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
1. Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1-4 have been amended. Claims 5-6 are canceled. Claims 7-12 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are found sufficient to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejections of claims 1 and 3-4 as set forth in the Action dated 12/19/25. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are also found sufficient to overcome the anticipation and obviousness type rejections made over the cited prior art of Minehardt, US 20240133093 A1. Specifically, the cited prior art does not teach the claimed basis weight or the mixture of down and feathers. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following new ground of rejection is set forth herein below. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the following new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minehardt, US 20240133093 A1 in view of Mason et al., US 20180216267 A1
With regard to claim 1, the published patent application issued to Minehardt teach a batting formed from a fiber mixture comprising (a) 20-55 wt. % of siliconized (e.g., RSS) fibers having a denier ranging from 1.5-10.0 and a length ranging from 51-84mm (e.g., short), (b) 10-45 wt. % hollow conjugate (e.g., HCT) fibers having a spiral crimp, a denier ranging from 1.5-10.0 and a length of 51-84 mm (e.g., short), (c) 10-45 wt. % of binder fibers having a denier ranging from 1.5-8.0 and a length of 51-84mm (short) and a bonding temperature ranging from 110-180°C and (d) from 1-20 wt. % of a second population of binder fibers having a denier of 1.5-6.0, a length of 51-84mm (short) and a bonding temperature of 80-135°C. (abstract). The Examiner is of the position that the hollow conjugate fibers with spiral crimp sufficient to meet the limitation of the claimed hollow conjugate stretch short fibers. With regard to the disclosed binder fibers, Minehardt teach using sheath/core type fibers (paragraph 0070 and 0078). With regard to the limitation of non-stretch sheath/core melting fibers, Minehardt teach (d) a second population of binder fiber (sheath/core) that are different from the elastic binder fibers of the first population of binder fiber (c) (paragraph 0016). Said second binder population is considered non-stretching (paragraph 0077). Applicants open claim language of comprising does not exclude a first population of sheath/core low melting elastic/stretch fibers such as the binder fibers (c) set forth above. Minehardt further teach that the fiber mixture in the batting may further comprise one or more of goose or duck down (paragraph 0098). Minehardt teach that the batting has a weight ranging from 25-60 gsm (paragraph 0104).
Minehardt does not expressly teach a mixture of feathers and down in the claimed amounts or the claimed weight of the batting.
The published patent application issued to Mason et al., teach a similar batting comprising fiber mixture that includes: 25 to 75 wt % spiral-crimped siliconized synthetic polymeric fibers having a denier of greater than 4 denier and less than 10 denier; and 20 to 75 wt % down treated with a durable water repellant, said down having a fill power of at least 550 in.sup.3/oz, and having a down cluster content of at least 85 wt %. Articles comprising the batting and methods of making the batting are also provided
(abstract). Mason et al., teach that he term “down” refers to the under plumage (i.e., the layer of insulation underneath feathers) of waterfowl (e.g., goose, duck, swan), which includes tufts of light, fluffy filaments growing from a quill point, but without any quill shaft. Down has a three-dimensional structure which traps air and gives down its insulative properties. Down includes down clusters (see, e.g., down clusters 12 in FIGS. 1A and 1B) which, as is well known in the art, are soft and fluffy three-dimensional structures having barb fibers radiating from a center point (paragraph 0044). Mason et al., further teach a mixture of down and feathers (example 2). Mason et al., specifically teach a fiber mixture is prepared by mixing the following: 50% 650 Fill Power Down (90% Cluster Minimum, 10% Feather Maximum). The Examiner interprets this disclosure to mean that the fiber mixture comprises down and feathers derived from duck or gooses sources. With regard to the claimed basis weight, Mason et al., teach a range of basis weights that include the claimed range (paragraph 0074). The Examiner considers the cited references analogous since both are concerned with forming insulation type battings. Based on the combination of teachings it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the batting of Mindhardt with the amount and mixture of down and feathers based on the desire to provide a three-dimensional batting having insulative properties as taught by Mason et al.
With regard to claim 2, Minehardt does teach that the first and second populations of sheath/core binder fibers have a bonding temperature/melting point ranging from 110-180°C and 80-135°C. respectively (abstract). Minehardt, however, does not expressly teach the bonding/melting point of the core component or the melting point of the RRS fibers and HCT fibers. However, the Examiner is of the position that absent any further distinguishing limitations such as the material used for the core and/or the amount of the core constituent in the sheath/core fiber and/or the amounts and types of materials used to form the RRS and HCT fibers it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to vary and/or optimize the materials and the amount of each the sheath and core component, RRS and HCT fibers based on desirable binder strength, desired padding properties and desired end use. As such, absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed melting point temperatures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 3, Minehardt does teach using goose and/or duck down but does not teach the claimed amounts. Mason et al., teach mixture of down and feathers (example 2). Mason et al., specifically teach a fiber mixture is prepared by mixing the following: [0106] 50% 650 Fill Power Down (90% Cluster Minimum, 10% Feather Maximum). As such, absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the amount of “down” and “feathers” in the feather and down mixture, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 4, Minehardt teach the claimed fineness and length of each of the sheath/core fibers, RRS fibers and HCT fibers as set forth above. Minehardt further teach that the HCT have a spiral crimp. Minehardt does not expressly teach the claimed number of crimps. As such, absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed number of crimps in the HCT fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights