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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by HORROCKS et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,645,926, hereinafter HORROCKS).
Regarding claim 1, HORROCKS teaches a flexible fire and heat resistant material comprising an intimate mixture of organic intumescent filler and organic fibers (Abstract). Organic fibers include viscose (Col. 3, lines 59-60; Col. 4, lines 9-11). The preferred hybrid fibre is a viscose staple fibre containing silicic acid and sold under the Trademark VISIL (Col. 4, lines 45-60). 100% VISIL 33, viscose staple fibre containing silicic acid has a denier of 3.5 dtex (Col. 8, lines 5-8; Col. 10, lines 17-21). The material is formed into a composite material (Col. 10, lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 11, HORROCKS teaches the material includes a central layer comprising the intimate mixture of said organic intumescent filler and said organic fibres, and two outside layers of fibre only which are separated from the central layer by two sheets of fabric. The fabric may be woven (Col. 6, lines 5-10).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHENG et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0228301, hereinafter ZHENG which now U.S. Patent No. 11,746,448).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, ZHENG teaches a flame retardant fabric is woven by spinning flame retardant viscose fiber, an inorganic flame retardant component in the flame retardant viscose fiber is a silicic acid and the fineness of the flame retardant viscose fiber is 1.11-2.78 dtex (Abstract; [0009]; Claim 1).
However, ZHENG does not explicitly teach a flame retardant having a denier of 2.78-3.70 dtex.
Given ZHENG teaches the flame retardant viscose fiber has a denier of 2.78 dtex which overlaps the claimed range of 2.78-3.70 dtex, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 627 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re AIIer, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MFEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05I.
Regarding claim 2, ZHENG teaches the flame retardant viscose fiber has a dry strength is better than 2 cN/dtex and a dry elongation of 13-20% (Abstract; [0009)].
Regarding claim 3, ZHENG teaches the flame retardant viscose fiber has a limiting oxygen index value of not less than 32% and the combustion residue is not less than 30% [0010].
Regarding claim 5, ZHENG teaches the flame retardant component is silicic acid, the silicic acid is coated with an organic material which is melamine flame retardant resin on the surface of silicic acid, to form flame retardant particles [0011].
Regarding claims 6 and 7, ZHENG teaches the preparation method of the flame retardant particles is as follows: dissolving Na2O.nSiO2 in pure water and stirring evenly for 30 minutes, then slowly add dilute sulfuric acid solution dropwise; adjusting the pH to 3-4 to obtain a silicic acid solution; and according to the quality of Na2O.nSiO2, using 15-20% melamine, 1-5% carbonamide, 20-40% formaldehyde, then add 1.5-3.0% dispersant. adjusting the pH to 9 with triethanolamine at under 70-80oC through high-speed shearing and stirring with stirring speed 7000-8000 r/min, to obtain the prepolymer mixture. The prepolymer mixture is put into the silicic acid solution by dripping under high-speed stirring and filtered to prepare a uniformly dispersed flame retardant slurry [0015]. The dispersant is styrene-maleic anhydride ([0016]; Claim 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVE V HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 am-5 pm, EST.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
DEVE V. HALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
/DEVE V HALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights