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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/1/25 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 13, 17-20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierlot et al, WO 2007/059590 in view of Rees-Jones et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0159692.
Pierlot discloses a fabric which can be a single layer woven fabric. See page 4, lines 24-25. The fabric has a hydrophobic face and a hydrophilic face. The fabric can be made from any synthetic, man-made or natural fiber. See col. 5, lines 21-27. The fabric does not comprise any elastomeric fibers. The fabric is useful in a wide range of applications because it is useful to drawn sweat away from the skin of a wearer. It can be used as a bandage or dressing in medical applications and in activewear garments.
Pierlot differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that one face has a coefficient of friction which is different than the other face and because Pierlot employs hydrophilic and/or hydrophobic treatments as necessary to form the hydrophilic and hydrophobic faces.
However, Rees-Jones discloses a single layer woven fabric comprising absorbent fibers and wicking fibers, wherein the absorbent fibers are hydrophilic. The wicking fibers can be nylon. The fabric has two faces wherein one face is predominantly absorbent fibers and one face is predominantly wicking fibers. The absorbent fibers are present in relation to the wicking fibers in amounts of 3/1 to 1/3 which meets the limitations of new claim 22. See paragraphs 0011, 0071 and claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the single layer woven fabric of Pierlot so that the hydrophobic and hydrophilic faces of the single layered woven fabric are provided by the choice of fibers and the structure of the weave, rather than by a hydrophilic and/or hydrophobic treatment, in view of the teaching of Rees-Jones that this was an alternative means of providing a single layered fabric having one face which was predominantly hydrophobic and one face which was predominantly hydrophilic, noting that Pierlot recognizes that if a hydrophobic fiber is used to form the woven, then only a hydrophilic treatment is needed. See page 6, lines 11-15.
Since Rees-Jones teaches a single layer woven fabric including one face predominantly formed from absorbent, (hydrophilic), fibers and one face predominantly formed from wicking, (hydrophobic), fibers, wherein the two types of fibers are present in the claimed proportions, it would have been reasonable to expect that the material of Rees-Jones would necessarily have the claimed coefficients of friction and the claimed percent of hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers exposed on each face, or, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to have selected the relative proportions of the fibers and the fabric construction so as to achieve a fabric having the desired properties of absorbency, wicking and fabric hand.
With regard to claim 20, Pierlot does not explicitly teach the particular thread count.
However, since thread count is directly related to fabric hand, porosity and fiber denier, it would have been obvious to have selected the particular thread count which produced a fabric having the desired porosity or breathability, hand and softness.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierlot in view of Rees-Jones as applied to claims above, and further in view of JP 2005264381A.
Pierlot in view of Rees-Jones differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose employing a mixture of cotton and rayon as the absorbent fibers.
However, JP ‘381 discloses a woven fabric , (see paragraph 0001), comprising primarily hydrophilic yarns on one surface of the fabric and hydrophobic yarns on the opposite surface of the fabric. See paragraph 0005. JP ‘381 teaches that in addition to wool, which is used as the hydrophilic fibers in Rees-Jones, other fibers including cotton and blends of cotton and regenerated cellulosic fibers such as rayon can be used. See paragraph 0019. The hydrophilic yarns can comprise 10-80% cotton blended with other yarns such as rayon. See paragraph 0019.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a blended yarn of cotton and rayon as taught by JP “381 in the fabric of Pierlot as modified by Rees-Jones in view of its art recognized equivalence as a suitable hydrophilic yarn for forming a textile having a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic face.
With regard to claims 2-3, although the fabric of Pierlot as modified by Rees-Jones would have the hydrophilic and hydrophobic faces from the fibers and construction of the woven, the combination differs from the claimed invention because it does not clearly teach the claimed coefficient of friction.
However, JP ‘381 teaches that the hydrophobic fibers produce the smoother surface. See paragraph 0020.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected the relative proportions of the fibers and their presence on the surface of the fabric which produced a fabric having the desired coefficient of friction on the skin facing side while maintaining the moisture transport, absorbency and wicking properties.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierlot in view of Rees-Jones and JP 2005264381A, and further in view of Hes et al, EP 1,467,008.
Pierlot and Rees-Jones in view of JP ‘381 discloses a fabric comprising regenerated cellulose fibers but does not explicitly teach lyocell.
However, Hes discloses a single layered fabric which can be formed by weaving a structure having hydrophobic yarns and hydrophilic yarns. The hydrophilic yarns can include lyocell fibers as well as cotton fibers. See paragraph 0021.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected lyocell fibers as the hydrophilic fibers in view of the teaching of Hes of their art recognized suitability for this intended purpose.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierlot in view of Rees-Jones et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0159692 and further in view of Schreiner, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0032361.
Pierlot in view of Rees-Jones discloses a fabric as set forth above.
Pierlot in view of Rees-Jones differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach providing an indicator to show which side is the softer side.
However, Schreiner discloses a bed sheet with an indicator to show the front and back side, so that the softer side can be placed so that it will be in contact with skin. See paragraph 0005.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an indicator in the structure of Pierlot as modified by Rees-Jones to show which was the softer side.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the structure of Rees-Jones would necessarily include at least some hydrophobic fibers on the hydrophilic side and some hydrophilic fibers on the hydrophobic side, while in Pierlot, it is critical to prevent any hydrophilicity from the second outer face to extend to the hydrophilic first inner face. However, in Pierlot, as long as part of one surface is hydrophilic relative to the other surface, the wicking gradient would be present. See, for example, the abstract as well as page 2, lines 10-15 of Pierlot, which teaches that knitting a two layered structure wherein one layer is predominantly hydrophobic and one layer is predominantly hydrophilic would provide a wicking gradient. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have expected that if instead of using treatments to provide the hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity, yarns which were hydrophobic and hydrophilic were used to form the first and second faces, as taught by Rees-Jones, the wicking gradient would still be present.
Applicant argues that Rees-Jones does not teach the differential coefficients of friction. However, the claim recites that the differential coefficients of friction are present “based on the relative exposure of hydrophobic yarn and hydrophilic yarn”, therefore, it is reasonable to expect that by providing the wicking gradient structurally as taught by Rees-Jones instead of by using treatments, the differential coefficients of friction would necessarily be present, especially since each face would be mainly made of a different type of fiber relative to the other face.
With regard to JP ‘381, Applicant argues that JP ‘381 is drawn to a multi layered structure. However, the teaching of which fibers can be used to provide a smooth hydrophobic surface would be pertinent to a single or multi-layered fabrics. Further, in a dual layered fabric, either side could be used as a skin facing side, depending on how and why the fabric was used.,
With regard to claim 15, Applicant argues that the labeled orientation of Schreiner is opposite to the fabric of Rees-Jones. However, Schreiner is relied on for the element of providing an indicator to show which side was hydrophobic or hydrophilic. In a single layer fabric, either side would be able to be provided towards the skin of a wearer, depending on what the fabric was used for.
Applicant’s arguments are sufficient to overcome the 112 rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789