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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunematsu et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0270464).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 11, Tsunematsu et al. teaches a fiber product including an infrared absorbing fiber comprising a fiber [0149 and 0174] and an infrared absorbing fine particle dispersion powder and a dispersion liquid composed of particles made of a solid medium having an average particle diameter of 1 micrometer or more and infrared absorbing fine particles dispersed therein, and also describes that the solid medium is a resin (the scope of claims). The particle size distribution is based on scattering intensity measured by a dynamic light scattering method. The particles have a dispersed median particle size of 1-800nm which reads on the particle size distribution having a median diameter of 500 nm or less [0026, 0037 and 0060]. Given the equipment taught used to measure the median and the median diameter taught, it is clear or would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the standard deviation is or to have it in the claimed range to ensure consistency. Both describe dispersions centered in the same submicron to near micron particle range. There is only a modest difference that is with int the variation commonly introduced by different measurement methods. Further, the present specification teaches a standard deviation of 500 or less. Therefore, Tsunematsu et al. reads on the presently claims particle size. In addition, it is also described that the infrared absorbing fine particle dispersion powder is applied to fibers such as clothing or incorporated by kneading (paragraph 01). 02). Then, Example 1 describes that the weight ratio of the polyacrylate polymer (polyacrylic) resin to the infrared absorbing fine particles (Cs tungsten oxide particles having a molar ratio of W to Cs corresponding to 1:0.33) is adjusted so that [resin / infrared absorbing fine particles] is 4, and an infrared absorbing fine particle-dispersed powder is obtained based on the small pieces in which the infrared absorbing fine particles are dispersed in the resin (paragraphs [0139] - [0142]). Here, since the weight ratio of the polymer resin to the infrared absorbing fine particles is 4, it is presumed that the ratio of the infrared absorbing fine particles in the infrared absorbing fine particle dispersed powder is about 20% by mass. The infrared absorbing particles contain one or more oxides including tungsten oxide represented by the general formula MxWyOz wherein M is an element as claimed [0015] and x/y and z/y is as claimed [0015]. Here, in the infrared absorbing fine particle dispersed powder described in Tsunematsu et al., since the infrared absorbing fine particles are dispersed in the polymer resin, the coating resin covers an entire surface of each of the infrared absorbing particles (and therefore form a resin capsule in which the infrared absorbing particles are disposed) contained in the fiber is coated with a solid medium, and the "polymer resin" and the "infrared absorbing fine particle dispersed powder" of Tsunematsu et al. correspond to the "coating resin" and the "organic-inorganic hybrid infrared absorbing particles" of the invention of the present application, respectively. The coating resin is taught as a photocurable resin and is a resin cured by irradiation with ultraviolet light [0170]. The organic-inorganic hybrid infrared absorbing particles are located on the surface and/or interior of the fiber. Tsunematsu et al. does not teach that the infrared absorbing fine particles have a single peak in the scattering intensity reference particle size distribution measured by the dynamic light scattering method. However, given the level of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in composite particles in which inorganic particles coated with an organic substance that if the particle size is uniform, the dispersibility is excellent and therefore obvious to arrive at the single peak as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed peak by the dynamic light scattering method in order to excellent dispersibility and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunematsu et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0270464) in view of Ermecheo (PG Pub. 2019/0316276).
Regarding claims 5-10, Tsunematsu et al. are silent regarding the claimed specifics of the fiber. However, Ermecheo teaches clothing fiber comprising one or more fibers including synthetic (including polyester, polyamide, polyurethane), semi-synthetic (including cellulose fiber), natural fiber (including plant fiber), recycled fiber (including cellulose fiber) and inorganic fibers (including carbon fiber) in order to make a recycled mixed yarn for clothing and thus be environmentally friendly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fibers of Ermecheo in Tsunematsu et al. in order to make a recycled mixed yarn for clothing and thus be environmentally friendly and arrive at the claimed invention.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2012/0316056 teaches an infrared absorbing fiber comprising tungsten oxide particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited art does not teach the claimed particle size, but teaches a particle size of 1 micrometer. The 1 micrometer particle size is powder and Tsunematsu et al. teaches a dispersed median particle size of 1-800nm which reads on the particle size distribution having a median diameter of 500 nm or less [0026, 0037 and 0060]. Therefore, Tsunematsu et al. reads on the presently claims particle size. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights