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 .
Currently claims 1-14 are pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6 and 8-14 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-6 and 8-14 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 which is objected to above as being a multiple dependent claim which depends from another multiple dependent claim. Accordingly claim 7 has also not been further treated on the merits due to its dependency from claim 6.
In claim 1, the preamble should start with “A lyocell fiber”, so that when the lyocell fiber is being referred to in later claims, it is clear that it is referring back to this portion of claim 1.
In claims 2-3, the preamble should begin with "The lyocell fiber" so that it is clear the claims are referring back to the lyocell fiber of claim 1, and not a different material.
Claim 3 is objected to because BaSO4 should read BaSO4.
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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “characterized in that the matting agent comprises between 2 wt.-% and 5 wt.-% BaSO4 and less than 1 wt.-% TiO2, with respect to fiber weight” in lines 1-3. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the percentages are with respect to the total matting agent as suggested by “the matting agent comprises…” or whether the percentages are with respect to the fiber weight as suggested by “with respect to fiber weight”. Amending the claim to recite -- characterized in that the matting agent comprises BaSO4 and TiO2, and the lyocell fiber comprises between 2 wt.-% and 5 wt.-% BaSO4 and less than 1 wt.-% TiO2, with respect to fiber weight—or a similar amendment would aid in overcoming the rejection.
Claim 2 recites a similar rejection as claim 1 above, and is indefinite for the same reasons. Amending the claim to recite –characterized in that the lyocell fiber comprises…-- or a similar amendment would aid in overcoming the rejection.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the fiber matrix” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on its dependency from claims 1 and 2, rejected above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 2007/0249773) in view of Gannon (US 5725821).
With respect to claims 1-2, Becker teaches a TiO2 containing polymer material in which part of the TiO2 content is replaced by particulate inorganic substances having a lower crystal hardness than anatase (paragraph [0008]). BaSO4 is preferred as the particulate inorganic substance in order to ultimately achieve the desired degree of matting while reducing the potential for degradation reactions compared to using TiO2 exclusively (paragraph [0010]).
When the additive mixture is used in synthetic fibers, the solids content ranges from 0.1 to 5 wt%, preferably from 0.15 to 0.5 wt% or from 0.5 to 3 wt% (paragraph [0014]). The weight ratio of TiO2 to particulate inorganic substance is preferably in the range of 20 to 95 wt% for the TiO2 and 5 to 80 wt% for the particulate inorganic substance, e.g. 50 wt% of TiO2 and 50 wt% of particulate inorganic substance, or 33 wt% and 67 wt% respectively, or 25 wt% and 75 wt% respectively (paragraph [0015]). This results in the fiber having 0.02-4.75 wt%, e.g. 0.05-2.5 wt%, 0.033-1.65 wt%, or 0.025-1.25 wt% TiO2 and 0.005-4 wt%, e.g. 0.05-2.5 wt%, 0.067-3.35 wt%, or 0.075-3.75 wt% particulate inorganic substance (BaSO4).
The weight percentages of BaSO4 and TiO2 ranges of Becker substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 1-2. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Becker, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Becker teaches the polymer material may be viscose or cellulose acetate (paragraph [0011]), but is silent as to the polymer material being lyocell.
Gannon teaches that lyocell fibers are known for their impressive textile-physical properties, such as tenacity, in comparison with fibers such as viscose rayon fibers (col. 1, lines 25-28). Lyocell fibers may be unpigmented or pigmented, for example by incorporating a matt pigment such as titanium dioxide (col. 3, lines 35-38).
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 polymer material of Becker to be lyocell because it is known in the art to provide impressive textile-physical properties such as tenacity, and is able to incorporate matting agents such as titanium dioxide.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 2007/0249773) in view of Gannon (US 5725821) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Hubbeling (US 2044432).
With respect to claim 3, Becker in view of Gannon teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 above.
Becker further teaches the inorganic particles are preferably of a similar size to the TiO2 used, but is silent as to the specific size of the particles.
Hubbeling teaches a cellulose yarn comprising titanium dioxide and barium sulfide (page 2, lines 15-38). The titanium dioxide average particle size is approximately 0.75 microns, however after they have been introduced into the cellulosic solution agglomerations occur which subsequently cause clogging of the spinnerets during production (page 1, lines 1-22). The size of the particles can be maintained and evenly dispersed throughout the cellulosic solution by mixing with the particles of barium sulfate in very fine form (page 2, lines 44-48).
Since both Becker in view of Gannon and Hubbeling teach cellulosic fibers comprising titanium dioxide and barium sulfate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the titanium dioxide and barium sulfate particles to have an average size of about 0.75 microns in order to prevent clogging of the spinnerets during production. It further would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the particle size distribution should not vary from the practical average particle size of 0.75 microns (see e.g., page 2, lines 3-7 of Hubbeling) in order to ensure the spinneret does not clog.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carls (US 2020/0291551)1 discloses a denim fabric comprising warp and weft yarns wherein at least one of the warp yarns and the weft yarns consists of lyocell filaments (abstract). Denim is known to be dyed with an indigo dye (paragraph [0002]).
Canova (US 2011/0059037) discloses inorganic filler additives for polymer compositions having a mean particle size of less than 2 microns (paragraph [0014]) wherein the inorganic filler is preferably a mixture of titanium dioxide, barium sulphate, and tourmaline (paragraph [0021]). Suitable polymer materials include cellulose esters such as cellulose acetate, cellulose propionate, rayon, viscose, and polymers of the same family (paragraph [0015]). The titer of the resulting filament is 1.2 dtex (paragraph [0040]).
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 Cited in IDS