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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-17 and 21 are allowed.
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara et al. (US Pat. 3,924,045) in view of Connor et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0370320).
Regarding claims 18-20, Ogasawara et al. teach a method for making a product from intelligent fibers with the method comprising spinning a continuous fiber wherein the continuous fiber includes at least three serial fibers wherein a first fiber formed from a first material and having a first end connected to a second end of a second serial fiber formed from a second material with the first and second serial fibers having different compositions and weaving the continuous fiber on a loom to form the product. Ogasawara et al. also teaches the third serial fiber is connected to an end of the second serial fiber and the product is a textile. Ogasawara teaches the method can use any known spinning method and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use electrospinning given the limited number of types of spinning and it is well known in the art in order to yield fibers with unique properties such as high surface area to volume ratio, flexibility or porosity and arrive at the claimed invention.
Ogasawara et al. teach optical fibers with the second material (sheath) protects the optical fiber, but are silent regarding the claimed colors produced from the optical fibers and the fibers in response to a detected biological stimulus to provide feedback (including change in material property) to a user. However, Connor teaches optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two colors in response to a detected stimulus (including for example biological) in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as breathing, blood pressure and heart rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical fibers configured to provide light of at least two color in response [0199] to a detected stimulus (including biological such as heart rate or breathing for example) [0115 and 0118] as taught by Connor in Ogasawara et al. in order to provide smart clothing with sensor indication of changes in body sign such as sweating, breathing and heart rate and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to claims 1, 3-17 and 21 were found to be convincing and claims 1, 3-17 and 21 have been indicated as allowable.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 18-20 were no found to be persuasive. Applicant argues the rationale stated for selecting electrospinning is generic and POSITA would not be motivated by such rationale. Applicant is pointed to MPEP 2144 I which states “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings)”. In response to applicant' s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, rationale and motivation has been cited. One of ordinary skill in the art would in fact be motivated use electrospinning given the limited number of types of spinning and it is well known in the art in order to yield fibers with unique properties such as high surface area to volume ratio, flexibility or porosity and arrive at the claimed invention. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2007/0089800 teaches a smart fabric.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights