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 .
Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed January 29, 2026 are acknowledged.
Examiner acknowledges amended claim 1.
The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihoichi et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2009/0311933 is overcome by Applicant’s amendment.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihoichi et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2009/0311933 in view of Ichibori et al., U.S. Patent Number 5,506,042.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11, Mihoichi discloses in paragraph 0010 a flame retardant low-resilience urethane foam cushion covered by a flame blocking fabric formed of at least two of a halogen-group containing fiber and a cellulosic fiber wherein the halogen group containing fiber is a modacrylic fiber and the cellulosic fiber is a cotton fiber. Table 3, Example 56 discloses 78% by weight of halogen containing fiber and 22% by weight cotton fiber for the knit flame blocking fabric. Additionally, example 56 in Table 3 discloses that the flame blocking fabric has a basis weight of 135 g/m². Paragraph 0021 discloses that a flame retardant such as magnesium hydroxide is present in the flame blocking fabric. It is disclosed in paragraph 0020 that the halogen-containing fiber is comprised of homopolymers of halogen containing monomers such as vinyl chloride or vinylidene chloride, acrylonitrile and copolymers of styrene monomers. Paragraph 0044 discloses that the halogen-containing fiber is obtained by copolymerization of 52 parts by weight of acrylonitrile, 46.8 parts by weight of vinylidene chloride and 1.2 parts by weight of sodium styrenesulfonate. Paragraph 0001 of Mihoichi discloses bedding.
Mihoichi is silent to the vinyl chloride being present in the amount of 15 mass% or more and 65 mass% or less. Additionally, Mihoichi is silent to the flame retardant modacrylic fiber contains a magnesium compound present in the amount of 3.0 mass% or more and 13 mass% or less. Ichibori discloses a flame retardant bedding including 85 to 15 parts by weight of a fiber comprising a polymer containing 17 to 86 parts by weight of a halogen and 15 to 85 parts by weight of natural fibers [abstract and column 2, lines 4-11]. It is disclosed in column 3, lines 6-12 that the polymer containing 17 to 86% by weight of acrylonitrile and 70 to 30% by weight of a vinyl monomer. Example 2 of Ichibori discloses a copolymer of 49% of acrylonitrile and 51% of vinyl chloride wherein the copolymer include 10% of magnesium oxide. Column 2, lines 20-27 discloses a composite fiber composed of modacrylic fiber and cotton [cellulosic fiber]. The abstract and column 2, lines 4-16 of Ichibori discloses that the composite fiber has high flame resistance, washing resistance and durability. Mihoichi and Ichibori are analogous art in that both reference disclose bedding that includes modacrylic fiber and cotton fiber wherein the modacrylic fiber includes acrylonitrile and vinyl chloride as the copolymer fiber in an amount of 30 mass% or more and 85 mass% or less and 15 mass% or more and 65 mass% or less, respectively, wherein a magnesium compound is present. One of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the example 2 composition of Ichibori for the formulation of the halogen containing copolymer forming the modacrylic fiber of Mihiochi for the benefit of obtaining bedding that has enhanced high flame resistance, washing resistance and durability.
The combination of Mihoichi and Ichibori teach the claimed invention but fails to teach time until both afterflame and afterglow go out of the flame-retardant upholstered furniture is 60 seconds or less when measured through a flammability test based on BS 5852: 2006. It is reasonable to presume that the time until both afterflame and afterglow go out of the flame-retardant upholstered furniture is 60 seconds or less when measured through a flammability test based on BS 5852: 2006 is inherent to the combination of Mihoichi and Ichibori. Said presumption is based on Mihoichi discloses in paragraph 0010 a flame retardant low-resilience urethane foam cushion covered by a flame blocking fabric formed of at least two of a halogen-group containing fiber and a cellulosic fiber wherein the halogen group containing fiber is a modacrylic fiber and the cellulosic fiber is a cotton fiber. Table 3, Example 56 discloses 78% by weight of halogen containing fiber and 22% by weight cotton fiber for the knit flame blocking fabric. Additionally, example 56 in Table 3 discloses that the flame blocking fabric has a basis weight of 135 g/m². Paragraph 0021 discloses that a flame retardant such as magnesium hydroxide is present in the flame blocking fabric. It is disclosed in paragraph 0020 that the halogen-containing fiber is comprised of homopolymers of halogen containing monomers such as vinyl chloride or vinylidene chloride, acrylonitrile and copolymers of styrene monomers. Paragraph 0044 discloses that the halogen-containing fiber is obtained by copolymerization of 52 parts by weight of acrylonitrile, 46.8 parts by weight of vinylidene chloride and 1.2 parts by weight of sodium styrenesulfonate. Paragraph 0001 of Mihoichi discloses bedding.
Mihoichi is silent to the vinyl chloride being present in the amount of 15 mass% or more and 65 mass% or less. Additionally, Mihoichi is silent to the flame retardant modacrylic fiber contains a magnesium compound present in the amount of 3.0 mass% or more and 13 mass% or less. Ichibori discloses a flame retardant bedding including 85 to 15 parts by weight of a fiber comprising a polymer containing 17 to 86 parts by weight of a halogen and 15 to 85 parts by weight of natural fibers [abstract and column 2, lines 4-11]. It is disclosed in column 3, lines 6-12 that the polymer containing 17 to 86% by weight of acrylonitrile and 70 to 30% by weight of a vinyl monomer. Example 2 of Ichibori discloses a copolymer of 49% of acrylonitrile and 51% of vinyl chloride wherein the copolymer include 10% of magnesium oxide. Column 2, lines 20-27 discloses a composite fiber composed of modacrylic fiber and cotton [cellulosic fiber]. The abstract and column 2, lines 4-16 of Ichibori discloses that the composite fiber has high flame resistance, washing resistance and durability. Mihoichi and Ichibori are analogous art in that both reference disclose bedding that includes modacrylic fiber and cotton fiber wherein the modacrylic fiber includes acrylonitrile and vinyl chloride as the copolymer fiber in an amount of 30 mass% or more and 85 mass% or less and 15 mass% or more and 65 mass% or less, respectively, wherein a magnesium compound is present. One of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the example 2 composition of Ichibori for the formulation of the halogen containing copolymer forming the modacrylic fiber of Mihiochi for the benefit of obtaining bedding that has enhanced high flame resistance, washing resistance and durability. Burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. Fitzgerald, In re, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Mihoichi is silent to the magnesium hydroxide having a particle diameter of 0.3 µm or more. However, this is an optimizable feature. Paragraph 0021 discloses that the flame retardant is used to fortify the flame retardancy of the flame blocking fabric. The diameter of the magnesium hydroxide affects the flame retardancy of the fabric. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would optimize the particle diameter of the magnesium hydroxide to 0.3 µm or more for enhanced flame retardancy of the flame blocking fabric.
Regarding claim 9, paragraph 0010 discloses that the flame blocking fabric is provided on the inside of the ticking wherein the ticking is a flame blocking pile knit fabric [surface fabric]. Applicant's claim is not specific to the surface fabric.
Regarding claim 10, paragraph 0015 discloses that the flame blocking fabric is sandwiched between a ticking and the low-resilience urethane foam wherein the ticking is a flame blocking pile knit fabric [surface fabric]. Applicant's claim is not specific to the surface fabric.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the present claims 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.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights