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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-4 and 9-11, in the reply filed on 07/16/2026 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Claims 5-8 and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Lundin et al. (US 2022/0018045 A1) in view of Amemiya et al. (US 2018/0077928 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lundin discloses a fiber having a polymer and an insect repellent [abstract].
Lundin does not disclose that the polymer is recycled polyethylene terephthalate.
Amemiya discloses an insect repellant fiber with a polymer, such as polyethylene terephthalate [abstract] [0030]. Amemiya teaches that polyethylene terephthalate is able to maintain the shape of the fiber and release the insect repellent to the outside of the insect repellent fiber and is advantageous for securing strength [0030].
Since Lundin generally teaches a fiber having a polymer and an insect repellent, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include polyethylene terephthalate, within the teachings of Lundin, because Amemiya teaches an insect repellent fiber with a polymer, such as polyethylene terephthalate. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use polyethylene terephthalate because Amemiya teaches that polyethylene terephthalate is able to maintain the shape of the fiber and release the insect repellent to the outside of the insect repellent fiber and is advantageous for securing strength [0030].
Furthermore, generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, since Lundin generally taught polymer materials for the fiber, it is prima facie obvious to select polyethylene terephthalate for incorporation into the fiber composition based on its recognized suitability for the intended use as a polymer for an insect repellent fiber, as taught by Amemiya.
Further regarding claim 1, while Amemiya does not disclose that the polyethylene terephthalate is recycled. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when there is close structural similarity between chemical compounds. See MPEP 2144.09. In this case, polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Amemiya would be reasonably expected to have close structural similarity and similar utility to “recycled polyethylene terephthalate”, as claimed.
Claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious because Lundin discloses that the fiber may contain more than one repellant and suitable repellants include picaridin and DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) [0035] [0003].
Claim 3 is rendered prima facie obvious because Lundin discloses the picaridin is incorporated in an amount of 10, 30 or 50 wt.% with respect to the polymer [0040]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious because Lundin discloses the composition is in the form of an electrospun fiber [0040].
Regarding claim 9, Lundin discloses a fiber having a polymer and an insect repellent [abstract]. Lundin discloses that the fiber may contain more than one repellant and suitable repellants include picaridin and DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) [0035] [0003].
Lundin does not disclose that the polymer is polyethylene terephthalate.
Amemiya discloses an insect repellant fiber with a polymer, such as polyethylene terephthalate [abstract] [0030]. Amemiya teaches that polyethylene terephthalate is able to maintain the shape of the fiber and release the insect repellent to the outside of the insect repellent fiber and is advantageous for securing strength [0030].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include polyethylene terephthalate, within the teachings of Lundin, as taught by Amemiya, as previously discussed.
Claim 10 is rendered prima facie obvious because Lundin discloses the picaridin is incorporated in an amount of 10, 30 or 50 wt.% with respect to the polymer [0040]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 11 is rendered prima facie obvious because Lundin discloses the composition is in the form of an electrospun fiber [0040].
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Lundin et al. (US 2022/0018045 A1) in view of Amemiya et al. (US 2018/0077928 A1) and further in view of Sarda et al (J Polym Sci, 2021, 1–25).
Regarding claim 1, Lundin discloses a fiber having a polymer and an insect repellent [abstract].
Lundin does not disclose that the polymer is recycled polyethylene terephthalate.
Amemiya discloses an insect repellant fiber with a polymer, such as polyethylene terephthalate [abstract] [0030]. Amemiya teaches that polyethylene terephthalate is able to maintain the shape of the fiber and release the insect repellent to the outside of the insect repellent fiber and is advantageous for securing strength [0030].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include polyethylene terephthalate, within the teachings of Lundin, as taught by Amemiya, as previously discussed.
As previously discussed, Amemiya does not disclose that the polyethylene terephthalate is recycled, however, claim 1 is believed to be rendered prima facie obvious because polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Amemiya, would be reasonably expected to have close structural similarity and similar utility to “recycled polyethylene terephthalate”, as claimed.
In the alternative, Sarda teaches that polyethylene terephthalate is a versatile material with the ability to be recycled (abstract). Sarda teaches that using recycled polyethylene terephthalate is sustainable, reduces the carbon footprint and is environmentally friendly (abstract; pg. 14-15; pg. 17-19; pg. 21).
Since the combined teachings of the prior art teach polyethylene terephthalate, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include recycled polyethylene terephthalate, within the combined teachings of the prior art, because Sarda teaches that using recycled polyethylene terephthalate is sustainable, reduces the carbon footprint, and is environmentally friendly (abstract; pg. 14-15; pg. 17-19; pg. 21).
Claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious because Lundin discloses that the fiber may contain more than one repellant and suitable repellants include picaridin and DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) [0035] [0003].
Claim 3 is rendered prima facie obvious because Lundin discloses the picaridin is incorporated in an amount of 10, 30 or 50 wt.% with respect to the polymer [0040]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious because Lundin discloses the composition is in the form of an electrospun fiber [0040].
Claims 1-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Thum et al. (Electrospun Multifunctional Composite Fibers for Improved Warfighter Insect Protection, 2022).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Thum discloses an insect repellent fiber with a polymer and the insect repellents picaridin and DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) (pg. 5, first full paragraph) (pg. 42, bottom paragraph). Thum teaches that polyethylene terephthalate is a polymer to be used in the composition (pg. 3, first paragraph).
Thum is not believed to be anticipatory because Thum could be construed as not clearly and unequivocally disclosing the claimed invention or directing those skilled in the art to the claimed invention without any need for picking, choosing and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference. Namely, one skilled in the art would need to choose to include polyethylene terephthalate (pg. 3, first paragraph) within the fiber (pg. 5, first full paragraph).
Nevertheless, claims 1 and 9 rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Thum, because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, to yield predictable results. In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., polymer fiber with picaridin and DEET, polyethylene terephthalate as a polymer material) were known in the prior art (e.g., Thum) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results (e.g., a composition) to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Further regarding claim 1, while Thum does not disclose that the polyethylene terephthalate is recycled. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when there is close structural similarity between chemical compounds. See MPEP 2144.09. In this case, polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Thum would be reasonably expected to have close structural similarity and similar utility to “recycled polyethylene terephthalate”, as claimed.
Claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious because Thum discloses the insect repellent is a combination of picaridin and DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) (pg. 5, first full paragraph).
Claims 3 and 10 are rendered prima facie obvious because Thum discloses that DEET and picaridin were incorporated in an amount of 50 wt.% with respect to the polymer material (pg. 42, bottom paragraph) (pg. 10, second paragraph). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claims 4 and 11 are rendered prima facie obvious because Thum discloses that the fiber is an electrospun fiber (pg. 5, first full paragraph).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Thum et al. (Electrospun Multifunctional Composite Fibers for Improved Warfighter Insect Protection, 2022) in view of Sarda et al (J Polym Sci, 2021, 1–25).
Regarding claim 1, Thum discloses an insect repellent fiber with a polymer and the insect repellents picaridin and DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) (pg. 5, first full paragraph) (pg. 42, bottom paragraph). Thum teaches that polyethylene terephthalate is a polymer to be used in the composition (pg. 3, first paragraph).
Claim 1 is rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Thum, because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, to yield predictable results, as discussed above.
As previously discussed, Thum does not disclose that the polyethylene terephthalate is recycled, however, claim 1 is believed to be rendered prima facie obvious because polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Thum, would be reasonably expected to have close structural similarity and similar utility to “recycled polyethylene terephthalate”, as claimed.
In the alternative, Sarda teaches that polyethylene terephthalate is a versatile material with the ability to be recycled (abstract). Sarda teaches that using recycled polyethylene terephthalate is sustainable, reduces the carbon footprint and is environmentally friendly (abstract; pg. 14-15; pg. 17-19; pg. 21).
Since Thum generally teaches polyethylene terephthalate, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include recycled polyethylene terephthalate, within the teachings of Thum, because Sarda teaches that using recycled polyethylene terephthalate is sustainable, reduces the carbon footprint and is environmentally friendly (abstract; pg. 14-15; pg. 17-19; pg. 21).
Claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious because Thum discloses the insect repellent is a combination of picaridin and DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) (pg. 5, first full paragraph).
Claim 3 is rendered prima facie obvious because Thum discloses that DEET and picaridin were incorporated in an amount of 50 wt.% with respect to the polymer material (pg. 42, bottom paragraph) (pg. 10, second paragraph).
Claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious because Thum discloses that the fiber is an electrospun fiber (pg. 5, first full paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights