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 Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompany remarks dated 2/11/26. Applicant has amended Claims 1-4, 15-17 and 22; cancelled claim 19 and added new claim 23. The pending claims at this time are 1-18 and 20-23 all of which stand rejected.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims over come the issues raised in the 112-2 rejections set forth in the previous office action. All of the 112-2 rejections are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 and 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on the combination of references now applied.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12, 15-18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150203995A1 issued to Adams et al. in view of in view of JP2015055026 A issued to Mitani et al.
Regarding modified Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment comprising: a fabric material comprising a woven fabric, the fabric comprising filament yarns comprising a polymer, the filament yarns comprising polyester filament yarns, the woven fabric having been pretreated to remove cyclic and linear oligomers from the polyester polymer of the filament yarns, the woven fabric further comprising an anti-static agent; a particle capturing treatment applied to the fabric material, the particle capturing treatment comprising a particle resistant agent, the particle resistant agent comprising a non-fluorinated polymer; and wherein the treated fabric material has been flattened, and wherein the garment comprises a head covering, a frock, coveralls, or a foot covering, and wherein the treated fabric material displays a particle emission rate of less than 500 particles having an average particle size of 0.5 microns or greater after 25 laundry cycles when tested according to the Helmke Drum Test;
Applicant is directed to the teachings of Adams et al. Adams et al.’s invention is directed towards a woven fabric comprising filament yarns. The filament yarns may be comprised of a polyetherimide polymers and further comprise polyester fibers as well [¶ 0012, 0065, 0073 and claim 13]. The woven fabric may provide flame resistance as well as static/anti-static control. The woven fabric can be employed to provide garments, such as protective garments for a cleanroom [abstract]. The protective garments include, for instance, footwear, footwear covers, trousers, jackets, coats, lab coats, frocks, shirts, headwear, hoods, bouffants, gloves, aprons, smocks, masks, face veils, and the like. [¶¶ 0113-0114].
The wovens are made from a first polyetherimide multifilament yarn and a second yarn which can be carbon. [¶ 0012]. The yarn which is carbon is equivalent to Applicant’s antistatic agent. The yarns may also comprise polyester fibers as well [¶ 0012, 0065, 0073 and claim 13].
Adams et al at ¶ 0083 teach that coatings or finishes, if applied, should be applied to the fabric and garment without compromising the flame resistant properties or the static/anti-static control properties of the fabric. In one embodiment, the fabric and garment may not contain any finishes or coatings. At ¶ 0084, the fabric may be treated with a durable water resistant treatment which may comprise composition such as a polyurethane, an aromatic compound containing halogen, antimony oxide, etc. In another embodiment, the fabric may be treated with an anti-odor agent that may comprise metal ions, such as silver ions. The polyurethane treatment does not contain fluorine and compositionally is equivalent to the particle capturing treatment comprising a particle resistant agent, the particle resistant agent comprising a non-fluorinated polymer.
The treated fabric/garment of Adams et al, as shown at ¶¶ 0105-0110, is tested according to the Helmke Drum Test in accordance with IEST RP CC0003.4 after 25 launderings. This test provides an indication of the cleanliness based on airborne particles. In general, a size of 0.5 μm and larger may be used as the basis for evaluation. Category I garment will exhibit a particle emission rate of less than 1,200 particles/minute, a Category II garment will exhibit a particle emission rate of from 1,200-12,000 particles/minute, and a Category III garment will exhibit a particle emission rate of from 12,000-120,000 particles/minute. The above mentioned particle emission rates are provided based on a particle size of 0.5 μm and larger. However, according to the test, particle emission rates may be also be conducted according to the test for particles having a particle size of 0.3 μm and larger, a particle size of 1.0 μm and larger, or a particle size of 5.0 μm and larger.
Adams discloses a woven fabric including polyester multifilament’s. Applicant's amended claims require a treatment process onto the product. Patentability is dependent the product not the manner in which the product is made. See MPEP 2113.
Adams teaches polyester multifilament’s and does not mention that the polyester filaments are pretreated to remove cyclic and linear oligomers from the polyester polymers or that the treated fabric material has been flattened.
This is remedied by the teachings JP 2015055026A issued to Mitani et al.
Mitani et al., teaches making high density woven fabrics with polyester multifilament’s comprising an oligomer removing step at a high temperature treatments with alkaline liquid soda ash.
Mitani et al., also teach that the fabric can be flat as known looms such as an air jet loom, a water jet loom, and a rapier room may be used as a loom for weaving a high-density fabric. The structure of the high-density fabric is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include flat, twill, satsuko, and changed structures thereof.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used the treatment of Mitani on the fabric of Adams et al. One would have been motivated to do so create a high-density fabric with little dyeing unevenness even in dyeing other than alkali dyeing.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the treated fabric material displays a particle emission rate of less than 500 particles having an average particle size of 0.5 microns or greater after 100 laundry cycles and displays a particle emission rate of less than 300 particles having an average particle size of 0.5 microns or greater after 25 laundry cycles; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0105-0110.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the treated fabric material displays a hydrostatic head according to Test AATCC-127-2018 of greater than 700 mm water after 25 laundry cycles; With regards to requirements of testing against the specific standards of Test AATCC-127-2018, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties of hydrostatic head according to Test AATCC-127-2018 of greater than 700 mm water after 25 laundry cycles, would be inherent if not obvious to the fabric of Adams modified by Mitani et al., It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same wove, same fibers, same treatments and final end use). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Adams modified by Mitani et al., product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the treated fabric material displays a hydrostatic head according to Test AATCC-127-2018 of greater than 700 mm water after 50 laundry cycles; With regards to requirements of testing against the specific standards of Test AATCC-127-2018, it is the position of the Office that the claimed resultant properties of a hydrostatic head according to Test AATCC-127-2018 of greater than 700 mm water after 50 laundry cycles, would be inherent if not obvious to the fabric of Adams modified by Mitani et al. It is reasonable to presume so, as support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. same wove, same fibers, same treatments and final end use). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties as set forth above, it would obviously have been present once the Adams modified by Mitani et al., product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, et al. (CCPA) 186 USPQ 80.
Regarding Claim 12, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the particle capturing treatment applied to the fabric is fluorine-free; Applicant is directed to rationale set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the particle resistant agent has a mean bio-based carbon content of at least about 30%; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0012, where Adams teaches an amount of from about 0.1 wt. % to about 10 wt. %.
Regarding Claim 16, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the fabric material has a basis weight of from about 2 osy to about 8 osy and wherein the woven fabric comprises multifilament yarns, the fabric having a yarn density in a warp direction of from about 125 yarns per inch to about 200 yarns per inch and in a fill direction of from about 70 yarns per inch to about 120 yarns per inch; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0080-0082 for the weave density (warp and weft) and for the basis weight Applicant is directed to ¶0090. Multifilament yarns are taught at ¶ 0010.
Regarding Claim 17, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the anti-static agent comprises conductive fibers, the conductive fibers comprising carbon fibers and wherein carbon is present in the fabric material in an amount from about 0.5% by weight to about 5% by weight; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0012, where Adams teaches an amount of from about 0.1 wt. % to about 10 wt. %.
Regarding Claim 18, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the treated fabric material has been flattened by being calendared; Applicant is directed to rationale set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the filament yarns are made from an inherently flame resistant polymer, the inherently flame resistant polymer comprising a para-aramid polymer, a meta-aramid polymer, or combinations thereof; Applicant is directed to ¶0043, where Adams et al teach that the second filament fibers may be an aramid fiber, such as a para-aramid fiber, a phenylenebenzobismazole fiber, a polybenzimidazole fiber, and the like.
Regarding Claim 21, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the fabric material further comprises a membrane laminated to the woven fabric; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0006 Adams et al. disclose a cleanroom overall made from flash spun polyester, twill woven fabric from polyester filaments, and laminated fabrics
Regarding Claim 22, where Applicant seeks a cleanroom garment as defined in claim 1, wherein the treated fabric material displays a static decay of less than about 2 seconds when measured according to Test FTM4046, displays a surface resistivity of from about 1x105 ohms/square to about 1x1012 ohms/square when measured according to Test AATCC-76, and displays a particle emission rate of less than about 12,000 particles per minute, such as less than about 10,000 particles per minute, such as less than about 8,000 particles per minute, the measuring particles having a size of 0.5 microns and greater according to Test IEST RP CC003.5; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0014 which teaches that the fabric may exhibit a static decay of less than about 2 seconds when measured according to FTM 4046. The fabric may exhibit a surface resistivity of from about 1×105 ohms/square to about 1×1012 ohms/square when measured according to AATCC76 and the fabric may exhibit a particle emission rate of less than 12,000 particles/minutes when measuring particles having a size of 0.5 um and greater according to IEST RP CC0003.4.
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. in view of Mitani further in view of USPUB 20150140219A1 issued to Swamy et al.
Adams and Mitani et al., teach what is set forth above but do not teach that their treated fabrics include antimicrobial agent and that that antimicrobial agent can comprises a quaternary ammonium compound, a silane quaternary ammonium halide, 3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyldimethyloctadecyl ammonium chloride, or mixtures thereof. This is remedied by the teachings of Swamy et al.
Swamy et al. is from the same art of endeavor as they make protective garments made from treated fabrics.
Swamy et al. discloses a fabric treatment to impart antibacterial/antiviral and waterproofing properties. Swamy et al teaches polyurethane with disinfecting treatment compositions for textile substrates comprising a combination of one, several or all quaternary ammonium organosilane compounds, and/or silver chloride and/or other types of silver salts, and/or polyglucosamine, and/or propiconazole, and/or bio coated silver particles and/or polyhexamethylene biguanide (hereinafter also referred to as "functional agent"), in a concentration in the range of 0.1-10%, more particularly 0.1-4% [¶ 0036].
Therefore, a skilled artisan would have looked to industry on who to achieve superior antiviral and antibacterial properties by applying the quat compounds shown by Swamy et al in the treated fabric of Adams modified by Mitani et al. One would have been motivated to do so to add the added benefit of having a cleanroom garment with multifunctional properties of not only being antistatic and water repellant but also having the benefit of being antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal as well.
Claim(s) 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Adams et al. in view of Mitani et al., further in view of USPUB 20200360735 issued to Cantin et al.
Regarding Claims 7-12- Adams modified by Mitani et al., teach what is set forth above and Adams et al do teach the use of fluorine free polyurethane (applicant’s claims 7 and 12-which is a dwr but is equivalent compositionally to the particle resistant treatment). They do not further elaborate the inclusion of an acrylic, a silicone, wax or a blocked isocyanate (applicant’s claims 8-11). These are remedied by the teachings of Cantin et al.
Cantin et al is from the same art of endeavor as they create protective garments are disclosed having a fabric material treated with a durable water resistant treatment.
Cantin et al. disclose making protective garments having a fabric material treated with a durable water resistant treatment. The durable water resistant treatment is substantially free of fluorocarbon chemicals and yet provides not only excellent water resistance, but also has excellent durability properties of maintaining the water resistant properties even after multiple laundry cycles and abrasion resistance. [Abstract, ¶¶ 0003,0011]. The protective garment can be a firefighter’s garment, fire resistant hood, fire resistant footwear, fire resistant gloves, footwear, trousers, jackets, coats, shirts, headwear, gloves, one-piece jumpsuits and the like. [¶¶ 0019-0020, 0044].
At ¶¶ 0012 and 0053-0061, Cantin et al. disclose that the protective garment has a fabric layer which contains inherently flame resistant fibers. The inherently flame resistant fibers, may include para-aramid fibers, meta-aramid fibers, polybenzimidazole fibers, or poly(p-phenylene-2,6-bezobisoxazole) (PBO fibers) and the like or FR viscose fibers and FR rayon fibers. At ¶ 0016, they further teach that the fabric material, for instance, can be made from spun yarns, multifilament yarns, monofilament yarns, stretch broken yarns and mixtures thereof.
Cantin et al disclose that the fabric can comprise any suitable woven, knit or non-woven material ¶ 0041. Any of the fabric layers can be treated with a water resistant treatment ¶¶ 0053-0065.
At ¶¶ 0013-0014 and 0065 Cantin et al. disclose that the durable water resistant treatment is free of fluorocarbons. The durable water resistant treatment is incorporated into the fabric material such that the material maintains a spray rating of at least 70, such as at least 80, such as at least 90, after ten laundry cycles.
At ¶ 0013-0015 and 0073, Cantin et al. teach that the durable water resistant treatment can also contain an acrylic, silicone or wax polymer. The binder contained in the durable water resistant treatment, may contain an extender. The extender is for further increasing water and oil resistance ¶ 0071. The extender may be a blocked isocyanate.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp such as those suggested by Cantin et al. One would have been motivated to do so as to use what is readily available. Polyurethanes, silicones, waxes, and acrylic are all well-known tried, tested and well known to create a protective barrier that are highly resistant to water penetration
Regarding Claim 13 and 14-Adams modified by Mitani et al., teach what is set forth above and that treatment can be polyurethane. Adams et al do not further elaborate that the treatment can be a blend of polyethylene or a polyurethane polymer in combination with at least one polyethylene polymer. This is remedied by the teachings of Cantin et al.
Cantin et al is from the same art of endeavor as they create protective garments are disclosed having a fabric material treated with a durable water resistant treatment.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the polyurethane treatment as taught by Adams with that of Cantin et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a softener to the fabric as taught by Cantin et al at ¶ 0015.
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 Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp