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 .
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0332503 to Chang in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0152429 to Hsiao and CN 113445337 to Cai.
Regarding claims 1-10, Chang teaches an infrared reflecting fiber including 76.0 parts by weight to 88.5 parts by weight of a carrier, 1.8 parts by weight to 4.0 parts by weight of an infrared reflecting composition, and 2.5 parts by weight to 7.5 parts by weight of a titanium dioxide containing composition (Chang, Abstract). Chang teaches that a content of 1.0 wt% to 1.5 wt% of an infrared reflecting colorant, including a yellow titanium-nickel-antimony metal composite material, and balance of the carrier are mixed (Id., paragraphs 0010-0012, 0034). Chang teaches performing a liquid grinding step to a titanium dioxide, performing a drying step, and evenly mixing 74 parts by weight to 78 parts by weight of a substrate powder, and 18 parts by weight to 22 parts by weight of the titanium dioxide (Id., paragraph 0023). Chang teaches that the infrared reflecting composition may include 74 parts by weight to 78 parts by weight of a substrate powder, and 18 parts by weight to 22 parts by weight of an infrared reflecting colorant (Id., paragraph 0032). Chang teaches that the infrared reflecting composition may further undergo kneading granulation to form masterbatches (plastic granules), so as to improve the storage convenience (Id., paragraph 0040). Chang teaches performing a melt-spinning step to obtain the infrared reflecting fiber, wherein the fiber may be a single-component fiber (Id., paragraphs 0053-0054).
Regarding the weight percent and parts by weight of the claimed components, Chang appears to teach either substantially similar or overlapping a weight percents or parts by weight as claimed. Note that 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Additionally, Chang teaches an infrared reflecting fiber including 76.0 parts by weight to 88.5 parts by weight of a carrier, 1.8 parts by weight to 4.0 parts by weight of an infrared reflecting composition, and 2.5 parts by weight to 7.5 parts by weight of a titanium dioxide containing composition, and 6.0 parts by weight to 16.0 parts by weight of a color adjusting composition (Chang, paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the infrared reflecting fiber of Chang, and adjusting and varying the amounts of each of the nylon, near-infrared reflecting dye, and titanium dioxide, such as within the claimed ranges, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional infrared reflecting fiber having the desired properties based on the totality of the teachings of Chang.
Chang does not appear to teach the claimed weaving process, the claimed nylon, and post-treatment dyeing process.
Regarding the claimed weaving process and the claimed nylon, Chang teaches that the substrate powder or carrier includes polyethylene terephthalate or other polyester, wherein the carrier may be a single component or a mixture of components (Chang, paragraph 0031). Additionally, Hsiao teaches a method of preparing a near infrared shielding masterbatch including the steps of preparing and compounding a composition, and then pelletizing the composition (Hsiao, Abstract). Hsiao teaches that any thermoplastic polymer may be used, including polyester and polyamide, wherein the weight percent of the thermoplastic polymer of the total composition is about 67% to about 98.7% (Id., paragraphs 0047-0049). Hsiao teaches that the fibers can be plain-woven (Id., paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the infrared reflecting fiber of Chang, wherein the carrier is polyamide, and wherein the fibers are woven, as taught by Hsiao, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional infrared reflecting fiber comprising a polymer carrier known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for similar fibers, and which can be predictably formed into an end-product by a known process.
Regarding the post-treatment dyeing process, Cai teaches a method of uniformly dyeing a fabric (Cai, Abstract, paragraphs 0003-0006), including performing a color strength (K/S) analysis (Id., paragraph 0010), wherein the color strength value of the fabric is less than 20 (Id., paragraph 0012) based on the desired color (Id., paragraphs 0028-0029). Cai teaches that different dyes are suitable for different base materials, including polyester and nylon (Id., paragraph 0029). Cai teaches that the method for uniformly dyeing fabric reducing dye waste while improving the dyeing uniformity of the fabric (Id., paragraph 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the woven fabric of the prior art combination, and further dyeing the fabric to provide a K/S value, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Cai, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional woven fabric which can be predictably dyed and provided with a color strength value based on the desired aesthestics and dyeing uniformity.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the prior art combination teaches forming a substantially similar woven fabric with an infrared reflecting fiber comprising a substantially similar composition as claimed. Therefore, although the prior art combination does not appear to specifically teach the claimed K/S value of the fabric prior to post-treatment, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed K/S values are predictably resulting based on the ranges of the materials in the composition. Additionally, the prior art combination recognizes the claimed K/S value. Therefore, the claimed K/S values would appear to naturally flow from the teachings of the prior art.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the woven fabric of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the composition and the resulting K/S value, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional woven fabric having the desired color strength suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed denier. However, it is within the level of ordinary skill, to determine a suitable denier, such as claimed, based on the desired end-use in a fabric, such as the desired comfort and infrared protection.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Hsiao and Cai, as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of USPN 5,503,917 to Hughes.
Regarding claim 8, as set forth above, the claimed denier would appear to be obvious one of ordinary skill. Alternatively, Hughes teaches a fabric having both a high degree of user comfort and a high degree of Ultraviolet Radiation protection, wherein a preferred yarn is at least 40 denier by 40 denier, such as nylon (Hughes, Abstract, column 1 line 58 to column 2 line 20, column 3 lines 46-60), wherein the fabric is woven (Id., column 2 line 43 to column 3 line 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the woven fabric of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the denier of the fiber, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Hughes, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional woven fabric having the desired comfort and protection suitable for the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed June 16, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the selection of nylon is not a mere substitution, as the carrier is the key to enabling the subsequent post-treatment dyeing process to achieve a dark-colored fabric. Additionally, Applicants argue that Chang is directed to polyester-based fiber system and does not address post-treatment dyeability, whereas Hsiao mentions nylon but is concerned solely with near-infrared shielding performance, and mentions nothing about whether a nylon-carrier masterbatch would allow the resulting fabric to be dyed to dark colors.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Rejection set forth above is based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art. As set forth above, Chang teaches an infrared reflecting fiber comprising the claimed components, using a single component polyester or mixture of components as a carrier. Hsiao establishes forming a near infrared shielding masterbatch using a thermoplastic polymer including polyester and polyamide. Therefore, for near infrared applications, the prior art combination establishes that either polyester or polyamide are suitable carriers. Additionally, Applicants’ arguments do not address Cai, which establishes dyeing of polyester or nylon fabrics having various color strength values that overlap with the claimed values. Therefore, since fabrics are well-known in the art as being dyeable, and since the prior art combination establishes that nylon fabrics are known in the art as being predictably dyeable as claimed, the prior art combination renders obvious the claimed invention.
Applicants argue that the claimed upper limit of colorant and the ranges disclosed in Chang are technically distinct and serve fundamentally different purposes, as Chang’s range is designed for a polyester-carrier system and the upper limit of the present invention is linked to the ability to achieve dark coloration. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Chang teaches in some embodiments a content of 1.0 wt/% of the infrared reflecting composition, as set forth above, Chang teaches that the amount of infrared reflecting composition may vary including within the claimed range. Note that claim 1 only requires a post-treatment dyeing process and does not require any color values.
Applicants argue that the post-treatment dyeing process is a specific dark-dyeing process with a clear technical goal, whereas Cai’s K/S value setting encompasses and extremely broad range. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claim recites a post-treatment dyeing process, Applicants do not claim properties or steps associated with the dyeing process. As set forth in Cai, dyeing a polyester or nylon fabric having K/S values that overlap with the claimed values was known. It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to determine a suitable color value based on the desired application and aesthetics. Applicants have not provided evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights