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 submitted on October 7, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended and no claims have been added. Therefore, the pending claims are 1 - 9.
The rejection based on Stanhope (2011/0010827) is modified below to address the newly amended limitations in claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanhope et al. (2011/0010827) in view of Habicht et al. (2017/0175302) and Rock et al. (2015/0110993).
Stanhope et al. discloses a flame resistant fabric formed by warp and fill yarns having different contents (abstract). The fabric is designed to have a first yarn predominantly on the face side of the fabric and second yarn predominantly on the body side of the fabric so that the sides have different properties (paragraphs 7, 25, and 26). According to Stanhope, the body side can include a fiber blend that is softer and more absorbent (paragraph 7). For instance, a comfortable fiber blend (e.g., a blend including one or more cellulosic fibers) can be chosen as the body side yarn to give the fabric better comfort properties (paragraph 26). Additionally, the face side of the fabric can be chosen to have improved durability properties (paragraph 7). Further, the fabric is preferably woven with a twill, satin, or sateen pattern to have a different yarn on each side of the fabric (paragraph 25). Stanhope et al. discloses the fabric has a preferable basis weight range between 5 – 9 oz/yd2 (paragraph 23).
Stanhope teaches that the face side yarns are formed from a blend including 0 to 100% of one or more of modacrylic fibers, cellulosic fibers, inherently FR fibers and other non-FR fibers (paragraph 31). Additionally, Stanhope suggests different examples of the fire resistant yarn can be a blend of 30% FR cellulosic fibers and 70% para-aramid fibers or a blend of modacrylic fibers and 35% para-aramid fibers to use as the face side yarn (paragraph 14). As set forth above, the goal is for the face yarn to more durable and comfort is not as much of a consideration for the face side yarn. Further, Stanhope teaches that any suitable fiber blend can be selected as long as the overall fabric remains flame resistant (paragraph 31). Even though Stanhope discloses that comfort and absorbent fibers might not be critical to the face side, Stanhope fails to teach the claimed blend which comprises 65% - 90% modacrylic fibers, aramid fibers, and cellulosic fibers, wherein the aramid fibers are present in a greater amount than the cellulosic fibers for the face side yarn.
Habicht et al. is drawn to a flame resistant fabric which includes FR and/or non FR cellulosic fibers (abstract). Further, Habicht et al. teaches that fabric can be made by using a combination of yarns, one which includes flame resistant materials, i.e., FR yarns, and non-FR cellulosic yarns (paragraph 17). Additionally, Habicht discloses that the outer shell should be fire resistant and durable (paragraph 7). In one embodiment a preferred FR yarn includes a blend of 30-90% FR modacrylic fibers and either or both of approximately 10-70% cellulosic fibers and of approximately 5-70% additional inherently FR fiber, which can be aramid fibers, including meta-aramid and para-aramid fibers (paragraph 21).
Additionally, Rock et al is drawn to fire resistant yarn blends. Rock et al. discloses that the fiber blend can include 5 – 25% para-aramid fibers, 10 – 40% meta-aramid fibers, 40 – 80% modacrylic fibers, and 5 – 25% natural fibers, including cotton, rayon, viscose, modal, rayon, lyocell, Tencel, etc. (paragraphs 36 – 40). Additionally, Rock et al. discloses that amount of each type of fiber in the blend is based on the desired properties in the finished fabric. Specifically, Rock et al. teaches that the para-aramid fiber is a high strength material and can impart improved strength and abrasion resistant properties in the yarn (paragraph 36). Further, para-aramids are known to impart toughness to fabrics and that the outermost layer can include higher amounts of para-aramid fibers to protect the garment from abrasion (paragraph 36). Additionally, Rock et al. teaches that meta-aramid fibers provide good thermal, chemical and radiation resistance, and has good flame retardant properties and low thermal shrinkage (paragraph 37). Meta-aramid fibers have good strength retention and can provide reasonable abrasion resistance (paragraph 37). Further, Rock et al. teaches that modacrylic fibers is a good flame resistant materials having high resistance to chemicals and solvents, and high LOI, while also being soft and flexible (paragraph 38). The modacrylic fibers is also economical (paragraph 38). Thus, a modacrylic fiber imparts a fiber blend with good flame resistant properties at a relatively low cost (paragraph 38). Further, Rock et al. teaches that natural fibers can improve the wicking and absorbent properties of the blend without affecting the flame resistance (paragraph 40).
Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the fire resistant yarn including 65 – 90% of modacrylic fibers blended with aramid and cellulose fibers since both Stanhope et al. and Habicht et al. disclose that the FR yarns can include large proportions i.e., greater than 70% or 80% of modacrylic fibers and Rock et al. discloses that high amounts of modacrylic fibers in the fire resistant fiber blend is good because modacrylic fibers are both fire resistant and economical. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include aramid fibers into the fiber blend since Stanhope discloses that it is desired that the face yarn is fire resistant and durable and Rock discloses that aramid fibers can be added to add strength, toughness, and abrasion resistance to the fiber blend. Also, it would have been obvious to add cellulosic fibers, since Stanhope et al., Habicht et al., and Rock et al., all disclose including cellulosic fibers. Rock discloses that the cellulosic fiber can be added in a level of 5 – 25% of the total weight to improve moisture management. Further, Stanhope et al. discloses that it is more important for the outer layer to be durable than comfortable since it is away from the skin of the user. Thus, it would be obvious to design the blend to include 60 – 80% modacrylic fibers, since Habicht et al. and Rock et al. suggest using high amount of modacrylic. Further, it would be obvious to minimize the amount of cellulosic fibers in the more durable outer layer to levels below 25%, as suggested by Rock et al. and since Stanhope teaches that the amount of cellulose in the outer layer can be minimized in favor of fibers that contribute to the durability of the fabric. Finally, it would be obvious to add between 15 – 50% aramid fibers, as taught by Rock et al. and Habicht et al. to the blend of Stanhope et al. since Rock et al. teaches that the aramid fibers improve strength and durability as well as fire resistance of the finished fabric.
Further, Stanhope et al. discloses that the second yarn on the body-facing surface should be designed to be softer and more comfortable. A general fiber blend to be used on the body side of the fabric is taught by Stanhope to include 20 – 80% by weight cellulosic fibers, 0 – 55% by weight modacrylic fibers, 0 – 80% by weight inherently FR fibers, and 0 – 15% by weight other non-FR fibers (paragraph 30). Additionally, Habicht et al. teaches that the Habicht et al. discloses that other FR yarns can be used in woven or knit fabrics can be used with the FR yarns to produce flame resistant fabrics (paragraphs 29 - 31). This allows the production of a fabric that meets fire resistance standards while being soft and wicking (paragraph 11). Habicht et al. teaches that the other yarns yarn can include preferably 50-80% cellulosic fibers and no modacrylic fibers (paragraph 28). Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the second yarn of Stanhope to have a blend that includes 50-80% cellulosic fibers, with the remainder of the blend being aramid fibers, other fibers, and no modacrylic fibers to make the fabric have better wicking properties and softness. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize the amount of cellulosic fibers to close to 80% to make the second surface as soft and wicking as possible for comfort, while still including about 20% aramid fibers for fire resistance.
Finally, Stanhope et al. discloses that the fabrics on the invention should also have an after-flame of less than 2 seconds and less than 4 inch char length (paragraph 33). Habicht et al. discloses that the fiber blend should be chosen that the fabric passes the thermal protection requirements of NFPA 1971 and NFPA 2112 (paragraph 35) and the examples show values below 4 inches and 2 seconds. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the fiber blends in the woven fabric should be chosen to char length and after flame to meet current fire resistant standards. One of ordinary skill in the art would choose to optimize the amount of fibers in the blend that have self-extinguishing properties such as modacrylic fibers to help minimize the values. Thus, claims 1 – 9 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) November 7, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 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
December 12, 2025
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789