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 9/16/25 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, 11, 33, 34, 38, 43, 44 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/16/25.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 38, 43 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 5 delete “weft yarn” and substitute –of the weft yarns-- for clear antecedent basis
Claim 1 Line 12 before “plied staple yarn” delete “the” and substitute –each—to avoid antecedent basis issues
Claim 1 Line 15 before “plied staple” delete “the” and substitute –each--
Claim 38 Line 2 before “average” delete “an” and substitute –the—
Claim 43 has two periods
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11, 33, 34, 38, 43, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 Line 7 “removable first package dyed ring spun staple yarn” is considered new matter. Despite applicant remarks that support for amendments are found in [0032], [0033], [0065], [0097], [0110], and Embodiment 29, examiner notes that no support has been found for the package dyed ring spun staple yarn being removable, as such was never in the original disclosure. The original disclosure indicates that the PVA is removable, but that is not the structure that the package dyed ring spun staple yarn (of cotton) is referring to in the specification.
Claim 1 Line 8 “removable second package dyed ring spun staple yarn” is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned for Claim 1 Line 7.
Claim 1 Lines 14-15 “open space cross-sectional dimension that is between about 5% and about 40%” is considered new matter. The original specification only supports about 5% and about 40% in [0041]. See 112(b) indefiniteness rejection for further clarification as to why “between about” is not the same as “about”, and therefore introduces new matter.
Claim 1 Lines 15-16 “when the plied staple yarn does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns” is considered new matter for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 7, 8 “removable.”
The term “about .08” in Claim 33 is considered new matter. The original disclosure does not provide a specific definition for the term “about”, such as ±10%. As such, to introduce the term “about” now as applied to .08 is considered new matter, especially when the specification antecedent basis in [0108] only provides support for an average total thermal resistance of exactly .08. Examiner recommends deleting the term “about.”
The term “about 0.00737” in Claim 34 is considered new matter for reasons similarly indicated above for Claim 33. Examiner recommends deleting the term “about.”
Claim 43 is considered new matter, especially as it does not have specification antecedent basis. Though it may seem to be another way of claiming Claim 1 Lines 17-20, the term “under room temperature conditions” is not in the specification and is not defined. The specification only uses the term “temperature in the local environment” such as in [0099], but it is unclear whether that is the same as “room temperature conditions.” Examiner also notes that “room temperature conditions” has also not been defined by ASTM F 1868, Part C (a copy of which was provided by the examiner on 12/23/22). Especially as these conditions have not been clearly defined, the limitation is considered new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11, 33, 34, 38, 43, 44 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “removable” in “removable first package dyed ring spun staple yarn” in Claim 1 Lines 7-8 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. As aforementioned in the 112(a) rejection, nowhere in the specification has the disclosure indicated that the package dyed ring spun staple yarn, of cotton, is removable. Instead, it is the PVA that is removable. However, because the claim is directed to a fabric in the state in which the PVA has already been removed, the PVA cannot be claimed (see previous prosecution). For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as previously rejected, without the term removable.
Similarly, the term “removable” in “removable second package dyed ring spun staple yarn” in Claim 1 Lin 8 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 7-8 and is similarly interpreted.
Relatedly, the term “when the plied staple yarn does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns” in Claim 1 Lines 15-16 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. As the first/second package dyed ring spun staple yarns are not removable per the original disclosure, it is unclear what is intended by the recitation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as met by the open space cross-sectional dimension.
The term “between about 5% and about 40%” in Claim 1 Lines 14-15 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term means “greater than about 5% and less than about 40%.” However, to give a measurement of "less than about " or "greater than about" is not intuitive, not common sense and can reasonably lead to different results. For example, it is not illogical to conclude that (in the instant application with the 5% value) "less than about" 5% yields a measurement of: 1) any value less than but not including 5% because of the phrase "less than" but without the phrase "or equal to", 2) any value less than or equal to 5% because of the phrase "less than" and the word "about" (or approximately), and 3) any value less than more or less than 5%, including values just "greater than" 1000 because a value greater than 5% gives import to the chosen word "about" (or approximately). (However, to give import to the word "about" (or approximately) can mean more or less than 5% in this example, but then that would seem to vitiate the import of the "less than" the example value of 5%). Similar explanation applies for greater than about 40%. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “between 5% and 40%” and is recommended to be amended as such (deleting the terms “about”).
The term “wherein the woven sheeting fabric has a total heat loss (Qt) that is greater than a different woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun yarns” in Claim 1 Lines 17-19 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. A claim cannot positively claim a comparison with an element (different woven sheeting fabric) that is not positively claimed (the preamble is directed to a “woven sheeting fabric” of the alleged invention, not of a “different woven sheeting fabric”), furthermore so as no metes and bounds have been provided for the term “different”. Examiner recommends deleting the recitation, especially as the recitation is inherently met inasmuch as all the structure of the preamble’s “woven sheeting fabric” is met.
The term “humid and sweat conditions” in Claim 1 Line 20 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Though there is antecedent basis in [0108], it is not clear which of the parameters set in the specification, such as in [0097]-[0110], defines the term “humid and sweat conditions.” Examiner notes that ASTM F 1868 also does not specifically define the term “humid and sweat conditions.” For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as the structure of the fabric is met.
The term “wherein the woven sheeting fabric has an average total evaporative resistance value that is lower than average evaporative resistance value for a different woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns” in Claim 1 Lines 21-23 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 17-19 and is recommended to be deleted for reasons similarly aforementioned.
The term “wherein the woven sheeting fabric has an average intrinsic thermal resistance value that is lower than an average intrinsic thermal resistance value for a different woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns” in Claim 1 Lines 24-26 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 17-19 and is recommended to be deleted for reasons similarly aforementioned.
The term “between about 100 and about 1000” in Claim 6 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term means “greater than about 100 and less than about 1000.” However, to give a measurement of "less than about " or "greater than about" is not intuitive, not common sense and can reasonably lead to different results. For example, it is not illogical to conclude that (in the instant application with the 1000 value) "less than about" 1000 yields a measurement of: 1) any value less than but not including 1000 because of the phrase "less than" but without the phrase "or equal to", 2) any value less than or equal to 1000 because of the phrase "less than" and the word "about" (or approximately), and 3) any value less than more or less than 1000, including values just "greater than" 1000 because a value greater than 1000 gives import to the chosen word "about" (or approximately). (However, to give import to the word "about" (or approximately) can mean more or less than 1000 in this example, but then that would seem to vitiate the import of the "less than" the example value of 1000). Similar explanation applies for greater than about 100. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “between 100 and 1000” and is recommended to be amended as such (deleting the terms “about”).
The term “between about 50 warp ends per inch and about 350 warp ends per inch” in Claim 6 Lines 3-4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 6 Line 2. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “between 100 and 700 weft yarns per inch” and is recommended to be amended as such (deleting the terms “about”).
The term “between about 100 and about 700 weft yarns per inch” in Claim 6 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 6 Line 2. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “between 100 and 700 weft yarns per inch” and is recommended to be amended as such (deleting the terms “about”).
The term “between about 20 Ne and about 120 Ne” in Claim 6 Lines 6-7 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 6 Line 2. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “between 20 Ne and 120 Ne” and is recommended to be amended as such (deleting the terms “about”).
The dependency of Claim 33 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 33 has been amended to depend on Claim 34, but Claim 34 already depends on Claim 33. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 33 will be interpreted as still depending on Claim 6, as it did previously.
The dependency of Claim 34 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Based on the amendment for Claim 33 to depend on Claim 34, the dependency of Claim 34 depending on Claim 33 is now also indefinite. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 34 will be interpreted to depend on Claim 33.
Claim 43 is indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 (ex. different woven sheeting fabric, not including the first/second package dyed ring spun yarns).
The term “under room temperature conditions” in Claim 43 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this condition are, see also 112(a) rejection. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met inasmuch as the structure of Claim 1 is met.
The term “a plied yarn” in Claim 44 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term relates to “plied staple yarns” established in Claim 1 Line 5. As best understood, the recitation is meant to narrow from Claim 1 that at least some of the plied staple yarns are specifically of the weft component, instead of Claim 1 indicating that they could be of the warp or weft components. However, it is unclear whether it should read “the plied staple yarns” (all of the plied staple yarns established belong the weft component), or only some of the plied staple yarns. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “the plied staple yarns” such that all of the recited plied staple yarns are narrowed to be of the weft component.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 1-- It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. Specifically, the recitation of “wherein one weft yarn is inserted or wherein at least two of the weft yarns are co-inserted along a weft insertion path in the woven sheet fabric” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. More specifically, the structure of Claim(s) 1 is one weft yarn or at least two weft yarns along a weft path in the woven sheet fabric.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 1-3, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandawewala (USPN 8733075) in view of Dos Santos Henriques et al (WO 03/012183), herein Henriques, Hatch (Textile Science NPL), and Green (USPN 4941884).
Regarding Claim 1, Mandawewala teaches a woven sheeting fabric (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Fig. 2; at least for woven--Col. 3 Lines 45-46 “present invention relates to pile yarn in terry woven fabric (warp yarn), or weft yarn, in the case of flat fabrics”; Col. 3 Lines 51-52 “process is described wherein pile yarn is woven with cotton weft and warp yarns to produce terry fabrics”; for sheeting--Col. 1 Lines 13-16 “present invention relates to processes for making yarns suitable for making flat and terry fabrics including terry towels. In particular, the invention is directed at producing super absorbent ‘hygro’, hydrophilic yarns/fabrics”; Col. 8 Line 33 “flat fabrics can be for sheeting”; Mandawewala teaches the woven fabric which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being utilized for sheeting, especially as aforementioned), comprising:
a warp component including warp yarns (where it is known in the art that a woven fabric of yarns would have a warp component of warp yarns; see Col. 3 Line 36 "Warp: In woven fabric, the yarns that run lengthwise"; Col. 6 Lines 44-45 “ground warp is the longitudinal set of yarn forming the base fabric); and
a weft component including weft yarns interwoven with the warp yarns to define the woven sheeting fabric (where it is known in the art that a woven fabric of yarns would have a weft component of weft yarns as recited; see Col. 3 Lines 38-39 "Weft: In woven fabric, the yarns that run perpendicular to the warp yarns"; Col. 3 Lines 36-37 "Warp: In woven fabric, the yarns that run lengthwise and are interwoven with the fill (weft) yarns"; ” Col. 6 Lines 50-54 “weft yarns are laid perpendicular to the pile yarns, and interlace with…ground yarn to form the fabric of the towel),
wherein at least one of a) the warp component, or b) the weft component include staple yarns (for staple yarn--see Fig. 1; Col. 2 Lines 22-23 "method of introducing PVA into cotton yarn via cotton spinning system", where it is known in the art that cotton yarn is a staple yarn, furthermore in light of Col. 5 Lines 59-64 “cotton sliver…is a continuous strand of loosely assembled fibers without twist. The production of the sliver is the first step in the textile operation that brings the staple fiber into a form that can be drawn and eventually twisted into a spun yarn”; for plurality -- Col. 2 Lines 36-37 “inserting PVA fiber slivers into the middle of cotton slivers”, where slivers for cotton is plural; furthermore, the warp or weft component constitutes a plurality of yarns to be a woven fabric; for weft or warp -- as aforementioned, Col. 6 Lines 44-45 “ground warp is the longitudinal set of yarn forming the base fabric”; Col. 6 Lines 50-54 “weft yarns are laid perpendicular to the pile yarns, and interlace with…ground yarn to form the fabric of the towel. The ground and the weft yarns are standard cotton yarns”; for including plurality of staple yarns--Col. 3 Lines 45-48 “present invention relates to pile yarn in terry woven fabric (warp yarn), or weft yarn, in the case of flat fabrics. This pile yarn contains warm-water soluble fibers in its core, and cotton...fibers on the outside”; Col. 3 Lines 51-52 “process is described wherein pile yarn is woven with cotton weft and warp yarns to produce terry fabrics”; Col. 6 Lines 46-48, 50-53 “pile warp is placed in the longitudinal direction and produces the pile loops on the towel surface…weft yarns are laid perpendicular to the pile yarns, and interlace with pile or ground yarn to form the fabric of the towel”; inasmuch as the plurality of staple yarn is the pile warp and the pile warp interlaces with weft yarn, at least the weft yarn includes the plurality of staple yarn),
one weft yarn or at least two of the weft yarns along a weft path in the woven sheeting fabric (weft yarns exist and therefore are along a weft path),
a (first) staple yarn has
a removable ring spun staple yarn having a length that extends along a yarn central axis (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- each of the yarns has a portion that indicates a length, especially as the pile runs longitudinally/lengthwise per the definition aforementioned; inasmuch as each staple yarn has a central axis, such a length can be as extends along the central axis; for ring spun-- Col. 2 Lines 36-39 “inserting PVA fiber slivers into the middle of cotton slivers at the feeding end of the drafting zone of the speed frame, twisting on the speed frame, and subsequently spinning the yarn at ring spinning”),
cotton staple fibers twisted together around an open air space that extends along the yarn central axis (Col. 2 Lines 22-23 "method of introducing PVA into cotton yarn via cotton spinning system"; Col. 2 Lines 36-39 “inserting PVA fiber slivers into the middle of cotton slivers at the feeding end of the drafting zone of the speed frame, twisting on the speed frame, and subsequently spinning the yarn at ring spinning” where it is known in the art that all staple fibers are twisted together in order to stay together via the friction, and that it can be done via ring spinning; as for open air space-- see hollow core/hollow open air space in each sheath; wherein inasmuch as the hollow open air space exists and has an extent, the hollow open air space has an extent along a yarn central axis of the separate staple yarn in which it exists; wherein hollow indicates open; see Fig. 2; Col. 3 Line 61-62 “by dissolving the PVA fibers, a hollow air space is produced throughout the pile yarn”; Col. 2 Lines 22-23; Col. 2 Lines 18-21 "polyvinyl alcohol ("PVA")…has the unique property of dissolving in hot water. This invention exploits the dissolving property of PVA by introducing PVA into…the core of cotton yarn"; Col. 5 Lines 47-48 “configuring the PVA fibers in the core of the cotton yarn…makes the Hygro yarn", where furthermore the existence of PVA in the core of cotton yarn indicates that the cotton yarn has a hollow open air space at the core; as the outer sheath is of staple fibers twisted together and the outer sheath is around the hollow core/air space, the outer sheath of staple fibers are twisted around the hollow open air space; for extent-- wherein inasmuch as the hollow cores/air spaces extend as recited, so does the one or more open spaces; Col. 2 Lines 36-37 “inserting PVA fiber slivers into the middle of cotton slivers”; Col. 3 Lines 45-48 “present invention relates to pile yarn in terry woven fabric (warp yarn), or weft yarn, in the case of flat fabrics. This pile yarn contains warm-water soluble fibers in its core, and cotton...fibers on the outside”; Col. 5 Lines 47-48 “configuring the PVA fibers in the core of the cotton yarn…makes the Hygro yarn"; Col. 3 Line 61-62 “by dissolving the PVA fibers, a hollow air space is produced throughout the pile yarn”; inasmuch as the length of the staple yarn was previously established as being along a central axis, and the dissolved PVA is also of the hollow core/middle and therefore along the central axis, thus the hollow core/air space extends along the central axis length of the staple yarn),
a yarn cross-sectional dimension that is perpendicular to the yarn central axis (Mandawewala teaches the yarn and yarn central axis which indicates there is a yarn cross-sectional dimension),
and an open space cross-sectional dimension (Mandawewala teaches the open space in the yarn and therefore an open space cross-sectional dimension).
Mandawewala at least suggests wherein one weft yarn is inserted or wherein at least two of the the weft yarns are co-inserted along a weft insertion path in the woven sheeting fabric (see claim interpretation-- the recitation “inserted” and “co-inserted” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation, and therefore also “insertion”. Therefore, even if Mandawewala’s weft insertion method results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other weft insertion methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the method with the Mandawewala reference above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art. In other words, a weft yarn or two or more weft yarns along a weft path in the woven sheeting fabric of Mandawewala teaches the one weft yarn is inserted or at least two of the weft yarns are co-inserted along a weft insertion path in the woven sheeting fabric of Claim 1 because it has the structure of Claim 1).
Mandawewala does not explicitly teach wherein the staple yarns included in the weft is plied or separately package dyed, more specifically:
wherein staple yarns are plied,
each plied staple yarn having a length that extends along a central axis,
each plied staple yarn consists of a first package dyed ring spun staple yarn and a second package dyed ring spun staple yarn that is separate from the first package dyed ring spun staple yarn but twisted with the first package dyed ring spun yarn to have an overall twist per inch,
wherein each plied staple yarn (outer sheath) is of dyed cotton staple fibers,
(and thus) a yarn central axis of each package dyed staple yarn (such that each has an open air space that extends along the yarn central axis),
(and thus) each having a cross sectional dimension that is perpendicular to the central axis of each plied staple yarn,
(and thus) each having an open space cross-sectional dimension.
However, all of the above, other than the package dyeing and dyed, would be met if Mandawewala’s staple yarn were plied with itself.
(For plying--)
Henriques teaches wherein the plurality of staple yarns is plied (see Fig. 1 for plied; page 1 "invention refers to a sewing thread composed of…cotton fibre wrap"; page 5 "sewing thread, composed of…two individual sheath/core yarns, comprising…a cotton wrap"; page 7 "Fig. 1, where the whole sewing thread (1) consists of individual yarns (2), each of which consists of...core...(3) and a wrap (4)", where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a plurality of this plied staple yarn would form at least the weft or warp as aforementioned),
each plied staple yarn having a length that extends along a yarn central axis of the plied staple yarn (wherein the plying does not affect the fact that each staple yarn has a central axis and some portion of a length, and therefore so would the plied staple yarn have a yarn central axis and some portion a length, where such length can be that defined as extending along the central axis of the plied staple yarn),
each plied staple yarn consists of a first staple yarn and a second staple yarn that is separate from the first staple yarn but twisted with the first yarn to have an overall twist per inch (see Fig. 1, wherein the ply inherently has an overall twist per inch)
(and thus) a yarn central axis of each staple yarn (see above, such that each has an open air space that extends along the yarn central axis)
(and thus) each having a cross sectional dimension that is perpendicular to the central axis of each plied staple yarn (see Fig. 1),
(and thus) each having an open space cross-sectional dimension (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mandawewala’s structure to be plied with itself as taught by Henriques, resulting in the claimed recitations, as it is known in the art to ply yarns together in order to increase the strength of the yarn for the intended use (see extrinsic evidence Baker Jr 2003/0205041).
Now, modified Mandawewala teaches all of the aforementioned recitations but merely does not explicitly teach package dyed, and therefore that the cotton staple fibers are of dyed staple fibers, resulting in a first package dyed ring spun staple yarn twisted together with a second package dyed ring spun staple yarn.
(For dyeing--)
Nevertheless, Mandawewala does teach dyeing of the yarns (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 44-45 “ground warp is the longitudinal set of yarn forming the base fabric”; Col. 6 Lines 50-52 “weft yarns are laid perpendicular to the pile yarns, and interlace with…ground yarn to form the fabric of the towel”; Col. 7 Lines 2-3 “the weft and ground yarn may be dyed. The dyed or grey ground yarn is then sent to warping and to weaving”; Col. 7 Lines 20-21 “after the weaving is completed, the fabric roll is scoured and dyed in the normal fashion in a fabric dyeing machine”; Col. 7 Lines 33-34 “material is typically wound into the shape of a rope prior to entering the fabric-dyeing machine”),
and Henriques does as well (see page 2-3 "sewing threads, are composed of at least 2 individual yarns"; page 3 "dyeing the corespun sewing threads").
Hatch teaches yarn dyeing, specifically that of package dyeing (page 437 Yarn Dyeing, “in yarn dyeing, yarns are immersed in a dyebath prior to their incorporation into fabric…most yarn is package dyed…satisfactory for most types of yarn used in knit and woven fabrics”).
As such, modified Mandawewala, in light of Hatch, would then at least suggest that the outer cotton is of dyed staple fibers, resulting in a plurality of separate package dyed ring spun staple yarns twisted together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dyeing in Mandawewala, if necessary, to have separate package dyeing so that the staple fibers of Mandawewala would be dyed before twisting resulting in package dyed staple yarns, said package dyed staple yarns then twisted together as taught by Henriques, such as taught by Hatch based on cost and desired penetration for intended use (see Hatch, Yarn Dyeing), especially as it is known in the art to cater to market demands (Henriques page 3).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Mandawewala further teaches:
a plurality of plied staple yarns (wherein it was previously shown that each staple yarn, modified by Henriques with plying, is a plurality of staple yarns twisted together),
each plied staple yarn consists of a removable first package dyed ring spun staple yarn and a removable second package dyed ring spun staple yarn that is separate from the first package dyed ring spun staple yarn but twisted with the first package dyed ring spun yarn to have an overall twist per inch (where Hatch taught that the staple yarns are separately package dyed, wherein the plying and package dyeing does not affect the fact that each [plied] staple yarn is a plurality of [package dyed] ring spun staple yarns twisted together (wherein the teaching of Mandawewala plied by Henriques inherently has an overall twist per inch),
wherein the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns each has
a length that extends along a yarn central axis (the existence of the package dyed staple yarn indicates a central axis, and the existence of the hollow core within the package dyed staple yarn indicates such an extent as recited),
wherein each plied staple yarn comprises dyed cotton staple fibers twisted together around an open air space that extends along the yarn central axis (inasmuch as there is separate package dyeing, there is dyed staple fiber of the cotton which has already been taught to be twisted around the air space extending along the central axis in Mandawewala, and would still apply for each ply when Mandawewala is plied as taught by Henriques),
a yarn cross-sectional dimension that is perpendicular to the yarn central axis (Mandawewala already teaches, and this would still apply for each ply when Mandawewala is plied as taught by Henriques),
and an open space cross-sectional dimension (Mandawewala already teaches, and this would still apply for each ply when Mandawewala is plied as taught by Henriques).
Modified Mandawewala does not explicitly teach that each open space cross-sectional dimension is between about 5% and about 40% of the yarn cross-sectional dimension when each plied staple yarn does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections).
However, Mandawewala does teach an effect of cross-sectional dimension (Col. 2 Lines 12-14 "the greater the amount of free air space available within the yarn, the quicker and higher absorption of the water"; Col. 3 Lines 61-65 “by dissolving the PVA fibres, a hollow air space is produced through the pile yarn, corresponding to an increase in the air space in the pile yarn. By increasing the air space in the pile yarn, the resulting towels are softer and bulkier than standard cotton towels”; as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—the recitation of “when each plied staple yarn does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns” is referring to when PVA is dissolved, which is exactly what this recitation is directed to).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mandawewala’s open space cross-sectional dimension to be between about 5% and about 40% of the yarn cross-sectional dimension when each plied staple yarn does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns based on design choice and/or intended use, such as having a quicker absorption of water (Col. 2 Lines 12-14) and/or based on the degree of softness and bulk desired (Col. 3 Lines 61-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the open space cross-sectional dimension and the yarn cross-sectional dimension and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Mandawewala does not explicitly teach that each plied staple yarn has an overall twist per inch from 6.5 to about 14.5.
Green teaches plied staple yarn having an overall twist per inch from 6.5 to about 14.5 (Col. 2 Lines 34-38 "warp yarns from which the fabrics are woven are sheath/core yarns of...staple fibers in which the high modulus fibers form the core and are locked in place by low modulus synthetic fibers comprising the sheath"; Col. 1 Lines 29-32 "low modulus fibers, such as cotton, and...high modulus fibers...PPD-T"; Col. 4 Lines 64-66 "high modulus fiber for use is...PPD-T staple fiber"; Col. 5 Lines 1-2, 13-14 "other organic staple fibers…may be used including…high-modulus...polyvinyl alcohol"; Example 3 in Col. 12 Lines 60-67 "compound singles yarn so formed was a sheath-core yarn having a fasciated structure in which some of the PPD-T fibers in the PPD-T core yarn were wrapped by loose ends of PPD-T fibers and some of the MPD-I fibers in the sheath also wrapped the PPD-T core yarn". The compound singles yarn was then 'S' ply-twisted...7.5 tpi...to make a two-ply spun yarn"; see also Examples 6 and 7 in Col. 15 Lines 11-12, Col. 15 Lines 65-67 also of PPD-T and cotton (and therefore PVA core and cotton sheath)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mandawewala’s plied structure, as provided by Henriques, to have the twist per inch as taught by Green as it is known to ply sheath/core staple yarns in woven fabrics, especially of cotton sheath/PVA core, with the TPI of Green for comfort and durability (abstract; Col. 1 Lines 14-18), especially as Mandawewala is also of cotton/PVA.
As such, modified Mandawewala teaches wherein the woven sheeting fabric has a total heat loss (Qt) that is greater than a different woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun yarns when each Qt is measured using a thermal and evaporative resistance test (“ASTM F 1868, Part C”) under humid and sweat conditions,
wherein the woven sheeting fabric has an average total evaporative resistance value that is lower than average evaporative resistance value for the different woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns,
wherein the woven sheeting fabric has an average intrinsic thermal resistance value that is lower than an average intrinsic thermal resistance value for the different woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns
(as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—modified Mandawewala teaches all of the structure of the woven sheeting fabric which meets the structural limitations in the claims and therefore would inherently have total heat loss, average total evaporative resistance value, and average intrinsic thermal resistance value as recited, inherently meeting the recitations of these terms each measured in comparison with a different woven sheeting fabric; furthermore, it would have been obvious to measure using the standard claimed as a known standard in the art).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Mandawewala further teaches wherein the plurality of plied staple yarns have a first tensile strength adapted for formation into the woven sheeting fabric (the existence of a plurality of plied staple yarns would have some sort of a first tensile strength; Mandawewala teaches the first tensile strength which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being utilized for woven sheeting fabric, especially in light of the recitations in the rejection of the preamble),
and the first and second package dyed staple yarns have a second tensile strength (the existence of each of the package dyed staple yarn would have some sort of a second tensile strength each).
Mandawewala does not explicitly teach the second tensile strength that is less than the first tensile strength.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second tensile strength would be less than that of the first tensile strength, as the tensile strength from the plurality of plied staple yarns together in the fabric would be greater than its individual components, where the individual package dyed staple yarn individually help constitute a ply, and where a plurality of these plies make the plurality of plied staple yarns.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Henriques further teaches wherein each plied staple yarn is a two-ply yarn, and the first and second package dyed staple yarns are twisted to define the two-ply yarn (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where there are two yarns being twisted together indicating two-ply, where the rest of the limitation was taught in Claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
501
289
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 43, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Mandawewala further teaches wherein the woven sheeting fabric has a Qt that is less than a Qt for the different woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun yarns when each Qt is measured using ASTM F 1868, Part C under room temperature conditions (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—modified Mandawewala teaches all of the structure of the woven sheeting fabric which meets the structural limitations in the claims and therefore would inherently have the Qt total heat loss as recited, inherently meeting the recitations of this term when measured in comparison with the different woven sheeting fabric).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 6, 11, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandawewala (USPN 8733075) in view of Dos Santos Henriques et al (WO 03/012183), herein Henriques, Hatch (Textile Science NPL), and Green (USPN 4941884), further in view of Mittal et al (US Publication 2016/0273135), herein Mittal.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Mandawewala does not explicitly teach wherein the warp and weft yarns are arranged to define a thread count between about 100 and about 1000,
wherein the warp end density is between about 50 warp ends per inch and about 350 warp ends per inch,
wherein the weft yarn density is between about 100 and about 700 weft yarns per inch,
wherein the first and second package dyed staple yarns have a count between about 20 Ne and about 120 Ne.
Nevertheless, Mandawewala does teach that it is known that it can be about 100 (Col. 2 Lines 61-63 “the warp and weft yarn count, in the case of flat fabrics, range from Ne. 12s to Ne. 100s in single as well as doubled configuration”).
Nevertheless, Mittal also teaches wherein the warp and weft yarns are arranged to define a thread count between about 100 and about 1000 ([0002] "conventional fabrics ...such as sheets...may be cut and formed from sheeting comprised of warp end yarns and fill pick yarns woven into a web"; [0005] "conventional sheeting fabrics…characterized by a plain weave construction of…at least about 100 threads per square inch").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mandawewala with Mittal’s conventional thread count for intended use, such as for bedding, especially as Mandawewala is in the context of sheeting, and as Mittal shows it is known in the art that bedding can have such a thread count, wherein applicant’s specification in [0026] indicate that the yarn can be for bedding/sheeting.
Mittal also suggests wherein the warp end density is between about 50 warp ends per inch and about 350 warp ends per inch ([0012] "these and other embodiments can be accomplished providing a unique sheeting fabric construction"; [0014] "woven fabric of at least about 120 threads per square inch or higher", where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this range is capable of encompassing threads per inch in the range as recited and that it is capable of being for the warp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mandawewala, if necessary, with or in light of Mittal’s threads per square inch recitation, and therefore have a warp end density in the recited range, in order for intended use, such as for bedding, especially as Mandawewala is in the context of sheeting, and as Mittal shows it is known in the art that bedding can have such a range of threads per square inch, wherein as the applicant’s specification in [0026] indicate that the yarn can be for bedding/sheeting.
Mittal also suggests wherein the wherein the weft yarn density is between about 100 and about 700 weft yarns per inch ([0012] "these and other embodiments can be accomplished providing a unique sheeting fabric construction"; [0014] "woven fabric of at least about 120 threads per square inch or higher", where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this range is capable of encompassing threads per inch in the range as recited and that it is capable of being for the weft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mandawewala, if necessary, with or in light of Mittal’s threads per square inch, and therefore have a weft yarn density in such a recited range, in order for intended use, such as for bedding, especially as Mandawewala is in the context of sheeting, and as Mittal shows it is known in the art that bedding can have such a range of threads per square inch, wherein the applicant’s specification in [0026] indicate that the yarn can be for bedding/sheeting.
Mittal also suggests wherein the first and second package dyed staple yarns have a count between about 20 Ne and about 120 Ne ([0012] "these and other embodiments can be accomplished providing a unique sheeting fabric construction"; [0014] "core spun warp…may have a yarn count of about 8-60 Ne”, where the rejection in Claim 1 already established that the package dyed staple yarn could be for the warp, and where such a yarn count for the warp could indicate that the individual ply could have a cotton count between 20 and 120 Ne, especially as Mandawewala is cotton).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mandawewala, if necessary, with or in light of Mittal’s warp cotton count, and therefore have each ply’s cotton count in such a recited range, for intended use, such as for bedding, especially as Mandawewala is in the context of sheeting, and as Mittal shows it is known in the art that bedding can have such a range of cotton count, wherein the applicant’s specification in [0026] indicate that the yarn can be for bedding/sheeting.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Mandawewala further teaches wherein the warp component includes a plied yarn having the first and second package ring spun dyed staple yarns (for warp component--see aforementioned rejection of Claim 1, such as Col. 6 Lines 44-45 “ground warp is the longitudinal set of yarn forming the base fabric”; Col. 6 Lines 46-48, 50-53 “pile warp is placed in the longitudinal direction and produces the pile loops on the towel surface…weft yarns are laid perpendicular to the pile yarns, and interlace with pile or ground yarn to form the fabric of the towel”; at least inasmuch as the ground warp yarns interlace with the weft yarns and the weft yarns interlace with the pile yarns, wherein the pile yarns as modified constitute a plurality of package dyed ring spun staple yarns as aforementioned in Col. 3 Lines 47-48 further modified, the warp yarns include the plurality of package dyed ring spun staple yarns).
Mandawewala does not explicitly teach and wherein the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns in the warp component have a count between about 20 Ne and about 120 Ne.
Mittal teaches and wherein the staple yarns have a count between about 20 Ne and about 120 Ne ([0014] "core spun warp…may have a yarn count of about 8-60 Ne"; where such a yarn count for the warp could indicate that the individual ply could have a cotton count between 20 and 120 Ne, especially as Mandawewala is cotton).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mandawewala, if necessary, with or in light of Mittal’s warp cotton count, and therefore have each ply’s cotton count in such a recited range, for intended use, such as for bedding, especially as Mandawewala is in the context of sheeting, and as Mittal shows it is known in the art that bedding can have such a range of cotton count, wherein the applicant’s specification in [0026] indicate that the yarn can be for bedding/sheeting.
Regarding Claim 44, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Mandawewala further teaches wherein the weft component includes a plied yarn having the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Mandawewala indicates that the pile is a warp pile and therefore the warp component of modified Mandawewala with the first/second package dyed ring spun staple yarn; however, whether something is a weft component (and therefore weft pile) or a warp component (and therefore a warp pile) is a matter of perspective and therefore this recitation is inherently met based on one’s perspective).
However, even if not:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mandawewala to have the first/second package dyed ring spun staple yarns to be of the weft component as a finite number of solutions, without criticality (see [0038] of applicant’s specification) or unexpected results, especially as Mandawewala recites the same finite solutions in Col. 4 Lines 17-20 as applicant specification [0038].
Modified Mandawewala does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second packaged dyed ring spun staple yarns in the weft component have a count between about 20 Ne and about 120 Ne.
Nevertheless, Mandawewala does teach that it is known that the c