a flame-resistant and high visibility fabric (Title). Gibson discloses that the blend creates a fabric with high visibility and better flame resistance (paragraph 7). The fiber blend includes at least about 60% by weight flame resistant fibers such as modacrylic fibers (paragraph 10). Further, the blend can include a non-flame resistant fiber such as nylon, rayon, cotton, and wool (paragraph 10). Gibson discloses that the fibers used in the blend with modacrylic can be added for various reasons, cotton is strong and absorbent, nylon has high strength, toughness, and abrasion resistance, rayon has good strength, and aesthetic characteristics, etc. (paragraph 12). Further, Gibson discloses that these materials are economical constituents of blend and particularly suitable for blending with modacrylic (paragraph 12). Finally, Gibson teaches it is up to those designing the fabric to choose the one or more staple fibers from wool, polyester, nylon, rayon, and cotton, to blend with modacrylic fibers based on the desired properties in the finished fabric and apparel, including hairiness, hand, strength, flexibility, absorbency, etc.
Further, Gibson et al. teaches that the fabric can have a weight between 4 and 20 ounces per square yard (paragraph 23).
Additionally, Gibson et al. discloses that the blend is spun into a staple yarn, which is woven or knit into a fabric that is further finished and dyed to achieve the desired color scheme (paragraphs 13 – 14).
Also, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to choose to add rayon and nylon fibers to the modacrylic fibers blend of Gibson since Gibson discloses that nylon fibers can be added for toughness, abrasion resistance, and strength, and rayon fibers can be added for strength and good aesthetic characteristics. The claim would have been obvious since the substitution of known elements in the product of Gibson would have yielded predictable results and the combination of blending nylon and cellulose fibers with modacrylic fiber to produce a dyed fabric is suggested by Gibson.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of rayon fibers and nylon fibers in a total amount of 0 to 40% of the total blend since Gibson et al. teaches that the modacrylic fibers should have at least 60%. Rayon fibers are added strength and aesthetic characteristics and nylon is added for toughness and durability. Further, Ashley is drawn to fire-resistant fiber blend. Ashley et al. discloses a modacrylic/cellulosic blend that can also include nylon (abstract). Ashley et al. discloses that nylon can be added in amount up to 25% for durability and strength and improving the arc protection (paragraphs 17 and 19). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add up to 25% nylon fibers, a higher amount of nylon fibers (i.e., greater than half of the additional fibers) than cellulosic fibers in materials where an increased toughness and durability is desired. As suggested by Ashley et al.. Thus, the remaining portion can include a sufficient portion of cellulosic fibers so that the fabric has desirable aesthetic or comfort properties.
Although Gibson et al. and Ashley et al. do not explicitly teach the limitations the afterflame, char length, and fire resistance properties, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are met by the combination of the references. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. blends of modacrylic fibers, nylon fibers, and cellulosic fibers) and in the similar production steps (i.e. blending the fibers and dying the yarns or fabric) used to produce the woven, fire resistant fabric. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In the alternative, the claimed properties would obviously have been provided by the process disclosed by Gibson et al.
Although Gibson et al. does not explicitly teach the limitations the dye, printing, or color requirements, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Gibson et al. discloses that the invention meets nationally recognized standards for high visibility and can be dyed with at least one type of dye (abstract). Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. vat dyes, modacrylic fibers, and cellulosic fibers) and in the similar production steps (i.e. blending the fibers and dying the yarns or fabric) used to produce the fire resistant fabric. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In the alternative, the claimed properties would obviously have been provided by the process disclosed by Gibson. Thus, claims 2, 4 – 7, and 14 – 18 are rejected by Gibson et al.
With regards to the addition of aramid fibers, Gibson et al. discloses that the flame resistant fibers can be 60% modacrylic fibers and therefore, do not need to include a second fire-resistant fiber (paragraph 10). Thus, claims 3 and 19 are rejected.
Claims 8 – 13, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al. and Ashley et al., as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Stanhope et al.
The features of Gibson et al. and Ashley et al. have been set forth above. Gibson et al. fails to teach using a patterned fabric with filament or stretch broken yarns running in the warp and weft directions to form a grid pattern. Stanhope et al. is drawn to a flame resistant fabric. Stanhope et al. discloses that it is desirable to produce flame resistant woven fabrics from materials that are both strong and durable (paragraph 4). Further, Stanhope et al. discloses creating a woven fabric with flame resistant body yarns interwoven with relatively tough yarns provided in discrete positions (paragraph 5). The relatively tough yarns can be filament yarn or stretch broken yarns (paragraphs 5 and 39). Also, the relatively tough yarns can be chosen from polyamide filaments (paragraph 29). The tough yarns are arranged to form a grid pattern in the woven fabric (paragraph 19 – 20). The woven fabric can be produced in various patterns such as plain or rip-stop patterns (paragraph 21). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to improve the strength and durability of the woven flame resistant fabric of Gibson et al., relatively tough body yarns, as taught by Stanhope et al., can be added to the woven fabric of Gibson in a grid pattern in discrete positions to improve the durability of the fabric. Therefore, claims 8 – 11 are rejected.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of the relatively tough yarns in the fabric. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the more tough yarns added to the fabric, the more the tough yarns will impact the weight and strength properties of the fabric. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the relatively tough yarns should be spaced far enough apart and make up less of the total fabric weight to maximize the advantages of the modacrylic/cellulosic blended yarns, while also understanding that the closer the relatively tough yarns are spaced together the better the tear strength properties in the fabric will be. Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add an amount of 5% - 40% of the total weight of the fabric of the tough yarns to increase the fabric strength properties to a desired level, while retaining the beneficial fire resistance, comfort, and dyeability of the cotton/modacrylic blends. Thus, claim 13 is rejected.
Although the limitations of fabric tear strength and breaking yarn strength are not explicitly taught by Gibson et al. or Stanhope et al., it is reasonable to presume that said limitations would be met by the combination of the two references. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. a blend of modacrylic fibers, cellulosic fibers, and nylon fibers) and in the similar production steps (i.e. blending the different fibers to form a staple yarn with relatively tough yarns interwoven at discrete portions to improve the strength of the fabric) used to produce the woven fabric. In, the alternative it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the blend to improve the flame resistance and infrared performance. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. Additionally, the strength properties of the ripstop fabric would have improved properties over the comparative flame resistant fabric since the comparative fabric can be made with weaker fibers and a weaker woven structure. Thus, claims 11, 20, and 21 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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.
jlj
November 14, 2025
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789