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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “filament” in step 6 should be changed to “filaments”. 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 1-16 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. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies.
The terms “stable” and “fine” in claims 1 and 15 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any polymer melt stream will meet the claimed limitation.
The term “high-flame-retardant” in claim 1, line 4 of step 7, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-flame-retardant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any degree of flame retardance will meet the claim limitation.
The term “low vacuum” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low vacuum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any degree of vacuum will meet the claim limitation.
The term “slowly” in claim 4, claim 5, and claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any speed will meet the claim limitation.
The term “well” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “well” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any degree of stirring will meet the claim limitation.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is ‘314 (JP2003193314) in view of ‘075 (CN109679075), ‘076 (CN 107189076B), and ‘650 (CN110499650A) as discussed below. Machine translations of ‘314, ‘075, ‘076, and ‘650 are attached as an English equivalent and are used in the citations below.
Regarding Claim 3, REDOX prepared graphene oxide is known in the art (CN109881286A). The claimed fire retardants and modifiers are also known in the art (CN109881286A). The prior art does not teach or suggest a method as claimed wherein the flame retardant is prepared by using diammonium hydrogen phosphate, antimony titanium complex and antimony trioxide evenly mixed according to mass ratio 1: (1-2) : (2-3); and the modifier is made of polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol and silane coupling agent uniformly mixed according to mass ratio 1: (2-3) : (3-4).
Regarding Claim 9, ‘650 teaches the fabric is immersed in a flame-retardant finishing liquid, fully impregnated through the dipping roller, extruded to remove the excess finishing liquid, and then dried by a dryer (pg. 5 last 2 para., “80 DEG C”, “press bath”; pg. 6 first para. “dried”). The prior art does not teach or suggest a method as claimed wherein in the step 7, the preparation of flame-retardant finishing liquid is by selecting the same flame-retardant component as in step 1, evenly dispersed in distilled water, and then fully stirred, heating to 50-80C, and the mass concentration of flame retardant in the finishing liquid is 10-30 %.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘314 (JP2003193314) in view of ‘075 (CN109679075), ‘076 (CN 107189076B), and ‘650 (CN110499650A). Machine translations of ‘314, ‘075, ‘076, and ‘650 are attached as an English equivalent and are used in the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 15-16, ‘314 teaches fire resistant gloves prepared by cutting and sewing a fire-resistant fabric (Example 8). ‘341 teaches the fabric can including combinations of heat resistant materials with polyester (pg. 6 2nd full para.).
‘314 does not explicitly teach the claimed method of making the polyester composite; however, ‘075 teaches a method for preparing a modified graphene polyester composite for functional textiles (Technical Field and Background Technique), wherein the method comprises:
Step 1) selection of raw materials (Summary of the invention, para. 4-7);
Step 2) preparation of a PTA (i.e. refined terephthalic acid)/graphene oxide/ethylene glycol modified slurry (Step 1-2, pg. 3);
Step 3) esterification reaction: the slurry obtained in step 2 is added to a reactor, with repeated filling and emptying of nitrogen gas, air in the reactor is exhausted, and then nitrogen gas is filled and the temperature is raised to perform a pressurized esterification reaction (Step 3, pg. 3); and
Step 4) condensation reaction: the temperature in the reactor is continued to be raised to perform a low vacuum condensation, the pressure in the reactor is reduced, and the temperature is raised at the same time, the reaction is then allowed to stand, the cast head is opened, nitrogen gas is filled until the polymer melt forms a stable fine stream, the polymer melt is cooled by a water tank, cut into granules by a granulator, and dried by a fan dryer, and then stored for use (Step 4-5, pg. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the polyester composite fabric of ‘314 to include the polyester composite of ‘075, because it is a known polyester composite for functional textiles in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the fabric of ‘314 with a polyester composite fabric, as taught in ‘075.
The combined references do not explicitly teach the claimed method of preparing the fabric; however, ‘076 teaches a method of preparing a flame-retardant fabric by a method comprising:
Step 5) melt spinning: heated and melted, and then spun into filaments through a spinning box filter (abstract, “high speed melt-spinning”; pg. 6 8th para., “spinneret orifice”);
Step 6) fabric preparation: the graphene oxide flame-retardant polyester filament obtained in step 5 is woven into a woven fabric with a shuttle loom (pg. 3 para. 11, “woven using fly-shuttle loom”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a fabric preparation method, as taught in ‘076, because it is a known method of forming a flame-retardant fabric in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the flame resistant fabric of the combined references with a fabric preparation method, as taught by ‘076.
The combined references do not explicitly teach a post-treatment method as claimed; however, ‘650 teaches a fireproof fabric prepared by a method including: melt-spinning (pg. 3, spinning braiding, para. 8-9), weaving (pg. 4 para. 10-13), and
Step 7) post-treatment of the fabric: a flame-retardant finishing liquid is prepared, and then heated, the fabric is immersed in a flame-retardant finishing liquid, then passed through an immersion calendar to squeeze out excess finishing liquid, and then dried by a dryer to obtain a flame-retardant fabric (pg. 5 last 2 para., “80 DEG C”, “press bath”; pg. 6 first para. “dried”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include a flame-retardant post-treatment, as suggested by ‘650, because it is a known fireproof textile treatment and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the flame resistant fabric of the combined references with a post treatment as suggested by ‘650.
Regarding Claim 2, ‘075 teaches by mass percentage refined terephthalic acid 60%, ethylene glycol 38.6%, graphene oxide 0.1%, flame retardants (catalyst, antimony trioxide ) 0.8%, and modifiers 0.5% (Table 1, Embodiment 2).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, ‘075 teaches slowing adding graphene oxide to ethylene glycol and mixing with modifiers, flame retardant (antimony trioxide), and PTA. ‘075 teaches mixing uniformly and a temperature of 50-80C for 0.5-1 hour (Example 1 Step 1-2). ‘075 teaches a molar ratio of PTA/EG of 1:1 to 2.
‘075 does not explicitly teach the claimed order of mixing; however, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include any order of mixing because selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the concentrations, times, and temperatures of ‘075, including those within the claimed range, because ‘075 teaches they are all suitable concentrations, times and temperatures for use in the method and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with any of the taught concentrations, times, and temperatures.
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, ‘075 teaches in the step 3 the resulting slurry is added to the polymerization reactor, repeated filling and discharging nitrogen several times, exhaust the air in the reactor, filling nitrogen to the internal pressure of the reactor is 0.2-0.5 MPa, and then slowly heating up to the temperature range of 225-265C (Example 1 Step 3).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the pressures and temperatures of ‘075, including those within the claimed range, because ‘075 teaches they are all suitable pressures and temperatures for use in the method and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with any of the taught pressures and temperatures.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, ‘075 teaches in the step 4, the temperature in the reactor is continued to rise to 230-270C, low vacuum condensation is carried out, the pressure in the reactor is slowly reduced from normal pressure to 200-500 Pa, while the temperature is slowly increased to 280C, the reaction time is controlled to 20-60 min, the reactor stands for 15 minutes and opening the casting head (Example 1 Steps 4-5).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select any of the pressures, times, and temperatures of ‘075, including those within the claimed range, because ‘075 teaches they are all suitable pressures, times, and temperatures for use in the method and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with any of the taught pressures, times, and temperatures.
Regarding Claim 8, ‘314 does not explicitly teach a gram weight of 100-500 g/m2; however, ‘650 teaches fire resistant wearable fabric having a gram weight of 245g/m^2 (pg. 2 7th para., pg. 4 20th para.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fabric weight of the combined references to be a weight as suggested by ‘650 because it is a known fabric weight for fire resistant wearable textiles and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of the combined reference with a weight as taught in ‘650.
Regarding Claim 11, The combined references are silent as to the limiting oxygen index of the protective glove; 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 obviousness has been established, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to the limiting oxygen index limitation, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112. In this situation, the prior art exemplifies the applicant's claimed method and product, so the claimed limiting oxygen index relating to the product are present in the prior art. Absent an objective evidentiary showing to the contrary, the addition of the physical properties to the claim language fail to provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘314 (JP2003193314) in view of ‘075 (CN109679075), ‘076 (CN 107189076B), and ‘650 (CN110499650A) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10-16 above, and further in view of ‘956 (US 3516956) and ‘595 (CN 105002595 A). A machine translation of ‘595 is attached as an English equivalent and is used in the citations below.
Regarding Claim 7, ‘075 teaches blast drying and storing for later use (Example 1 Step 5). ‘075 does not explicitly teach drying temperature is controlled within the range of 80-200C, and the water content of the masterbatch after drying is less than 100 ppm; however, ‘956 teaches drying the granular blend before melting to a moisture content of no more than 0.033% (Example 5). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the moisture content of the granules of the combined references to be any of the moisture contents, as taught in ‘956, including those within the claimed range, because ‘956 teaches they are all suitable granule moisture contents for melt spinning and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with any of the taught moisture contents.
‘956 is silent as to the drying temperature; however, ‘956 teaches drying the granular blend before melting to a moisture content of no more than 0.033% (Example 5). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the drying temperature of the combined references to be an optimized drying temperature in order to achieve a desired moisture content, as suggested by ‘956, and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed drying temperature.
‘075 does not explicitly teach the mixture is added to the screw extruder to heat and melt, and then spun into a bundle; however, ‘956 teaches melting in a screw extruder and spinning into a bundle (col. 1 ln. 40-col. 2 ln. 11). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the melt spinning of the combined references to include a screw extruder and yarn bundle, as suggested by ‘956, because they are known methods of melting for spinning and collecting after spinning in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the fabric of the combined references with a screw extruder and yarn bundle, as taught in ‘956.
‘076 teaches the spinning temperature is 290C, and the spinning speed is 3000 m/min. ‘076 does not explicitly teach a spinning speed of 500-1500 m/min; however, ‘595 teaches melt spinning at a speed of 500-1500 m/min (pg. 5 2nd full para.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the spinning speed of the combined references to include a speed, as suggested by ‘595, because it is a known spinning speed in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the fabric of the combined references with a speed as taught in ‘076.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 7/16/2026, with respect to the objection to the abstract and a portion of the previous Section 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection and rejections has been withdrawn.
Applicant's other arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the field of polymer melt processing, "stable" is a qualitative description of the stream's morphology, meaning that the melt stream is uniform in velocity, diameter, temperature, pressure, etc., with no pulsation, breakage, or uneven thickness. Applicant argues the term "fine" is a qualitative description of the stream's diameter and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention claimed. Applicant argues the term "high-flame-retardant" is well understood and can be quantitatively measured. Applicant argues the term "low vacuum" in the context of condensation reaction is well understood to refer to a vacuum level in the range of 103-104 Pa. Applicant argues the term "slowly adding" is a common term for describing feed rate, as opposed to "rapidly adding" or "added at once." Applicant argues "slowly raising the temperature" is a standard technical term in the field of polymerization reaction engineering, particularly having a recognized and clear process meaning in the esterification and polycondensation reactions of polyesters (PET). Applicant argues "slowly reducing the pressure" is a standard term well understood in the field of polymerization reaction engineering when used in a vacuum control step in PET polycondensation reactions. In response to applicant’s arguments, the argued terms are qualitative and subjective such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not clearly understand the boundaries of protection or limits of the claim. The terms were not explicitly defined by the original disclosure. Applicant argues the terms are well understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art; however, a cursory review of the prior art in this field by the examiner did not provide a well-established definition of the terms and no evidence of the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms has been provided by applicant. The examiner asserts that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).
Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine the protective clothing disclosed in the '314 Publication with the PET disclosed by the '075 Publication. Applicant argues '314 does not teach PET and teaches away from PET in Comparative Examples 1-3 ([0064-0065], [0079-0080], [0086-0087], and Table 3). In response to applicants’ argument, ‘341 teaches the fabric can including combinations of heat resistant materials with polyester and ‘075 suggests a method for preparing a modified graphene polyester composite for functional textiles. The examiner notes that polyethylene terephthalate is a species of polyester and in the textile art is commonly referred to as polyester. Comparative Examples 1-3 of ‘314 present a comparison between PPTA and PET products. These Examples to do not disparage or teach away from the use of a combination of heat-resistant materials with polyester, as taught on pg. 6 2nd full para. of ‘341.
Applicant argues the other references do not cure the deficiencies; however, this is not convincing as discussed above.
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 TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
