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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-14 and 16 in the reply filed on 11/13/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected upholstery fabric, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claim 10 is 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.
4. Claim 10 is indefinite because the claim recites that the polyester and cotton are mixed and further recites wherein the polyester and/or cotton are spun together. The recitation of “the polyester and/or cotton” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear how the yarns can be both mixed of polyester and cotton and then spun together only using polyester or cotton.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheper et al., US 6,989,035 B2 in view of Rosenthal et al., US 4,151,322 A.
With regard to claims 1,6, 14 and 16, the patent issued to Scheper et al., teach a textile and textile finishing processes (title and abstract). Scheper et al., teach a textile comprising a blend of natural and synthetic fibers such as cotton and polyester wherein the textile comprises at least 20 wt. % natural fibers (column 10, 35-column 11, 50). Scheper et al., teach that the fabrics can be woven, knitted or non-woven and used for upholstery (column 10, 50-column 11, 5). With regard to the claimed washing/bleaching step, Scheper et al., teach that the fabric can be pretreated. Specifically, Scheper et al., teach that the textiles may be de-sized, which refers to the removal of sizing chemicals such as starch and/or polyvinyl alcohol, which are put on yams prior to weaving to protect individual yarns. The fabrics may be scoured, which refers to the process of removing natural impurities such as oils, fats and waxes and synthetic impurities such as mill grease from fabrics. Mercerization refers to the application of high concentrations of sodium hydroxide (or optionally liquid ammonia) and optionally high temperatures, steam, and tension to a fabric to alter the morphology of fibers, particularly cotton fibers. Fabrics may be mercerized to improve fabric stability, moisture retention and uptake, chemical reactivity, tensile strength, dye affinity, smoothness, and luster. Fabrics may also be compressively stabilized (e.g., SANFORIZED.RTM.) by manipulation/compaction of the fabric in the presence of heat and steam. Finally, bleaching refers to the process of destroying any natural color bodies within the natural fiber. A typical bleaching agent is hydrogen peroxide (column 13, 65-column 14, 26). The Examiner is of the position that the pretreatment methods of Scheper et al., meets the limitation of washing to obtain a bleached fabric. With regard to the claimed heated pressing, Scheper et al., teach that the fabrics may also be compressively stabilized (stabilized (e.g., SANFORIZED.RTM.) by manipulation/compaction of the fabric in the presence of heat and steam as set forth above. Such a method includes the claimed heated compression rollers (see https://www.advancetextile.net/2023/09/sanforizing-process-in-textile-overview.html ). With specific regard to claims 14 Scheper et al., does not teach the specifically claimed temperature and pressure parameters used to compressively stabilize the fabric; however absent unexpected results it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to adjust the temperature and pressure of the compression rollers as a function type fabric, compression thickness and/or end use. It has been held that, where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA). Thus, Examiner is of the position that the claimed heated pressing step is also met. The Examiner is further of the position that based on the disclosure of Scheper et al., it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to use any one or a combination of the disclosed pretreatment methods to prepare the fabric prior to further processing steps and/or end use as an upholstery. With regard to the claimed combustion resistant property, Scheper et al., teach that a finishing bath that can include fire retarding agents (column 7, 5-15). The Examiner is of the position that the combustion resistant property would be met when the fabric is further finished in a bath that includes fire retarding agents.
Scheper et al., does not teach the claimed fabric weight or the specific weight ratio of cotton to polyester.
The patent issued to Rosenthal et al., teach forming a fire retardant fabric comprising a blend of cotton and polyester wherein the blend includes 50-70 wt. % polyester and 30-50 wt. % cotton, specifically 35 wt. % cotton and 65 wt. % polyester as claimed (title, abstract and column 4, 10-20). Rosenthal et al., teach a woven fabric having a basis weight ranging from .05-10 ounces per square yard (e.g., 6 oz/sq yd is approximately 203 gsm)(column 8, 1-15). Said fabric is also used as an upholstery fabric (column 8, line 30).
With specific regard to the claimed twill weave limitation, the Examiner is of the position that claimed 2/1 twill weave is a commonly known weave type (see US 20110275263 A1). Absent unexpected results, it would be within a skill of a worker in the art to form the woven fabrics of Scheper et al., and/or Rosenthal et al., as the claimed twill weave.
The Examiner considers the cited prior art analogous since both references teach forming flame retardant woven textiles using a cotton/polyester blends that can be further used in upholstery applications. As such, it would be within a skilled worker in the art to form the woven fabric of Scheper et al., with specific amounts of cotton and polyester and further having the claimed basis weight range as taught by Rosenthal et al. Specific motivation to combine the teachings of Scheper et al., and Rosenthal et al., is to found in the desire to form a fabric that is suitable as a flame retardant upholstery fabric.
With regard to claims 2 and 4-5, the combination of cited prior art does not specifically teach the weight of the fabric before and after pressing; however, the Examiner is of the position that any compression and/or pressing process would inherently remove (squeeze) excess moisture from any washing or treatment baths. As such, the Examiner is of the position that since the combination of prior art teach the claimed pretreating washing and compression and the claimed basis weight ranges, the weight of the fabric prior to compression would be higher than after compression. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of cited prior art does specifically teach the claimed jet loom apparatus; however, the Examiner is of the position that absent unexpected results it would be within the skill of ordinary worker in the art to form the woven fabrics of Scheper et al., and/or Rosenthal et al., on a commonly known weaving apparatus such as the claimed jet loom.
With regard to claim 8, Scheper et al., teach a pretreatment step that includes sodium hydroxide which is functionally equivalent to the claimed “caustic soda” (see citation above).
With regard to claim 9, Scheper et al., teach a pretreatment step that includes bleaching using hydrogen peroxide (see citation above).
With regard to claims 11-12, Scheper et al., teach that in one embodiment, textiles of the present invention are obtained via a pre-cure process. Specifically, a composition is applied to the fabric, the fabric is typically dried and then heated for a time and at a temperature (i.e., cured) sufficient for the cross-linking of the natural fibers with the cross-linking agent. For example, the fabric may be heated (cured) at a temperature greater than about 130.degree. C., preferably from about 150.degree. C. to about 220.degree. C (column 13, 40-55). Scheper et al., does not specifically teach the claimed irradiation heat; however absent unexpected results it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to use a known heating method such as the claimed irradiation heat.
With regard to claim 16, the combination of prior art does not teach the claimed air permeability; however, it is expected that the claimed air permeability would be exhibited once the woven fabric of the combination of prior art is provided. Alternatively, based on the combined teachings of Scheper et al., and Rosenthal et al., the Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to form the claimed combustion resistant woven (upholstery) fabric with claimed permeability as a function of desired upholstery fabric properties. Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed air permeability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
7. Claim(s) 7, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheper et al., US 6,989,035 B2 in view of Rosenthal et al., US 4,151,322 A B2 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Li et al., US 20110275263 A1.
With regard to claim 7, the combination of prior art does not teach the limitations of claim 7.
The published patent application issued to Li et al., teach a flame retardant woven fabric that can be formed with inherently flame resistant yarns and/or the fabric can be treated with chlorinated, nitrogen or antimony flame retardants (title abstract, paragraphs 0021 and 0026). Based on the teachings of Li et a., it appears that the combustion resistance/flame resistance can be achieved using inherently flame retardant yarns and/or non-brominated/phosphorus flame retardant compositions. The modification involves the mere substitution of one flame retardant material with another material known flame retardant for its suitability as flame retardant and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art.
With regard to claim 10, Scheper et al., teach forming the fabric with yarns comprising a blend of cotton and polyester (see citation above). Scheper et al., teach that "yarn" refers to a product obtained when fibers are aligned. Yarns are products of substantial length and relatively small cross-section. Yarns may be single ply yarns, that is, having one yam strand, or multiple ply yarns, such as 2-ply yam that comprises two single yarns twisted together or 3-ply yarn that comprises three yarn strands twisted together (column 10, 50-65). Scheper et al., and Rosenthal et al., do not specifically teach the claimed yarn forming sub-step.
Li et al., teach forming a flame resistant woven fabric comprising spun yarns (title, abstract and paragraph 0011). The yarns used in making the textile materials of the invention can be any suitable type of yarn. Preferably, the yarns are spun yarns. In such embodiments, the spun yarns can be made from a single type of staple fiber (e.g., spun yarns formed solely from cellulose fibers or spun yarns formed solely from inherent flame resistant fibers), or the spun yarns can be made from a blend of two or more different types of staple fibers (e.g., spun yarns formed from a blend of cellulose fibers and thermoplastic synthetic staple fibers (, such as polyamide fibers). Li et al., also teach that the thermoplastic synthetic polymer can be polyester (paragraph 0017). Such spun yarns can be formed by any suitable spinning process, such as ring spinning, air-jet spinning, or open-end spinning. In certain embodiments, the yarns are spun using a ring spinning process (i.e., the yarns are ring spun yarns). The Examiner is of the position that since the woven fabrics of the Scheper et al., and Rosenthal et al., are made using yarns with blends of cotton and polyester it is obvious based on the disclosure of Li et a., that yarns can be first be formed by spinning cotton and polyester together.
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Scheper et al., and Rosenthal et al., do not teach the claimed stenter. For purposes of applying prior art the Examiner considers a stenter and a tenter functionally equivalent since both devices are used for the same purpose. Li et al., teach using a tenter ranger (paragraph 0044). A tenter range is used in the textile arts to stabilize and stretch the fabric to ensure uniformity in both fabric directions (http://gmtph.com/tenter). Tentering is also known to provide a final polished fabric surface and/or to activate any surface treatments. The Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to tenter the fabric of Scheper et al., in view of Rosenthal et al., as taught by Li et al. Motivation is found in the desire to provide a uniform textile, desirable surface finish and/or to activate any surface treatments.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789