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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8 and 10 and 12-20 are all the claims pending. Claims 1, 3-4, and 8 and 10 are amended. Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims.
Claims 12-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed 7/7/2026.
Applicant's amendments and arguments, see pages 4-5, filed February 16, 2012, with respect to the rejection of present claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morrison (US 3,959,556), and with respect to the rejection of present claim(s) 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 211211672 to Wang (“Wang”) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made based on Morrison and/or Wang in view of the newly discovered reference Gabby (US 2004/0247653).
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 3,959,556) in view of Gabby (US 2004/0247653).
Regarding claim 1, Morrison teaches an article (col. 1, lines 53-56 and col. 4, lines 39-44; the garment article of Morrison) comprising:
- a knitted, a braided, or a woven natural or synthetic polymeric yarn having an elongated length, the elongated length having a first end and a second end, a width, and a surface (col. 3, lines 10-25; i.e., the filament/yarns of Morrison include natural and synthetic polymeric yarns, which are used in the formation of garment by knitting or the like; the resultant filament/yarns having a give length/elongated length, such as 1 to 3 inches, having a first end and a second end, a width, and a surface, meeting the claimed limitations); and
- the knitted, braided or woven natural or synthetic polymeric yarn presenting at least one antimicrobial agent on the surface (col. 3, lines 40-50; i.e., the synthetic polymeric yarn comprising antimicrobial agent within the synthetic polymeric yarn migrates to the surface of the synthetic polymeric yarn, meeting the claimed limitations);
- wherein the article is selected from one or more footwear, laces for footwear, a drawstring, a lanyard strap, a belt, and a bag-strap (col. 4, lines 39-44; Morrison teaches as in one of its embodiments that its antimicrobial yarns are suitable for making article such as shoe linings of footwear), meeting the claimed limitations.
Morrison teaches its article with inclusion of suitable antimicrobial agent (col. 2., lines 63-68, col. 4, lines 1-15). But Morrison does not specifically teach using the specific antimicrobial agent as instantly claimed.
Gabbay relates to antimicrobial materials and articles (including suitable shoe-lining material) made thereof, such as antimicrobial fibres, yarns, and their incorporation into textiles (para [0028]-[0031]). Gabbay teaches the addition of copper oxide particles to polymer to form antimicrobial fibres/yarns (para [0005] [0006] [0027]). Gabbay teaches copper oxide is known as an effective antimicrobial agent (para [0005] [0006] [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Morrison in view the teachings of Gabbay, to include suitable antimicrobial materials such as copper oxide to the synthetic polymeric yarn as taught by Gabbay (para [0005] [0006] [0027]), to provide an improved article with further improved antimicrobial properties, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory article that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 3-4, Morrison teaches the suitable antimicrobial agent for its article includes melt processable organic antimicrobial agent (col. 2., lines 63-68, the antimicrobial agent is processed and admixed in molten state) such as triclosan (col. 4, lines 1-15; triclosan which is 2,4,4'trichloro -2'-hydroxydiphenyl ether), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Morrison teaches the knitted, the braided, or the woven synthetic polymeric yarn is comprised of a multicomponent fiber (col. 3, lines 10-20, col. 41-45; i.e., the filament/yarns of Morrison include natural fibers and synthetic polymeric fibers, and thus, multicomponent fiber), wherein the multicomponent fiber comprises both antimicrobial-containing fiber and non-antimicrobial- containing fiber (col. 3, lines 10-20, col. 41-45; i.e., the filament/yarns of Morrison include non-antimicrobial-containing natural fibers and antimicrobial-containing synthetic polymeric fibers, meeting the claimed limitations).
Regarding independent claim 8, Morrison teaches an article (col. 1, lines 53-56 and col. 4, lines 39-44; the garment article of Morrison) comprising:
- a knitted, a braided, or a woven natural or synthetic polymeric yarn having an elongated length, the elongated length having a first end and a second end, a width, and a surface (col. 3, lines 10-25; i.e., the filament/yarns of Morrison include natural and synthetic polymeric yarns, which are used in the formation of garment by knitting or the like; the resultant filament/yarns having a give length/elongated length, such as 1 to 3 inches, having a first end and a second end, a width, and a surface, meeting the claimed limitations); and
– wherein the surface is coated with at least one antimicrobial agent (col. 3, lines 40-50; i.e., the synthetic polymeric yarn comprising antimicrobial agent within the synthetic polymeric yarn migrates to the surface, until the surface saturation and equilibrium is reached to form a coating thereon on the surface, meeting the claimed limitations);
- wherein the article is selected from one or more footwear, laces for footwear, a drawstring, a lanyard strap, a belt, and a bag-strap (col. 4, lines 39-44; Morrison teaches as in one of its embodiments that its antimicrobial yarns are suitable for making article such as shoe linings of footwear), meeting the claimed limitations.
Morrison teaches its article with inclusion of suitable antimicrobial agent (col. 2., lines 63-68, col. 4, lines 1-15). But Morrison does not specifically teach using the specific antimicrobial agent as instantly claimed.
Gabbay relates to antimicrobial materials and articles (including suitable shoe-lining material) made thereof, such as antimicrobial fibres, yarns, and their incorporation into textiles (para [0028]-[0031]). Gabbay teaches the addition of copper oxide particles to polymer to form antimicrobial fibres/yarns (para [0005] [0006] [0027]). Gabbay teaches copper oxide is known as an effective antimicrobial agent (para [0005] [0006] [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Morrison in view the teachings of Gabbay, to include suitable inorganic antimicrobial materials such as copper oxide to the synthetic polymeric yarn as taught by Gabbay (para [0005] [0006] [0027]), to provide an improved article with further improved antimicrobial properties, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory article that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Morrison teaches the suitable antimicrobial agent for its article includes melt processable organic antimicrobial agent (col. 2., lines 63-68, the antimicrobial agent is processed and admixed in molten state) such as triclosan (col. 4, lines 1-15; triclosan which is 2,4,4'trichloro -2'-hydroxydiphenyl ether), meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 211211672 to Wang (“Wang”, see English machine translation) in view of Gabbay.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an article (the article of Wang, i.e., the antibacterial/antimicrobial shoelace, page 1, second para, page 2, first para) comprising:
- a knitted, a braided, or a woven natural or synthetic polymeric yarn having an elongated length, the elongated length having a first end and a second end, a width, and a surface (page 1, first para; i.e., the article/shoelace comprises composite synthetic yarn knitting, also see Fig. 3 below, page 4, second para, elastic yarn 8, elastic sterilizing yarn 7 and yarn 6 are braided, of which the yarn having an elongated length, having a first end and a second end, a width, and a surface, meeting the claimed limitations); and
PNG
media_image1.png
316
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- the knitted, braided or woven natural or synthetic polymeric yarn presenting at least one antimicrobial agent on the surface (page 4, second para, the amicor fiber having antimicrobial agent dissolved on the surface of the fiber, meeting the claimed limitations);
- wherein the article is selected from one or more footwear, laces for footwear, a drawstring, a lanyard strap, a belt, and a bag-strap (page 1, second para, page 2, first para; Wang teaches as in one of its embodiments that its antimicrobial yarns are suitable for making article such as shoelace), meeting the claimed limitations.
Wang does not specifically teach using the specific antimicrobial agent as instantly claimed.
Gabbay relates to antimicrobial materials and articles (including suitable shoe-lining material) made thereof, such as antimicrobial fibres, yarns, and their incorporation into textiles (para [0028]-[0031]). Gabbay teaches the addition of copper oxide particles to polymer to form antimicrobial fibres/yarns (para [0005] [0006] [0027]). Gabbay teaches copper oxide is known as an effective inorganic antimicrobial agent (para [0005] [0006] [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Wang in view the teachings of Gabbay, to include suitable inorganic antimicrobial materials such as copper oxide to the synthetic polymeric yarn as taught by Gabbay (para [0005] [0006] [0027]), to provide an improved article with further improved antimicrobial properties, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory article that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches its article comprises an elastic yarn (page 4, second para, elastic yarn 8, elastic sterilizing yarn 7), meeting the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights