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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks dated 10/23/25. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been entered and are made of record. At this time the status of the claims are as follows: Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 24 are under prosecution and are rejected; Claim 9 was cancelled and 16-23 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 24 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. All previously made art rejections are now withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites a FR treated fabric of claim 1, wherein the non-cellulose-reactive FR treatment comprises a THP salt; please spell out the first instance of which is found in this claim. A suggestion is THP (tetrakishydroxyalkylphosphonium). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " synthetic fibers, and natural fibers”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant deleted these terms from Claims 1 or 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " natural fibers”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant deleted these terms from Claims 1 or 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 15 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2014100842A1 issued to
Regarding modified Claim 1, where Applicant now seeks a flame retardant (FR) treated fabric, comprising
(i)yarns formed from a mixture of including non-FR lyocell fibres,
(ii) a FR treatment that is a non-cellulose-reactive FR treatment applied to the fabric as a whole, including the non-FR lyocell fibres, thereby producing FR treated lyocell fibers, and
(iii) an anti-fibrillation finish over the FR treatment so that the FR treated lyocell fibers are rendered low-fibrillating; Applicant is directed to WO 2014100842A1 issued to Bisjak et al.
Bisjak et al. create non-fibrillating flame resistant cellulosic fabric, its use and method for producing the same. [page 1, lines 5-7]. Their invention provides a non-fibrillating FR lyocell fiber suitable for use in fabrics for protective clothing and similar applications and which are washable in industrial laundries with excellent resistance to highly aggressive laundry conditions and a process for producing it. This flame resistant fabric made from or including FR lyocell produced by resin finishing the fabric is characterized by a resin content on the FR Lyocell fibers of at least 1 .5 weight-% of resin based on the cellulose content. Fabrics of this type will have wider utility in areas such as upholstery, home furnishings, children’s nightwear and any other area where protection of the user of the fabric or of property from exposure to flame is required [page 8, lines 1-10].
Bisjak et al teach a flame retardant (FR) treated woven twill fabric, comprising yarns of lyocell FR fibers and then the fabric is further treated with Knittex FEL which is a modified DMDHEU resin to render the fibers non fibrillating [see example 1]. Knittex FEL is a water and oil repellant coating.
The FR lyocell fibers are inherent FR lyocell fibers comprising a THP salt [see page 4 lines 3-10 and page 9 lines 8-14]. The fabric can be further treated with Proban® which serves as the non cellulose reactive treatment.
At claim 5 and Applicant is directed to page 8, lines 13-30, the instant reference teaches that the FR lyocell fibers are blended with one or more other textile fibers chosen from the group containing meta-aramid, para aramid, modacrylic, PBI , cotton, wool, silk, linen , FR modal, FR viscose, non-FR lyocell , modal, viscose, nylon , acrylic and polyester.
Regarding modified Claim 2, where Applicant now seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 1, wherein the FR treated fabric is a woven fabric comprising warp yarns and weft yarns; Applicant is directed to Example 1 at page 13, lines 10-25.
Regarding modified Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 1, wherein the mixture of fibers further comprises cotton fibers; Applicant is directed to page 8, lines 13-30.
Regarding modified Claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 1, wherein the mixture of fibers further comprises polyester, polyamide and/or aramid; Applicant is directed to page 8, lines 13-30.
Regarding modified Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric according to claim 5, are formed from a mixture of the non-FR lyocell fibers, synthetic fibers, and natural fibers; Applicant is directed to page 8, lines 13-30.
Regarding modified Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 5, wherein the weft yarns comprise a preponderance of natural fibers; Applicant is directed to page 9, lines 1-4.
Regarding modified Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 1, wherein the FR treated fabric is a woven fabric with a twill weave; Applicant is directed to Example 1 at page 13, lines 10-25.
Regarding modified Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 1, further comprising a water and/or oil repellent finish; Applicant is directed to Example 1 at page 13, lines 10-25. Knittex FEL is a water and oil repellant coating.
