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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 4, 2026, has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The amendment and response filed June 4, 2026, have been carefully considered. The previously held rejections in view of Dilanni et al. (US 10433593), WO 2007/046932, and WO 2016/033593 have been withdrawn. However, additional prior art has been found to combine with the Hines et al. (US 2016/0060809) and US 2017/0173370 (Underwood et al.) references that disclose the newly added limitations to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Self et al. (US 12385171) in view of Sarzotti et al. (US 10640893). The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Self et al. disclose flame resistant fabrics formed with fiber blends that provide the requisite flame and thermal protection but that have improved durability. In some embodiments this is accomplished with the use of fiber blends that include relatively large percentages of FR nylon fibers in combination with cellulosic and inherently flame resistant fibers (abstract). The fabric is a nonwoven fabric (col 2, ln 43-44). The inherently flame resistant fibers include aramid fibers (col 3, ln 8-10). The cellulosic fibers include FR cellulosic fibers (col 3, ln 38-49). In some embodiments, FR nylon fibers are added to the fiber blend(s) of the first and/or second yarns to impart strength and abrasion resistance and thus enhance the durability and wear properties of the fabric made with such yarns. However, because the nylon fibers are flame resistant, they do not detrimentally impact the flame resistant properties of the overall fabric made with the blend (col 3, ln 58-64). Some embodiments of the fabric are formed with the first and/or second yarns having a combination of cellulosic (e.g., lyocell), modacrylic, aramid (meta-aramid, para-aramid, or blends thereof), and FR nylon fibers (col 3, ln 65 to col 4, ln 1). Self et al. disclose various embodiments wherein the FR nylon are present in the amount of 30-50 wt % and the aramid fibers are present up to 20 wt % (col 4, ln 1-32). In the present specification, Applicant defines thermally stable nylon fibers to as “the class of nylon fibers that exhibit one or more improved thermal properties as compared to traditional NTS nylon fibers, such as (but not limited to) better resistance to burning, more self-extinguishing, and/or reduced melt/drip properties.” While Self et al. fail to directly disclose “thermally stable” nylon fibers, it appears as though the flame resistant nylon fibers can be equated to the thermally stable nylon fibers of the present invention.
However, Sarzotti et al. (US 10640893) disclose flame retardant fibers comprising nylon fibers that have been treated with a non-halogen flame retardant additive (col 2, ln 38-40). These fibers can eventually be made into a nonwoven fabric and combined with cellulosic and aramid fibers (col 5, ln 1-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the thermally stable nylon fibers of Sarzotti as the nylon fibers of Self et al., motivated by the desire to create a fabric that does not demonstrate the dangerous scaffolding effect common with traditional nylon fibers.
While the combination of Self et al. and Sarzotti et al. disclose aramid fibers present in the amount of 20%, it fails to specifically disclose a fabric wherein the fibers are 30-70% aramid fibers or 30-50% aramid fibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have increased the amount of the aramid fibers in the fabric of Self et al. and Sarzotti et al. motivated by the desire to create a fabric with enhanced flame resistance and durability.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1,2, 4, 7-10, 13-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 2017/0173370 (Underwood et al.) in view of Sarzotti et al. (US 10640893). Underwood et al. disclose a fabric that can be made to be fire resistant. The fabric is particularly well suited for being used as an inner lining in protective garments. The fabric contains first yarns and second yarns (abstract). For instance, various protective garments exist that are intended to be fire resistant. Such garments are worn by military personnel, industrial workers, pilots, rescue personnel, and firefighters (0002). Firefighter garments typically include multiple layers of materials. For example, firefighter garments typically include an outer shell attached to an inner lining or face cloth. The firefighter garment may include intermediate layers, such as a moisture barrier layer and/or a thermal barrier layer. Each layer can be made from fire resistant materials, such as fire resistant fibers and yarns (0003). The first yarns contain fire resistant (FR) cellulose fibers in an amount of at least 20% by weight, such as at least about 30% by weight. The second yarns can contain inherently flame resistant fibers. The inherently flame resistant fibers, for instance, may comprise aramid fibers, PBI fibers, PBO fibers, or mixtures thereof. In one embodiment, the second yarns contain at least 70% by weight inherently flame resistant fibers (0009). In one embodiment, the first yarns containing the FR cellulose fibers comprise spun yarns, such as ring spun yarns, made from an intimate blend of fibers. In one particular embodiment, the blend of fibers may comprise meta-aramid fibers in an amount from about 30% to about 60% by weight of the fabric, flame resistant fibers in an amount from about 20% to about 50% by weight of the fabric, non-aromatic polyamide fibers (i.e. nylon) in an amount from about 12% to about 25% by weight of the fabric, and optionally para-aramid fibers in an amount up to about 15% by weight of the fabric (0012). It should be noted that nylon is an aromatic polyamide fiber. In one embodiment, the second yarns are made primarily from inherently flame resistant fibers. For instance, the second yarns can be made from greater than 50%, such as greater than 60%, such as greater than 70%, such as greater than 80% by weight aramid fibers alone or in combination with PBI fibers and/or PBO fibers. The aramid fibers may comprise meta-aramid fibers alone, para-aramid fibers alone, or a combination of meta-aramid fibers and para-aramid fibers. In one particular embodiment, the second yarns comprise spun yarns containing meta-aramid fibers and optionally in combination with up to about 8% by weight of para-aramid fibers (0057). Alternatively, the second yarns may comprise substantial amounts of other synthetic fibers, such as nylon fibers and/or polyester fibers. For instance, the second yarns may contain greater than 30% by weight, such as greater than 40% by weight, such as greater than 50% by weight, nylon fibers, polyester fibers, or mixtures thereof. In one embodiment, the second yarns can be made exclusively from polyester fibers and/or nylon fibers (0058). In Samples 2 and 3, the fabric is spunlaced (0094, 0109, 0110). Underwood et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the teaching that the nylon fibers are thermally stable.
However, Sarzotti et al. (US 10640893) disclose flame retardant fibers comprising nylon fibers that have been treated with a non-halogen flame retardant additive (col 2, ln 38-40). These fibers can eventually be made into a nonwoven fabric and combined with cellulosic and aramid fibers (col 5, ln 1-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the thermally stable nylon fibers of Sarzotti as the nylon fibers of Underwood et al., motivated by the desire to create a fabric that does not demonstrate the dangerous scaffolding effect common with traditional nylon fibers.
The combination of Underwood et al. and Sarzotti et al. fails to specifically disclose a fabric wherein the fibers are 30-70% aramid fibers and 30-70% thermally stable nylon fibers and also fail to disclose 50-70% thermally stable nylon fibers and 30-50% aramid fibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of thermally stable fibers and aramid fibers in the fabric of Underwood et al. and Sarzotti et al. motivated by the desire to create a fabric with enhanced flame resistance and durability.
In addition, the combination of Underwood et al. and Sarzotti et al. do not specifically disclose the properties of claims 15-19 and 21. However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, the properties of claims 15-19 would inherently be found in the WO ‘593 since they disclose the same types of fibers in similar amounts as the claimed invention. If the properties are not inherent, they would be obvious in the combination of the Underwood et al. and Sarzotti et al. references.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Hines et al. (US 2016/0060809) in view of Sarzotti et al. (US 10640893). Hines et al. disclose lightweight, dyeable fabrics with a balance of high thermal properties, especially arc resistance, on the one hand, and durability and comfort properties, on the other hand (0015). The fabrics comprise fiber blends comprising about 30% by weight to about 70% by weight, based on the total weight of said fiber blend, of a plurality of hydrophobic fibers comprising at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of modacrylic fibers (0017), about 15% by weight to about 45% by weight, based on the total weight of said fiber blend, of a plurality of fire-resistant hydrophilic fibers comprising at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of cellulose (0018) and about 5% by weight to about 30% by weight, based on the total weight of the fiber blend, of a plurality of structural fibers comprising at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of aramid, and nylon, and combinations thereof; wherein said aramid is present at a level of greater than about 0% by weight to less than about 10%, by weight, based on the total weight of said fiber blend (0019-0020). The fabric substrate is a hydroentangled nonwoven fabric (0100) (it should be noted that spunlaced fabrics are considered to be hydroentangled fabric). The fabric is incorporated into articles, including garments (especially shirts, pants, and coveralls) and linens, especially those used in environments requiring both arc rating and high visibility (0110) and may be particularly useful in firefighter turnout coats, combat and flight suits (0154). Hines et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the teaching that the nylon fibers are thermally stable.
However, Sarzotti et al. (US 10640893) disclose flame retardant fibers comprising nylon fibers that have been treated with a non-halogen flame retardant additive (col 2, ln 38-40). These fibers can eventually be made into a nonwoven fabric and combined with cellulosic and aramid fibers (col 5, ln 1-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the thermally stable nylon fibers of Sarzotti as the nylon fibers of Hines et al., motivated by the desire to create a fabric that does not demonstrate the dangerous scaffolding effect common with traditional nylon fibers.
While the combination of Hines et al. and Sarzotti et al. disclose aramid fibers present in the amount of 10%, it fails to specifically disclose a fabric wherein the fibers are 30-70% aramid fibers and 30-70% thermally stable nylon fibers and also fail to disclose 50-70% thermally stable nylon fibers and 30-50% aramid fibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of thermally stable nylon fibers and aramid fibers in the fabric of Hines et al. and Sarzotti et al. motivated by the desire to create a fabric with enhanced flame resistance and durability.
In addition, the combination of Hines et al. and Sarzotti et al. do not specifically disclose the properties of claims 15-19 and 21. However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, the properties of claims 15-19 would inherently be found in the WO ‘593 since they disclose the same types of fibers in similar amounts as the claimed invention. If the properties are not inherent, they would be obvious in the combination of the Hines et al. and Sarzotti et al. references.
Claim(s) 1-4. 8. 10. 13-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser et al. (US 2019/0070835) in view of Sarzotti et al. (US 10640893). Fraser et al. disclose a multi-layered flame retardant and chemical resistant composite. The composite may be used in protective apparel and/or personal protective ensembles (PPE). The composite may be an engineered textile laminate (abstract). The composite made be made into a garment or protective apparel (0082). The first layer of the composite comprises a nonwoven fabric (0008). a composite 100 of the present invention may comprise a first layer 10, a second layer 20, and a third layer 30. The first layer 10 of composite 100 may comprise a nonwoven fabric, as described herein, which may char when burned and/or exposed to heat and/or flame. The first layer 10 may include a surface 12 that is the inner layer of the composite 100. The second layer 20 may be a non-flame retardant chemical barrier film, as described herein, which may be engineered and/or selected to meet the chemical holdout requirements in accordance with ASTM F23 F739 test procedure and the ASTM F23 F1001 chemical insult list. The second layer 20 may be adhered to the third layer 30, which may comprise a film (e.g., a flame retardant film or a non-flame retardant film), as described herein. The third layer 30 may include a surface 14 that is the outer layer of the composite 100. The first layer 10, second layer 20, and third layer 30 may each be adhesively bonded to an adjoining layer using an adhesive (e.g., a flame retardant adhesive), as described herein (0031). The nonwoven fabric comprises natural fibers (e.g., cellulosic fibers) and/or synthetic fibers. In some embodiments, one side of the nonwoven fabric may comprise natural fibers (e.g., cellulosic fibers) and the other side of the nonwoven fabric may comprise synthetic fibers. Synthetic fibers and natural fibers may be present in a ratio of about 5:1, 2:1, 1.5:1, 1:1, 1:1.5, 1:2, or 1:5 (synthetic fibers:natural fibers). In some embodiments, the ratio of synthetic fibers to natural fibers is in a range of about 1:1 to about 1:1.5 (0034). The nonwoven fabrics can be spunlace fabric prepared from a combination of cellulosic and synthetic fibers. Example cellulosic fibers that may be used to form a nonwoven fabric (e.g., spunlace fabric) include, but are not limited to, woodpulp fibers, cotton fibers, regenerated cellulose fibers such as rayon and/or lycocell fibers, cellulose acetate fibers, cellulose triacetate fibers, jute, hemp, and/or any bast, leaf, or stem fibers, in some embodiments, the first layer comprises woodpulp fibers (0035). Synthetic fibers that may be used to form the nonwoven (e.g. spunlace) fabric include, but are not limited to, polyester, nylon, polypropylene, polylactic acid (PLA) fibers, acrylic fibers, and/or any other applicable available textile staple fiber that produces desired attributes, and/or fits a nonwoven (e.g., spunlace) process. In some embodiments, the first layer comprises polyester fibers (0036). In some embodiments, the first layer comprises a fiber that is treated with a flame retardant additive and the fiber is selected from polyester, nylon, acrylic, acrylonitrile, olyolefin, vinylidene chloride (saran), cellulose (e.g., acetate, rayon, lyocell, woodpulp, cotton and/or other natural organic fibers), silica-containing rayon, melamine (basofil), aramid/paraaramid (e.g., kevlar, nomex), sulfar, polyethylene, olefin, PEU (e.g., spandex), silicone, fluorocarbon, polybenzimidazole (PBI), and/or carbon fibers (0037). In some embodiments, when the nonwoven layer comprises synthetic fibers and cellulosic fibers, the cellulosic and synthetic fibers may be in the form of flat layers. For example, a nonwoven layer may comprise two or more layers (e.g., 2, 3, 4 or more layers, also referred to herein as sublayers) each of which may comprise cellulosic fibers and/or synthetic fibers in any orientation or order. Referring to FIG. 2, composite 150 may comprise a first layer 10 comprising a nonwoven layer that comprises two layers 10a, 10b, and one layer may comprise cellulosic fibers and the other layer may comprise synthetic fibers. In some embodiments, nonwoven layer 10a (i.e., the nonwoven layer closest to the second layer 20) may comprise cellulosic fibers (e.g., woodpulp fibers) and nonwoven layer 10b may comprise synthetic fibers (0038). In some embodiments, the weight ratio of the cellulosic fibers to synthetic fibers in a first layer of a composite of the present invention may range from 75:25 to 25:75, and in some embodiments from 65:35 to 50:50 (0039). In some embodiments, a garment and/or composite of the present invention may be used for and/or in a personal protection ensemble (PPE). The garment and/or composite may be chemical permeation resistant to liquids, solid particles, and/or gases within the scope of the ASTM F23 F739 Chemical Permeation US Domestic test, and International ISO 6529 Chemical Permeation test. In some embodiments, a garment and/or composite of the present invention (i.e., a garment comprising a composite of the present invention) may be used over a NFPA 2112 garment. The garment and/or composite may augment the flame retardant protection of the NFPA 2112 garment. In some embodiments, the garment and/or composite may provide chemical permeation and/or penetration resistance. In some embodiments, a garment and/or composite of the present invention may meet NFPA 2113 requirements, such as, for example, the garment and/or composite may meet NFPA 2113 A.5.1.7 and 8 requirements when used over and/or to cover a primary NFPA 2112 flashover protection compliant garment or device (0084). Fraser et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the teaching that the nylon fibers are thermally stable.
However, Sarzotti et al. (US 10640893) disclose flame retardant fibers comprising nylon fibers that have been treated with a non-halogen flame retardant additive (col 2, ln 38-40). These fibers can eventually be made into a nonwoven fabric and combined with cellulosic and aramid fibers (col 5, ln 1-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the thermally stable nylon fibers of Sarzotti as the nylon fibers of Fraser et al., motivated by the desire to create a fabric that does not demonstrate the dangerous scaffolding effect common with traditional nylon fibers.
The combination of Fraser et al. and Sarzotti et al. fail to specifically disclose a fabric wherein the fibers are 30-70% aramid fibers and 30-70% thermally stable nylon fibers and also fail to disclose 50-70% thermally stable nylon fibers and 30-50% aramid fibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of the aramid fibers and thermally stable nylon fibers in the fabric of Fraser et al. and Sarzotti et al. motivated by the desire to create a fabric with enhanced flame resistance and durability.
In addition, the combination of Fraser et al. and Sarzotti et al. do not specifically disclose the properties of claims 15-19 and 21. However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, the properties of claims 15-19 would inherently be found in the WO ‘593 since they disclose the same types of fibers in similar amounts as the claimed invention. If the properties are not inherent, they would be obvious in the combination of the Fraser et al. and Sarzotti et al. references.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ULA CORINNA RUDDOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-1481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 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, Srilakshmi K Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights