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 § 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 1-9, 16 and 18-20 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.
Claims 1 and 18-20 are rejected for “chem/bio”. It is unclear what is being claimed by such language. It is believed Applicant is intending to recite chemical and/or biological. Further, it is unclear if “both chemical and biological” are claimed or “chemical or biological” is meant by the language of “chem/bio”. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
Claim 7 is rejected for the recitation of “first fibers are made from a first fiber/fabric composition”. It is unclear exactly what Applicant is intending to claim by such language as fibers are not made from fabric. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
Claim 8 is rejected for the recitation of “second fibers are made from a second fiber/fabric composition”. It is unclear exactly what Applicant is intending to claim by such language as fibers are not made from fabric. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
Claim 9 is rejected for the recitation of “fiber/fabric composition”. It is unclear exactly what Applicant is intending to claim by such language as fibers are not made from fabric. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
Claim 16 is rejected for the recitation of “first fibers are made from a first fiber/fabric composition” and “second fibers are made from a second fiber/fabric composition”. It is unclear exactly what Applicant is intending to claim by such language as fibers are not made from fabric. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
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.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura et al. (JP 2009/174114).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, Nakamura et al. teach a protective fabric (cover material including spunbond) with improved chem/bio repellant properties (antibacterial properties) comprising a fiber matrix (such as spunbond fabric or nonwoven fiber matrix) comprising fibers and metal oxide particles (titanium oxide) dispersed among the fibers wherein the fiber matrix has metal oxide particle retention greater than 5% (80% or more is taught) [0008, 0014, 0018, 0026-0027, 0078, 0084]. Nakamura et al. are silent regarding the claimed flame retardant index. However, given Nakamura et al. teach the particles provide flame retardancy, the fabric of Nakamura as taught coated with particles and imparting flame retardancy would inherently possess a flame retardant index greater than 2 as measured by the claimed method. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed flame retardant index as measured given Nakamura et al. teach flame retardancy is desired in order to ensure improved flame retardancy and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the metal oxide particles have a diameter less than 2 microns [0094].
Regarding claims 7-8, Nakamura et al. teach the fibers comprise first fibers made from a first fiber/fabric composition comprising a first polymer (i.e. adhesive fiber) and the fibers comprise second fibers made from a second fiber/fabric composition comprising a second polymer (composite fibers) [0089].
Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Berrigan et al. (WO 2009/088648).
Regarding claims 1-3, Berrigan et al. teach a protective fabric (taught as gas filter in protective respirator, protective equipment, enclosures, shelters, etc…) with improved chem/bio repellant properties (antimicrobial properties) comprising a fiber matrix (such as spunbond fabric or nonwoven fiber matrix) comprising fibers and metal oxide particles dispersed among the fibers wherein the fiber matrix [pp. 14, ln. 12 and pp. 37, ln. 1-9]. Berrigan et al. teach the particles are retained in the fiber matrix and further the process by which they are retained (needlepunching, hydroentanglement in a nonwoven) is the same as the present invention) and therefore it is clear the fiber matrix has metal oxide particle retention greater than 5% [pp. 2, ln. 2-4]. Berrigan et al. are silent regarding the claimed flame retardant index. However, given Berrigan et al. teach the nonwoven is provided with a flame retardant and the fabric of Berrigan er al. is taught as coated with a flame retardant thereby imparting flame retardancy and would inherently possess a flame retardant index greater than 2 as measured by the claimed method. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed flame retardant index as measured given Berrigan et al. teach flame retardancy is desired in order to ensure improved flame retardancy and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the metal oxide particles are embedded among the fibers [Abstract].
Regarding claim 5, Berrigan et al. teach the metal oxide particles comprise titanium oxide [PG Pub. 2005/0266760 which is incorporated in Berrigan et al.].
Regarding claim 6, the metal oxide particles have a diameter less than 2 microns [claims 5 and 6].
Regarding claims 7-8, Berrigan et al. teach the fibers comprise first fibers made from a first fiber/fabric composition comprising a first polymer (i.e. microfibers and the fibers comprise second fibers made from a second fiber/fabric composition comprising a second polymer (sub-micrometer fibers) [pp. 7, ln. 27-29].
Regarding claim 10, Berrigan et al. teach a process for making a protective fabric with the process comprising embedding metal oxide particles in a fiber matrix of fibers to yield the protective fabric and the fiber matrix has an oxide particle retention in the claimed range. Berrigan et al. teach the particles are retained in the fiber matrix and further the process by which they are retained (needlepunching, hydroentanglement in a nonwoven) is the same as the present invention) and therefore it is clear the fiber matrix has metal oxide particle retention greater than 5% [pp. 2, ln. 2-4]. Berrigan et al. are silent regarding the claimed flame retardant index. However, given Berrigan et al. teach the nonwoven is provided with a flame retardant and the fabric of Berrigan er al. is taught as coated with a flame retardant thereby imparting flame retardancy and would inherently possess a flame retardant index greater than 2 as measured by the claimed method. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed flame retardant index as measured given Berrigan et al. teach flame retardancy is desired in order to ensure improved flame retardancy and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11-12, the embedding comprises providing the fiber matrix and adding the metal oxide particles to the fiber matrix to form an intermediate matrix. The metal oxide particles are taught as being applied and needled in to form an intermediate matrix [claim 18].
Regarding claim 13, Berrigan et al. states “Although a bi-layer construction is illustrated in Figure ID, it is to be understood that other multi-layer composite nonwoven fibrous web constructions are within the scope of the present disclosure. Thus, for example, multi-layer composite nonwoven fibrous web constructions comprising 3, 4, 5 or any number of layers, having any structure and/or composition, and arranged in any order, are within the scope of the present disclosure, provided that at least one layer comprises an embedded phase further comprising a population of particulates, the particulates forming a substantially continuous three-dimensional network, and a matrix phase comprising a population of fibers forming a three-dimensional network around the particulates.” At pp. 10, ln. 9-17. Therefore, Berrigan et al. teaches the embedding comprises sandwiching metal oxide particles between a first fiber matrix and a second fiber matrix (for example… a 3 layer construction wherein all layers have particles and the outer layers are considered to be the first and second fiber matrices respectively) to form an intermediate matrix and needlepunching the intermediate matrix to embed the metal oxide particles therein [claim18].
Regarding claim 14, the embedding comprises hydroentangling the fibers and adding the metal oxide particles to the hydroentangled fibers [pp. 27, ln. 9-13 and claim 18].
Regarding claim 15, Berrigan et al. teach the embedding comprises adding the metal oxide particles to the fiber matrix to form a intermediate matrix and pressurizing (calendaring) the intermediate matrix to embed the metal oxide particles therein [claim 18].
Regarding claim 17, the metal oxide particles have a diameter less than 2 microns [claims 5 and 6].
Regarding claim 18, Berrigan et al. teach forming the protective fabric into a chem/bio garment [pp. 37, ln. 1-5].
Regarding claim 19, Berrigan et al. teach a chem/bio garment comprising a fiber matrix layer comprising fibers and metal oxide particles dispersed among the fibers and the fiber matrix has an oxide particle retention in the claimed range. Berrigan et al. teach the particles are retained in the fiber matrix and further the process by which they are retained (needlepunching, hydroentanglement in a nonwoven) is the same as the present invention) and therefore it is clear the fiber matrix has metal oxide particle retention greater than 5% [pp. 2, ln. 2-4]. Berrigan et al. are silent regarding the claimed flame retardant index. However, given Berrigan et al. teach the nonwoven is provided with a flame retardant and the fabric of Berrigan er al. is taught as coated with a flame retardant thereby imparting flame retardancy and would inherently possess a flame retardant index greater than 3 as measured by the claimed method. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed flame retardant index as measured given Berrigan et al. teach flame retardancy is desired in order to ensure improved flame retardancy and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the metal oxide particles have a diameter less than 2 microns [claims 5 and 6].
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrigan et al. (WO 2009/088648) in view of Gogins et al (PG Pub. 2004/0116025).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Berrigan et al. are silent regarding the claimed nylon and cotton. However, Gogins et al. teach a first fiber/fabric composition is polyamide (nylon) and a second fiber/fabric composition is cotton as a blend of nylon and cotton is taught in order to provide a lightweight fabric with softness, abrasion resistance, strength, breathability and comfort. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the first fiber/fabric composition as polyamide (nylon) and second fiber/fabric composition as cotton of Gogins et al. in Berrigan et al. in order to provide a lightweight fabric with softness, abrasion resistance, strength, breathability and comfort and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG 2008/0242175 teaches nylon/cotton blends in protective garments.
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