Regarding modified Claim 11, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 1, wherein the mixture of fibers further comprises antistatic fibers; Applicant has not defined the composition of the antistatic fibers and as such any natural fiber meets this limitation as they are inherently antistatic fibers. Applicant is directed to page 8, line 23-page 9, line 4.
Regarding modified Claim 15, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 1, wherein the non-cellulose-reactive FR treatment comprises a THP salt; Applicant is directed to page 9, lines 8-14.
Regarding new Claim 24,where Applicant seeks a garment manufactured of the FR treated fabric of claim 1; Applicant is directed to page 8, lines 1-10, page 12 lines 10-33 and claim 11 of Bisjak et al.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014100842A1 issued to Bisjak et al.
Regarding modified Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 2, wherein the non-FR lyocell fibers are present in the warp yarns only; the instant reference doesn’t teach that the warp is only made from lyocell fibers. It is the position of the Office that seeking 100% or a specific amount or composition of fiber in only one direction is easily conceived by a skilled artisan. One would have been motivated to use only lyocell in one direction of the weave to create softness.
Regarding modified Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 5, wherein the weft yarns comprise a preponderance of natural fibers; Applicant is directed to page 9, lines 1-4. However, it is the position of the Office that seeking 100%, a majority or a specific amount or composition of a yarn or fiber in one direction of the weave is easily conceived and well-practiced by a skilled artisan. One would have been motivated to use natural fibers in one direction of the weave to create a pattern, design or texture as the weft plays a significant role when creating the design, pattern or texture, and overall feel of the woven fabric. Additionally, by using natural fibers in the weft a skilled artisan can exhault the properties of the natural fibers like breathability, moisture absorption, and biodegradability.
Regarding modified Claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the FR treated fabric according to claim 2, comprising in the warp yarns:
40 - 60 wt % of the non-FR lyocell fibers,
15 - 35 wt % cotton fibers; and
15 - 35 wt % recycled polyester fibers; and
in the weft yarns:
70 - 99 wt % cotton fibers, and
1 - 20 wt % recycled polyester fibers; It is the position of the Office that the as Bisjak et al. teaches the use of fibers of different chemical constituents a skilled artisan would have found it well within their purview to have different composition fibers in any given direction results as different properties result from the chemical nature of the fiber. The Offices deems this as a result effective variable as that the amounts/percentages can be adjusted. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). As per the MPEP, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, it’s obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to adjust the amount of one fiber or blend fibers to arrive at a garment which is not only soft but fire retardant as well.
Regarding modified Claim 13, where Applicant now seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 1, wherein the FR treated fabric is durable to laundering at least 50x according to ISO 15797 and retains at least one or more of the following properties
:- a color retention score of greater than 2 or greater than 3 according to the greyscale comparison of ISO 105-A02;
- exceed the ignition to surface requirement of ISO11612 according to the test procedure of ISO15025 (2000)
- exceed the bottom edge ignition requirement of ISO11612 according to the test procedure of ISO15025 (2000);
- tear strength greater than 10N according to ISO13937-2 (2000); and
- tensile strength greater than 300N according to ISO13934-1 (2013); the instant reference of Bisjak et al., do speak to the importance of laundering but does not specifically teach the aforesaid as sought by Applicant. However, it is the position of the Office that Bisjak et al. meet said limitations. Support for said assumption is found in the use that both use the same type of fibers, weave and treatments on a garment for the same final intended use. The resultant properties sought above would be the same if not about the same as that claimed by Applicant. The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Bisjak et al. product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding modified Claim 14, where Applicant now seeks that the FR treated fabric of claim 1, wherein the FR treated fabric has abrasion resistance to more than 15 000 cycles, according to the Martindale Method and fulfilling ISO 12947-2 for an applied force of 12 Kpa; the instant reference does not specifically teach the aforesaid property as sought by Applicant. However, it is the position of the Office that Bisjak et al., meet said limitations. Support for said assumption is found in the use that both use the same type of fibers, weave and treatments on a garment for the same final intended use. The resultant properties sought above would be the same if not about the same as that claimed by Applicant. The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Bisjak et al., product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp