DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2 are pending for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: FIG. 1 is labeled as prior art, however paragraph [0012] of the specification as filed .
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu (CN 110923876)1 in view of Xu (CN 106963270)1.
With respect to claim 1, Qu teaches a flame-retardant modified polyester fiber comprising: modified polyester fiber and a composite fiber (paragraph [0008]). The composite fiber comprises silver fiber and composite yarn (paragraph [0008]) and the composite yarn comprises viscose fiber, long-staple cotton fiber, and graphene fiber (paragraph [0010]). Qu further teaches the cotton fiber has excellent moisture absorption (paragraph [0027]) providing the flame-retardant modified polyester fiber with good moisture absorption properties (paragraph [0007]).
Qu is silent as to the viscose fiber being bamboo viscose.
Xu teaches a towel comprising polyester fiber, graphite fiber, bamboo fibers, and cotton fiber (paragraph [0008]). Bamboo fiber and cotton fiber are selected to work together to enhance the water absorption capacity of the polyester (paragraph [0020]).
Since both Qu and Xu teach textiles comprising polyester, graphene, cotton, and viscose fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the viscose fiber of Qu to be bamboo viscose in order to increase the water absorption capacity of the resulting textile.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 107460579)2 in view of Xu (CN 106963270)1.
With respect to claim 1, Shen teaches a composite yarn composed of a polyester fiber, viscose fiber, and silver fiber (paragraph [0007]).
Shen is silent as to the viscose fiber being bamboo viscose and the composite yarn comprising graphene thread.
Xu teaches a towel comprising polyester fiber, graphite fiber, bamboo fibers, and cotton fiber (paragraph [0008]). Bamboo fibers enhance the water absorption capacity of the polyester (paragraphs [0020], [0004]). The blend of graphite fiber and polyester fiber improves the strength of the polyester fiber (paragraph [0020]).
Since both Shen and Xu teach textiles comprising polyester and viscose fibers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the viscose of Shen to be bamboo viscose in order to increase the water absorption capacity of the textile and to include graphite fibers in order to improve the strength of the polyester fiber.
With respect to claim 2, Shen in view of Xu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Shen further teaches that by mass percentage, the polyester fiber accounts for 42-48% of the composite yarn, the viscose fiber accounts for 35-40% of the composite yarn, and the silver fiber accounts for 17-20% of the composite yarn (paragraph [0007]). Shen further teaches that by optimizing the structure of the composite yarn, it has excellent radiation resistance, as well as good strength and luster (paragraphs [0011], [0030]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the mass percentages of the components of the yarn of Shen in view of Xu to include the claimed values. One would have been motivated to provide a yarn with the desired moisture absorptivity from the bamboo viscose and strength from the polyester and graphite, as well as the desired radiation resistance and luster. It has been held that, wherein 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
You (CN 110106603)3 discloses a graphene antibacterial fabric (paragraph [0002]) comprising graphene composite fiber, bamboo charcoal fiber, PTT, cotton, and an antibacterial agent (paragraph [0011]).
Chen (CN 110820112)1 discloses a yarn comprising a first polyester yarn, a bamboo charcoal fiber yarn, a second polyester yarn, a cotton fiber yarn, and a silver fiber yarn (paragraph [0008]).
Eddings (US 2021/0145097) discloses antimicrobial garments and antimicrobial fabric products that include an antimicrobial fabric, wherein the antimicrobial fabric includes at least one synthetic silver fiber and at least one silver-free fiber, and methods of manufacturing the same (abstract). One benefit of the antimicrobial garments and antimicrobial fabric products disclosed herein can be the reduction or elimination of odor or infection causing microbes, including a bacteria, a fungi, and a virus, even after multiple washes (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Machine translation used as reference
2 Machine translation used as reference
3 Machine translation used as reference