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 amendment filed on 7/30/2026 has been entered.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2008/0299160 to Agboh in view of USPAP 2009/0241504 to Liu and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2023/0218448 to Ratko.
Claim 1, Agboh discloses a functional filament, comprising a polymer matrix and functional nanoparticles dispersed within the polymer matrix, wherein the functional filament has a cross-sectional diameter ranging from 1 µm to 30 µm, and the functional nanoparticles comprise element(s) selected from the group consisting of Au, Ag, Ti, Ge, Zn, Al, Mg, Si, Cu, Ca, Fe, Ba, K, Na, Mn, Ni, Ga, Pt, and combinations thereof (see entire document including [0001], [0007]-[0019], [0026]-[0031], [0035]-[0043], [0060] and Example 3).
Agboh does not appear to mention the nanoparticles having a shell but Liu discloses that it is known in the art to provide a particle with a shell material that contains silane to improve multiple properties including dispersion of the particle within the polymer matrix (see entire document including [0007]-[0011], [0028], [0047], [0048], [0051], [0125] and [0135]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the nanoparticles of Agboh with the claimed shell to improve one or more properties such as dispersion of the particle within the polymer matrix.
Claim 2, the cross-sectional diameter of the functional filament ranges from 5 µm to 20 µm [0043].
Claim 3, an average particle size of the functional nanoparticles ranges from 1 nm to 300 nm [0019].
Claim 4, the functional nanoparticles may comprise Fe ([0029]-[0031]). Agboh does not appear to specifically mention the use of Ti or Ca but Agboh discloses that nanoparticles may comprise any metal or combination of metals [0020] and that the nanoparticles preferably have antimicrobial properties [0030]. Ratko discloses that it is known in the art to include antimicrobial nanoparticles in a fiber and that the nanoparticles may comprise Ti and Ca (see entire document including [0012] and [0034]-[0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include any suitable antimicrobial nanoparticle material(s), such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 5, the functional nanoparticles further comprise element(s) selected from the group consisting of Al, Ba, Cu, Mg, Ni, Zn, Mn, and combinations thereof ([0029]-[0031]).
Claims 6-10, the polymer matrix is selected from the group consisting of polyester, polyurethane (PU), poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polyamide (PA), an amino-comprising polymer, silicone, and mixtures thereof [0027].
Claims 11-15, the polymer matrix comprises polyester [0027].
Claims 16 and 17, considering that the applied prior art teach a filaments with a substantially identical material and diameter ([0027] and [0043]), the claimed a fiber fineness of less than 0.7 denier is inherently taught. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the filament with any suitable fineness, such as claimed, based on the intended use and the desired/required application properties.
Claim 18, Agboh discloses a functional fabric which is manufactured from the fiber material ([0001], [0014], [0033] and [0060]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
