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
Applicant’s response of 3/5/2026 is received. Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 21, 24, and 25 are amended. Claims 1-25 are pending.
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.
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 1-15 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. ‘680 in view of Parker ‘189 and Casanova Royo (CR, US 2024/0392481). Harris discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Harris teaches a firefighter protective garment 10, comprising: a first liner 30 defining an innermost layer of the firefighter protective garment: a second liner 28 extending over the first liner; and an outer shell 26 defining an outermost layer of the firefighter protective garment and extending over the second liner 28, the outer shell 26 having: a first surface made from a first material (outer shell made of aramid fibers or PBI fibers or a blend of the two); and a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface being made from a second material (col.2, lines 24-44 disclose the outer shell 26 outer surface may be coated with a polymer and the inner surface is not coated). However, Harris doesn't teach at least one of the first material and the second material is at least partially composed of recycled fibers and wherein the first material comprises at least 25% of recycled fibers and the second material comprises at least 25% of recycled fibers. Parker teaches an aramid fiber blend fabric for use in arc and flame protection, and "the fabric may be used to produce fire-resistant garments worn by workers in many industries such as the oil and gas." Parker discloses that large quantities of garments formed from aramid fibers such as NOMEX™ are disposed of in landfills and teaches a process for reducing textile waste by shredding the disposed garments to produce recycled fibers, using the fibers to make yarn through a carding process and knitting the resulting yarn to form a fabric which is converted back into garments (step 150). This practice promotes sustainability and reduces the ecological footprint of the oil and gas industry. Modifying Harris' garment such that at least one of the first material and second material of the outer shell are at least partially composed of recycled fibers is expected to reduce the ecological footprint of the firefighting industry and occupation in the same manner. CR teaches in par.59 that it’s known in the art to form fireproof, flame-retardant fabrics from yarns including at least 20% or more of recycled fibers originating from post-consumer and pre-consumer recycled textile materials, for compliance with and certification under the established European and International standards for heat and flame protective clothing having optimum mechanical properties. Paragraphs 57 and 59 discloses the fabric formed from the combined virgin and at least 20% or more recycled fibers having desired characteristics in terms of tensile strength and tear strength, as well as an improved abrasion strength and paragraph 34 discusses the recycled fibers are deposited in an exact percentage in the fiber preparation and mixing phase to achieve optimum mixing and homogenization percentage of the recycled fibers with virgin fibers. Based on the teachings of Parker and CR, one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed percentage of recycled fibers in the first and second material of at least 25%, with a reasonable expectation of success as CR teaches the at least 20% recycled fibers provides a recognized standard of heat and flame protection such that at least 25% recycled fibers would exceed the standard and also provide desired heat and flame protection to the outer shell. The desired percentage of recycled fibers can be combined with the virgin fibers during the fabric manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris' first material and second material such that they comprise at least 25% of recycled fibers, as Parker and CR teach use of recycled fibers is known in the art to reduce textile waste and promote sustainability while also meeting and exceeding an established standard for fire protective fabrics of garments.
For claim 2, the modified Harris teaches the first liner 30 is a thermal barrier (col.2, lines 20-21). For claim 3, the modified Harris teaches the second liner 28 is a moisture barrier (col.2, line 21).
For claim 4, the modified Harris teaches the first material and second material comprised of at least 25% recycled fibers but doesn't teach the first material comprising about 35% of recycled fibers. Modifying Harris’ first material to comprise at least 35% of recycled fibers provides an obvious benefit of increased fire protection safety of the outer shell of the garment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris' first material to comprise about 35% of recycled fibers, based on the teachings of Parker and CR, as the resulting material would have desired strength and fire protection properties.
For claim 5, Harris teaches the first material comprises meta-aramid fibers, commercially known as KEVLAR™
For claims 6-8, Harris teaches that the outer shell can be made of a variety of materials including a flame, heat and abrasion resistant material such as a compact weave of aramid fibers and/or polybenzimidazole fibers, known as commercially available materials NOMEX™ (para-aramid), KEVLAR™ (meta-aramid) and PBI™ fibers such that the second material comprises para-aramid fibers, meta- aramid fibers or polybenzimidazole (PBI).
For claim 9, the modified Harris teaches the second material comprises about 35% of recycled fibers as the resulting material would have desired strength and fire protection properties as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
For claim 10, the modified Harris teaches the firefighter protective garment 10 comprises a firefighter protective coat (Fig. 1).
For claim 11, the modified Harris teaches the firefighter protective garment comprises firefighter protective pants 36 (Fig.2).
For claim 12, Harris teaches a firefighter protective garment, comprising: a first liner 30 defining an innermost layer of the firefighter protective garment: a second liner 28 extending over the first liner 30; and an outer shell 26 defining an outermost layer of the firefighter protective garment and extending over the second liner 28, the outer shell 26 having: a first surface made from a first material(outer shell made of aramid fibers or PBI fibers or a blend of the two); and a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface being made from a second material (col.2, lines 24-44 disclose the outer shell 26 outer surface may be coated with a polymer and the inner surface is not coated). However, Harris doesn't teach only one of the first material and the second material comprises at least 25% of recycled fibers. As previously discussed with regard to claim 1, Parker teaches an aramid fiber blend fabric for use in arc and flame protection, and "the fabric may be used to product fire-resistant garments worn by workers in many industries such as the oil and gas." Parker discloses that large quantities of garments formed from aramid fibers such as NOMEX™ are disposed of in landfills and teaches a process for reducing textile waste by shredding the disposed garments to produce recycled fibers, using the fibers to make yarn through a carding process and knitting the resulting yarn to form a fabric which is converted back into garments (step 150). This practice promotes sustainability and reduces the ecological footprint of the oil and gas industry. CR teaches in par.59 that it’s known in the art to form fireproof, flame-retardant fabrics from yarns including at least 20% or more of recycled fibers originating from post-consumer and pre-consumer recycled textile materials, for compliance with and certification under the established European and International standards for heat and flame protective clothing having optimum mechanical properties. Paragraphs 57 and 59 discloses the fabric formed from the combined virgin and at least 20% or more recycled fibers having desired characteristics in terms of tensile strength and tear strength, as well as an improved abrasion strength and paragraph 34 discusses the recycled fibers are deposited in an exact percentage in the fiber preparation and mixing phase to achieve optimum mixing and homogenization percentage of the recycled fibers with virgin fibers. Based on the teachings of Parker and CR, one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed percentage of recycled fibers in the first and second material of at least 25%, with a reasonable expectation of success as CR teaches the at least 20% recycled fibers provides a recognized standard of heat and flame protection such that at least 25% recycled fibers would exceed the standard and also provide desired heat and flame protection to the outer shell. The desired percentage of recycled fibers can be combined with the virgin fibers during the fabric manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify only one of Harris' first material and second material to comprise at least 25% of recycled fibers, as Parker and CR teach use of recycled fibers is known in the art to reduce textile waste and promote sustainability while also meeting and exceeding an established standard for strength and fire protection fabrics of garments.
For claim 13, the modified Harris teaches the first liner 30 is a thermal barrier.
For claim 14, the modified Harris teaches the second liner 28 is a moisture barrier.
For claim 15, the modified Harris teaches the second material 28 comprises recycled fibers as Parker teaches that it's known in the art to form a fire resistant fabric comprising recycled fibers formed by shredding disposed garments formed with aramid fabrics, using the fibers to make yarn through a carding process and knitting the resulting yarn to form a fabric which is converted back into garments (step 150). Modifying Harris such that only the second material of the outer shell comprises recycled fibers is expected to reduce the ecological footprint of the firefighting industry and occupation and prevent landfill congestion.
For claims 17-20, the modified Harris teaches the first material comprises meta-aramid fibers, the second material comprises para-aramid, or the second material comprises meta-aramid fibers or the second material comprises polybenzimidazole (PBI) as Harris teaches that the outer shell can be made of a variety of materials including a flame, heat and abrasion resistant material such as a compact weave of aramid fibers and/or polybenzimidazole fibers, known as commercially available materials NOMEX™ (para-aramid), KEVLAR™ (meta-aramid) and PBI™ fibers such that the second material comprises para- aramid fibers, meta-aramid fibers or polybenzimidazole (PBI).
For claim 21, the modified Harris teaches only one of the first material and second material is at least partially composed of recycled fibers but doesn't teach the second material comprises about 35% of recycled fibers. Modifying Harris’ first material to comprise at least 35% of recycled fibers provides an obvious benefit of increased fire protection safety of the outer shell of the garment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris' second material to comprise about 35% of recycled fibers, based on the teachings of Parker and CR, as the resulting material would have desired strength and fire protection properties.
For claim 22, the modified Harris teaches the protective garment 10 comprises a firefighter protective coat.
For claim 23, the modified Harris teaches the firefighter protective garment comprises firefighter protective pants 36 (Fig.2).
For claim 24, Harris discloses an outer shell 26 for a firefighter protective garment, the outer shell 26 having: a first surface made from a first material; and a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface being made from a second material. However, Harris doesn't teach the first material comprises at least 25% of recycled fibers and the second material comprises at least 25% of recycled fibers. Parker teaches an aramid fiber blend fabric for use in arc and flame protection, and "the fabric may be used to product fire-resistant garments worn by workers in many industries such as the oil and gas." Parker discloses that large quantities of garments formed from aramid fibers such as NOMEX™ are disposed of in landfills and teaches a process for reducing textile waste by shredding the disposed garments to produce recycled fibers, using the fibers to make yarn through a carding process and knitting the resulting yarn to form a fabric which is converted back into garments (step 150). This practice promotes sustainability and reduces the ecological footprint of the oil and gas industry. CR teaches in par.59 that it’s known in the art to form fireproof, flame-retardant fabrics from yarns including at least 20% or more of recycled fibers originating from post-consumer and pre-consumer recycled textile materials, for compliance with and certification under the established European and International standards for heat and flame protective clothing having optimum mechanical properties. Paragraphs 57 and 59 discloses the fabric formed from the combined virgin and at least 20% or more recycled fibers having desired characteristics in terms of tensile strength and tear strength, as well as an improved abrasion strength and paragraph 34 discusses the recycled fibers are deposited in an exact percentage in the fiber preparation and mixing phase to achieve optimum mixing and homogenization percentage of the recycled fibers with virgin fibers. Based on the teachings of Parker and CR, one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed percentage of recycled fibers in the first and second material of at least 25%, with a reasonable expectation of success as CR teaches the at least 20% recycled fibers provides a recognized standard of heat and flame protection such that at least 25% recycled fibers would exceed the standard and also provide desired heat and flame protection to the outer shell. The desired percentage of recycled fibers can be combined with the virgin fibers during the fabric manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris' first material and second material such that they comprise at least 25% of recycled fibers, as Parker and CR teach use of recycled fibers is known in the art to reduce textile waste and promote sustainability while also meeting and exceeding an established standard for fire protective fabrics of garments.
For claim 25, Harris teaches an outer shell 26 for a firefighter protective garment, the outer shell having: a first surface made from a first material; and a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface being made from a second material (outer shell made of aramid fibers or PBI fibers or a blend of the two); and a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface being made from a second material (col.2, lines 24-44 disclose the outer shell 26 outer surface may be coated with a polymer and the inner surface is not coated). However, Harris doesn't teach only one of the first material and the second material comprises at least 25% recycled fibers. Parker teaches an aramid fiber blend fabric for use in arc and flame protection, and "the fabric may be used to produce fire-resistant garments worn by workers in many industries such as the oil and gas." Parker discloses that large quantities of garments formed from aramid fibers such as NOMEX™ are disposed of in landfills and teaches a process for reducing textile waste by shredding the disposed garments to produce recycled fibers, using the fibers to make yarn through a carding process and knitting the resulting yarn to form a fabric which is converted back into garments (step 150). This practice promotes sustainability and reduces the ecological footprint of the oil and gas industry. CR teaches in par.59 that it’s known in the art to form fireproof, flame-retardant fabrics from yarns including at least 20% or more of recycled fibers originating from post-consumer and pre-consumer recycled textile materials, for compliance with and certification under the established European and International standards for heat and flame protective clothing having optimum mechanical properties. Paragraphs 57 and 59 discloses the fabric formed from the combined virgin and at least 20% or more recycled fibers having desired characteristics in terms of tensile strength and tear strength, as well as an improved abrasion strength and paragraph 34 discusses the recycled fibers are deposited in an exact percentage in the fiber preparation and mixing phase to achieve optimum mixing and homogenization percentage of the recycled fibers with virgin fibers. Based on the teachings of Parker and CR, one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed percentage of recycled fibers in the first and second material of at least 25%, with a reasonable expectation of success as CR teaches the at least 20% recycled fibers provides a recognized standard of heat and flame protection such that at least 25% recycled fibers would exceed the standard and also provide desired heat and flame protection to the outer shell. The desired percentage of recycled fibers can be combined with the virgin fibers during the fabric manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify only one of Harris' first material and second material to comprise at least 25% of recycled fibers, as Parker and CR teach use of recycled fibers is known in the art to reduce textile waste and promote sustainability while also meeting and exceeding an established standard for strength and fire protection fabrics of garments.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris '680 in view of Parker '189 and Casanova Royo (CR, US 2024/0392481), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Underwood et al. (Underwood, U.S. 10,405,594). Harris discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn't teach the first material comprises multifilament fibers. Underwood teaches a protective firefighter garment 10 including an inner liner made of at least two different types of yarns woven together-aramid fiber yarn and multifilament yarns made from an inherently fire-resistant material. The multifilament fibers provide strength, and Underwood teaches that multifilament yarns may contain para-aramid fibers, synthetic fibers, or a combination, with the fiber types selected to achieve a desired degree of flame resistance and strength to the first material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Harris' first material to comprise multifilament fibers as Underwood teaches multifilament fibers are useful in protective firefighter's garments and may be combined with other fiber types to provide the first material with flame resistance and strength.
Response to Arguments
The rejections have been revised upon review of the claim amendments.
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights