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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendment filed on 6/12/26. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn. Claims 21-28 are newly added. Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 23-26, and 28 are 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.
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.
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) 1-8, 10-17, 22, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards WO_2022005729_A1.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 7, Edwards discloses cellulose acetate fiber blends for thermal insulation (Title) (corresponds to claimed limitation of instant Claim 7) wherein said blend can comprise staple fibers of cellulose acetate having a cut length of not more than 150 mm (paragraph 0050) and blended with 25 wt% of silk fiber (corresponds to claimed secondary fiber of instant Claim 8 and silk fiber of instant Claim 1) (paragraph 0079). Although the instantly claimed limitation requires the weight percent of silk fiber to be more than 25%, the Examiner respectfully submits that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05.
2. Regarding Claims 2, 3, Edwards discloses a cellulose acetate staple fiber cut having a length of less than 150 mm (paragraph 0050).
3. Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Edwards discloses a denier per filament of its staple cellulose acetate being 3.0 or less (Abstract).
5. Regarding Claim 5, Edwards discloses non-round cross-sectional shapes (paragraph 0036).
6. Regarding Claim 6, Edwards discloses a crimp frequency of 1 to 30 (paragraph 0044).
7. Regarding Claim 8, Edwards discloses cellulose acetate fiber blends for thermal insulation (Title) wherein said blend can comprise staple fibers of cellulose acetate having a cut length of not more than 150 mm (paragraph 0050) and blended with 25 wt% of silk fiber (corresponds to claimed secondary fiber of instant Claim 8 and silk fiber of instant Claim 1) (paragraph 0079).
8. Although the instantly claimed limitation required the cut length to be more than 150 mm, the Examiner respectfully submits that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05.
9. Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Edwards discloses blending with 25 wt% of silk fiber (corresponds to claimed fiber of instant Claim 10 and 11) (paragraph 0079).
10. Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Edwards discloses cellulose acetate fiber blends for thermal insulation (Title).
11. Regarding Claim 14, Edwards discloses using the afore-described invention as fills for insulation (paragraph 0001). Edwards discloses that said secondary fiber can be as low as 3 wt% (paragraph 0079), thereby making the concentration of cellulose acetate 97 wt%. In other limitations, it states that the weight percent of its silk fiber can be 25%. Although the instantly claimed limitation requires the weight percent of silk fiber to be more than 25%, the Examiner respectfully submits that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05.
12. Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Edwards discloses cellulose acetate fiber blends for thermal insulation (Title) wherein said blend can comprise staple fibers of cellulose acetate having a cut length of not more than 150 mm (paragraph 0050).
13. Regarding Claim 17, Edwards discloses a denier per filament of its staple cellulose acetate being 3.0 or less (Abstract).
14. Regarding Claims 9, 22, and 27, Edwards does not disclose the claimed fiber cut length. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that differences in fiber length will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here 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 1955). Applicants have not demonstrated any unexpected or unusual results, which accrue from the instant cut ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Applicants have argued that Edwards does not disclose having greater than 25 wt% of silk fibers. As mentioned above, Edwards does disclose using up to 25 wt%. Although the instantly claimed limitation requires the weight percent of silk fiber to be more than 25%, the Examiner respectfully submits that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05. Applicants’ specification does not prove any difference in properties between 25 wt% and >25 wt%, e.g. 25.1 wt%.
Applicants further stated that Edwards does not disclose having a fiber length cut of greater than 150 mm. Although the instantly claimed limitation required the cut length to be more than 150 mm, the Examiner respectfully submits that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05. Applicants’ specification does not prove any difference in properties between 150 mm and >150 mm, e.g. 150.1 mm.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights