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 .
Claims 1-4 are pending as provided with the preliminary amendment of September 13, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 5, “in an amount of 0.1-5 wt% of a material” is confusing as worded as to what “material” is being referred to. Is it the fibre material of lines 1-3 of claim 1? Is it some other material, and if another material, how is it connected to lines 1-3 of claim 1? For the purpose of examination, it is understood that viscose fibre of claim 1, lines 1-3 is referred to, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, lines 5-6, “3-5 % phosphate glass with silver, 1-3.5% silicone and 0.1-0.3 % aliphatic hydrocarbons and 90-95 % water” is confusing as worded as to what units the percents are based on. Is it weight %? Vol%? molar %? Or something else? For the purpose of examination, it is understood any units can be used, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claims 2 and 4: the “total contact time” is confusing as worded, since the biocidal material is to incorporate into the fiber, so it can be considered that the composition remains. Is it supposed to be the amount of mixing/incorporating time until spinning? Until drying? Something else? For the purpose of examination, it is understood that any of the listed options can be used, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 3, lien 3, “IR” should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1986914 (hereinafter ‘914) in view of Gilchrist et al (US 6143318), WO 03/032084 (hereinafter ‘084), CN 1995500 (hereinafter ‘500) and CN 110002761 (hereinafter ‘761), further as evidenced by Carls et al (US 2020/0240051) .
Claims 1, 3: ‘914 provides that it is desired to make treated viscose yarn/filament (note pages 2-3, translation). The process includes providing cellulose pulp and treating with the addition of carbon disulfide to provide cellulose xanthate (viscose) (note page 3, translation). Immediately thereafter, a step is provided that includes a dissolution/liquefaction step, and where a biocidal composition (from a silver ion mother liquor) would be added with this step, and so incorporating a biocidal composition in the fiber material to be formed (pages 2-4, translation). It is indicated that silver ion is incorporated (page 2, translation). The amount of silver incorporated is to be 0.5 % or greater (of the material/fiber) (page 2, translation). The composition also contains water (note pages 2-4, translation). Other material can also be present in the composition (note the dispersant) (note pages 2-4, translation).
(A) Specifically as to the biocidal treatment being immediately following the addition of carbon disulfide, as part of a neutralization, dissolution and liquefaction step, Carls evidences that forming yarns by the viscose process conventionally provides that cellulose is converted to cellulose xanthate by reaction with sodium hydroxide and carbon disulphide and then dissolved in sodium hydroxide solution, extruded through a spinneret into an acid bath and neutralized, causing the cellulose to precipitate (note 0008). Therefore, it would be understood to be obvious when providing the process of ‘914 that the addition of the silver composition occurs during a step with dissolution, neutralization and liquefaction with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since as evidenced by Carls, immediately after the xanthate reaction there would be a step with dissolving (dissolution and also giving liquefaction) and neutralization, and this would correspond with ‘914 indicating to provide the silver composition to the viscose material at the dissolving step immediately after the xanthate reaction.
(B) Further as to the composition of the biocidal composition, amounts in the composition and amount of composition in the viscose fiber, ‘914 indicates that the composition contains silver ion providing particles, providing a controlled ratio of silver ion material to water, with an example concentration of 5-15 % silver ion material in water, and also a dispersant addition (note pages 2-3, translation).
Gilchrist notes how silver ion particulate material can be provided in the form of silver containing phosphate glass, where the glass will release silver ions to give desired anti-bacterial/biocidal effect (note column 1, lines 5-10, column 2, lines 5-15, column 2, lines 55-60, column 3, lines 5-15, column 4, lines 40-50), and can be incorporated in various materials (note column 3, lines 30-35).
‘084 describes how when providing low viscosity compositions with particulates (note page 6, lines 10-20), solutions can be provided with silver phosphate glass particles (in amounts up to 10 vol %), where the solution can also contain solvents and other additives (note page 55, line 30 to page 56, line 5). It is indicated that the solvent can be organic solvent, such as hydrocarbons, alone or in the presence of water (note page 26, lines 5-30). It is also indicated that the compositions can include thermoset polymers, such as silicone (note page 28, line 4 to page 29, line 15). Such polymers can hep with adhesion to a surface (note page 53, lines 5-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify ‘914 as evidenced by Carls to further provide the biocidal composition contains silver ion particulate material of ‘914 in the form of silver phosphate glass/phosphate glass with silver, balance water, aliphatic hydrocarbons and silicone as suggested by Gilchrist and ‘084 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘914 indicates providing a silver composition with silver ion providing material in particle form and water and additional material, and Gilcrist indicates that ion providing silver material can be provided in the form of phosphate glass with silver, and ‘084 indicates that solution material with silver phosphate glass can be provided using water and hydrocarbons as solvent, where hydrocarbon would include aliphatic hydrocarbons, and additionally include silicone thermoset polymer which helps with adhesion to a surface (which here would be the viscose fibers). As to the amount of each material, ‘914 indicates that various amounts of materials can be used in solution, and indicates providing a controlled amount of silver to the fibers, and with desire to control the amounts of materials for controlled effect, it would have been obvious to optimize the amounts of the different materials and amount in the fiber material, giving values for the claimed amounts in the claimed ranges. Note MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) with “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature 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)”.
(C) Additionally as to also adding a luminescent additive as claimed to the fiber,
‘500 further describes making a viscose fiber adding various functional materials to the fiber, including silver additive, where desirable combination features can be provided, such as an IR active material/luminous material and also antibiotic (biocidal) material such as the silver material, where the materials are provided in solutions and added to the viscose solution with the addition to viscose glue after carbon disulfide reaction (note using shellfish material for IR active material) (note pages 2-4, translation).
Additionally as to the luminescent material added, ‘761 indicates a known luminescent material with luminescence when irradiated with 980 nm IR (note meeting features of claim 3) (note the abstract), where the material includes providing a composition with silica, alumina, calcium fluoride, erbium (III) fluoride (ErF3) and Yb (III) fluoride (YbF3), where TmF3 can also be present in an amount optimized to be in the claimed range (note the range and teachings of page 2, translation). There can be no EuF3, since it is not listed as required. Various possible ranges as to the amounts of materials are provided (note page 2, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify ‘914 in view of Gilchrist and ‘084 as evidenced by Carls to further provide the luminescent additive as suggested by ‘500 and ‘761 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘500 indicates that it would also be desirable to add, along with silver biocidal material, luminescent material that would act as a marker with IR light, and ‘761 indicates an IR material that would act as a marker and luminescent at 980 nm (as desired by claim 3) would be a material that includes silica, alumina, calcium fluoride, erbium (III) fluoride (ErF3) and Yb (III) fluoride (YbF3), where TmF3 can also be present in an amount optimized to be in the claimed range (note the range and teachings of page 2, translation), giving a desirable material to use. Furthermore, silica gel and alumina gel would be predictably acceptable to use for the silica and alumina providing of ‘761 as known ways to provide such silica and alumina. Furthermore, as to the specific amount of the luminescent additive to use based on the amount of material, and the specific amounts of silica gel, alumina gel, calcium fluoride, erbium (III) fluoride (ErF3) and Yb (III) fluoride (YbF3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amounts used, since ‘761 notes various possible amounts can be adjusted, and the amount per the material made would need to be in an amount to give the desired luminesce, and thus also be optimize, and such optimization would give values in the claimed range. Note "[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) as discussed above.
Claims 2, 4: As to the amount of contact time between the biocidal composition and the viscose, ‘914 indicates how the biocidal composition and the viscose would be mixed together and sent to the spinning machine to make the fiber with the silver particles (note page 2, translation). For claim 2, it can be considered therefore, that the contact time is either (1) permanent, which would be longer than 5 minutes, since the powder remains, or (2) for claims 2, 4: the contact time could be the mixing in the blenders as described at page 2, translation, and this would be optimized to be that which gives the desired amount of mixing, which optimization would give values in the claimed range. Note "[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).
GB 2412083 also describes providing silver phosphate glass to fibers for biocidal treatment (note pages 3-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights