DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 4/29/26 in which claims 1-3, 6, 11, 33, 34, 38, 43, 45 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/29/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 6, 33, 43 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 15 “anopen” should read “an open”
Claim 1 Line 19 before “same” delete “the”; however, see 112 rejections below
Claim 6 is missing a period
Claim 33 Line 2 before “average” delete “the” and substitute –an—
Claim 43 Line 4 before “local” delete “the”; however, see 112 rejections below
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):
(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, 45 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 Lines 13-16 “each plied staple yarn comprises…open air space cross-sectional dimension that is about 5% to about 40% of the yarn cross-sectional dimension” is new matter. The range “about 5% to about 40%” is found in [0041] but is pertaining to an amount of soluble fibers relative to the weight of the yarn, and is not pertaining to cross-sections. Instead, [0044] is directed to the cross-sectional dimension C2 of the open air space/hollow core and is about 8% to about 40% of the cross-sectional dimension C1 of the yarn. Examiner recommends amending to “about 8%.”
Claim 1 Lines 18-23 “woven sheeting fabric has a total heat loss (Qt) that is greater than a Qt for a comparative woven sheeting fabric having the same physical properties as the woven sheet fabric except formed with staple yarns having cores that remain solid throughout manufacturing and finishing” is considered new matter. There is no support in the original disclosure for such a comparative woven sheeting fabric. Though [0097]-[0108] are directed to example fabrics A and B, and [0109]-[0110] are directed to example fabrics C, D, and E, none of these specifically defined a term “comparative woven sheeting fabric” in the original disclosure, let alone one with some “same physical properties…except formed with staple yarns having cores that remain solid throughout manufacturing and finishing”, wherein none of these terms were originally disclosed. In other words, a specific definition for the term “comparative woven sheeting fabric” was not in the original disclosure, let alone with the terms currently utilized.
The term “comparative woven sheeting fabric” and its affiliated limitations in Claim 1 Lines 24-26 is new matter for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 18-23.
The term “comparative woven sheeting fabric” and its affiliated limitations in Claim 1 Lines 27-29 is new matter for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 18-23.
The term “woven sheeting fabric has a Qt that is less than a Qt for the comparative 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 temperature in the local environment conditions” in Claim 43 is new matter for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 18-23.
The term “woven sheeting fabric has a Qt that is less than a Qt for the comparative 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 temperature in the local environment conditions” in Claim 43 is further considered new matter for establishing a different Qt in Claim 43 for the woven sheeting fabric than that in Claim 1 Line 18. Claim 43 is referring to a Qt measured under “local environment conditions”, whereas Claim 43 is referring to a Qt measured using ASTM F 1868 Part C. However, even if “local environment conditions” were unnecessarily narrowly interpreted to mean 25°C, it is new matter to establish a different Qt value after using ASTM F 1868 Part C, when specification [0097]-[0108] seems to indicate that the Qt measured using ASTM F 1868 Part C ([0097]) utilized 25°C ([0099]). Furthermore, the specification seems to only ever disclose a single measured Qt value for a single woven sheeting fabric ([0108]); as such, to establish two different ones is new matter.
The term “woven sheeting fabric has a Qt that is less than a Qt for the comparative 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 temperature in the local environment conditions” in Claim 43 is further considered new matter for establishing a different Qt in Claim 43 for the comparative woven sheeting fabric than that in Claim 1 Lines 18-19. Especially surrounding the new matter rejections for the comparative woven sheeting fabric, there is no support for two different Qt values for the comparative woven sheeting fabric. Even if the woven sheeting fabric was example B and the comparative was example A in [0097]-[0108], the recitation would still be new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned-- Claim 43 is referring to a Qt measured under “local environment conditions”, whereas Claim 43 is referring to a Qt measured using ASTM F 1868 Part C. However, even if “local environment conditions” were unnecessarily narrowly interpreted to mean 25°C, it is new matter to establish a different Qt value after using ASTM F 1868 Part C, when specification [0097]-[0108] seems to indicate that the Qt measured using ASTM F 1868 Part C ([0097]) utilized 25°C ([0099]). Furthermore, the specification seems to only ever disclose a single measured Qt value for a comparative single woven sheeting fabric ([0108]); as such, to establish two different ones is new matter.
The term “the local environment conditions” in Claim 43 Line 4 is new matter. Though beginning in [0099], there is disclosure of 25°C for a temperature of a local environment, this is not a special, explicit definition of the term “local environment.” Without an explicit definition, the term is not construed to be inherently 25°C. As such, the metes and bounds of the term encompasses new matter. Without an explicit definition of the term in the original disclosure, the term should be canceled; otherwise, the term should be amended into a supported value (such as 25°C).
The term “the physical properties comprise fiber content” in Claim 45 is new matter. See other indefiniteness rejections, and other new matter rejections—even if Claim 45 “physical properties” were referring to Claim 1 “same physical properties”, all interpretations are directed to new matter:
-Even if the comparative woven sheeting fabric were Example B and the woven sheeting fabric Example A, this is new matter, as [0097] indicates Example B with a fiber content of 100% hygro cotton while Example A has a fiber content of 100% cotton, which is not the same
-Even if the comparative woven sheeting fabric were Example C and the woven sheeting fabric Example D, this is new matter, as [0109] indicates Example D with a fiber content of 100% hygro cotton while Example C has a fiber content of 100% cotton, which is not the same
-Even if the comparative woven sheeting fabric were Example C and the woven sheeting fabric Example E, this is new matter, as [0109] indicates Example E with a fiber content of 100% hygro cotton while Example C has a fiber content of 100% cotton, which is not the same
-it is not possible for Claim 45 to be directed to comparing Examples B, D, E, or comparing Examples A, C, as that would then not meet Claim 45 to not have the first/second package dyed ring spun yarns, or not meet claim 1 to have the plied staple yarns with open air space, respectively
- if the term “fiber content” were not directed to the term in [0097] and [0109], then furthermore the limitation has new matter as it seems to be directed to an element not originally disclosed
The term “the physical properties comprise…weave structure, thread count, warp density,” in Claim 45 is new matter. See other indefiniteness rejections, and other new matter rejections—even if Claim 45 “physical properties” were referring to Claim 1 “same physical properties”, such that Claim 45 recited that “the same physical properties of the woven sheeting fabric and the comparative woven sheeting fabric comprise”, the recitation is still considered new matter due to the lack of specific definition to the term “comparative woven sheeting fabric”, as the term does not inherently mean Examples A or C in [0097], [0109], respectively, such that the weave design, thread count, warp density in the tables are the elements claimed, such that Examples B, D, E have the same weave design, thread count, and warp density.
The term “the physical properties comprise…weft density,” in Claim 45 is considered new matter. See other indefiniteness rejections, and other new matter rejections—even if Claim 45 “physical properties” were referring to Claim 1 “same physical properties”, such that Claim 45 recited that “the same physical properties of the woven sheeting fabric and the comparative woven sheeting fabric comprise”, the recitation is still considered new matter due to the lack of specific definition to the term “comparative woven sheeting fabric”, as the term does not inherently mean Example A in [0097], weft density in the tables are the elements claimed, such that Example B has the same weft density.
The term “the physical properties comprise…weft density,” in Claim 45 is further considered new matter. See other indefiniteness rejections, and other new matter rejections—even if Claim 45 “physical properties” were referring to Claim 1 “same physical properties”, such that Claim 45 recited that “the same physical properties of the woven sheeting fabric and the comparative woven sheeting fabric comprise”, all interpretations are still considered new matter:
-Even if the comparative woven sheeting fabric were Example C and the woven sheeting fabric Example D, this is new matter, as [0109] indicates Example C with a weft density of 80 and Example D with a weft density of 70, which is not the same
-Even if the comparative woven sheeting fabric were Example C and the woven sheeting fabric Example E, this is new matter, as [0109] indicates Example C with a weft density of 80 and Example E with a weft density of 60, which is not the same
- if the term “weft density” were not directed to the term in [0097] and [0109], then furthermore the limitation has new matter as it seems to be directed to an element not originally disclosed
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, 45 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “woven sheeting fabric has a total heat loss (Qt) that is greater than a Qt for a comparative woven sheeting fabric having the same physical properties as the woven sheet fabric except formed with staple yarns having cores that remain solid throughout manufacturing and finishing” in Claim 1 Lines 18-23 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejections, the metes and bounds of the comparative woven sheeting fabric are unclear, such as the structure of the term. The limitation recites “cores” of the comparison, when there are no claimed cores of the claimed woven sheeting fabric to compare to. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the limitation will be considered met inasmuch as the structure of the woven sheeting fabric is taught.
The term “woven sheeting fabric has a total heat loss (Qt) that is greater than a Qt for a comparative woven sheeting fabric having the same physical properties as the woven sheet fabric except formed with staple yarns having cores that remain solid throughout manufacturing and finishing” in Claim 1 Lines 18-23 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. A claim cannot positively claim a comparison with an element (comparative woven sheeting fabric) that is not positively claimed (the preamble is directed to a “woven sheeting fabric” of the alleged invention, not of a “comparative woven sheeting fabric”). In other words, the limitation is attempting to positively claim a structure (comparative woven sheeting fabric) which is not a structure of the preamble (woven sheeting fabric). Attention is directed to MPEP 2173.05(i), wherein attempting to claim limitations relative to a non-positive element is essentially trying to claim an indefinite negative limitation. Generally, examiner recommends positively claiming the structure of the actual claim (what the product is) instead of a comparison (what the product is not). Examiner recommends deleting the recitation, especially as inasmuch as the positive structural limitations of the claim has been met, so would any comparison.
The term “wherein the woven sheeting fabric has an average total evaporative resistance value that is lower than average evaporative resistance value for the comparative woven sheeting fabric” in Claim 1 Lines 21-23 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 18-23 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 the comparative woven sheeting fabric” in Claim 1 Lines 27-29 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1 Lines 18-23 and is recommended to be deleted for reasons similarly aforementioned.
The term “the warp component comprises plied staple yarns” in Claim 11 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 Lines 4-5, on which Claim 11 depends, already established that the weft component, and optionally the warp component, comprises plied staple yarns. As such, it is unclear whether Claim 11 is a typographical error and should read “the plied staple yarns” or if Claim 11 is establishing plied staple yarns different than that described in Claim 1 for “each plied staple yarn”, such that the warp ground yarns are hollow yarns. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the latter interpretation will be taken.
The term “first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns in the warp component” in Claim 11 Lines 3-4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 Lines 4-5, on which Claim 11 depends, already established that the weft component, and optionally the warp component, comprises plied staple yarns, each plied staple yarn comprises first/second package dyed ring spun staple yarns. As such, it is unclear whether Claim 11 is a typographical error and should read “the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns” or if Claim 11 is establishing first/second package dyed ring spun staple yarns different than that described in Claim 1 for “each plied staple yarn”. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the former will be interpreted.
The term “woven sheeting fabric has a Qt” in Claim 43 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this Qt differs from “woven sheeting fabric has a total heat loss (Qt)” of Claim 1 Line 18. As best understood, Claim 43 is referring to a Qt measured under “local environment conditions” (which applicant remarks misconstrued to be 25°C), whereas Claim 43 is referring to a Qt measured using ASTM F 1868 Part C. However, the specification seems to only ever disclose a single measured Qt value for a single woven sheeting fabric ([0108]). As such, it is unclear how to interpret the claim based on the current antecedent basis. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the limitations will be considered met by the structure of woven sheeting fabric.
The term “a Qt for the comparative woven sheeting fabric” in Claim 43 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this Qt differs from “a Qt for a comparative woven sheeting fabric” of Claim 1 Lines 18-19. As best understood, Claim 43 is referring to a Qt measured under “local environment conditions” (which applicant remarks misconstrued to be 25°C), whereas Claim 43 is referring to a Qt measured using ASTM F 1868 Part C. However, the specification seems to only ever disclose a single measured Qt value for a single woven sheeting fabric ([0108]). As such, it is unclear how to interpret the claim based on the current antecedent basis. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the limitations will be considered met by the structure of woven sheeting fabric.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the comparative woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun yarns" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term "the comparative woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun yarns" in Claim 43 Lines 2-3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if somehow the term had antecedent basis in Claim 1, the metes and bounds are still unclear due to comparative woven sheeting fabric not being specifically defined. It is unclear what else the comparative woven sheeting fabric would and would not be the same as the woven sheeting fabric. Even if amendments were to claim and compare all variables recited in the specification, there are additional variables for which the specification does not address (ex. denier, presence or amount of dye), which makes claiming a comparative element indefinite.
The term “the local environment conditions” in Claim 43 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Though beginning in [0099], there is disclosure of 25°C for a temperature of a local environment, this is not a special, explicit definition of the term “local environment.” Without an explicit definition, the term is not construed to be inherently 25°C. As such, the metes and bounds of the term are not clear, such as what constitutes infringement.
Relatedly, the term "local" in claim 43 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "local" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the physical properties" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “the physical properties” in Claim 45 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether this is referring to the physical properties of the woven sheeting fabric or of the comparative woven sheeting fabric. The term cannot be construed to mean “wherein the physical properties of the woven sheeting fabric and the physical properties of the comparative woven sheeting fabric” at least because of the recitation of “fiber content”, which is not the same, which is required in Claim 1, on which Claim 45 depends. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the limitation will be considered met by the structure of the woven sheeting fabric.
The term “the physical properties comprise fiber content” in Claim 45 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the new matter rejections, the metes and bounds of how to interpret the recitation is not clear; even if Claim 45 physical properties relates to Claim 1 same physical properties, and comparative referred to the examples, there are no same fiber contents. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the limitation will be considered met by the structure of the woven sheeting fabric.
The term “the physical properties comprise…weave structure, thread count, warp density,” in Claim 45 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Even if Claim 45 “physical properties” were referring to Claim 1 “same physical properties”, such that Claim 45 recited that “the same physical properties of the woven sheeting fabric and the comparative woven sheeting fabric comprise”, the recitation is still indefinite due to the lack of specific definition to the term “comparative woven sheeting fabric”, as the term does not inherently mean Examples A or C in [0097], [0109], respectively, such that the weave design, thread count, warp density in the tables are the elements claimed, leaving the metes and bounds of all elements pertaining to the comparative woven sheeting fabric indefinite.
The term “the physical properties comprise…weft density” in Claim 45 Lines 1-2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the new matter rejections, the metes and bounds of how to interpret the recitation is not clear; even if Claim 45 physical properties relates to Claim 1 same physical properties, and comparative referred to the examples, there are examples of not having the same weft density. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the limitation will be considered met by the structure of the woven sheeting fabric.
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 Lines 5-7 “one of the weft yarns being inserted or at least two of the weft yarns are co-inserted along a weft insertion path in the woven sheeting fabric” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. More specifically, the only structure required of Claim(s) 1 Lines 5-7 is one of the weft yarns or at least two of the weft yarns along a weft path in the woven sheeting 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, 6, 43, 45 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), and Mittal et al (US Publication 2016/0273135), herein Mittal.
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 the weft component, and optionally the warp component, comprises 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 of the weft yarns 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 ring spun staple yarn having a length that extends along a yarn central axis (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 air space cross-sectional dimension (Mandawewala teaches the open space in the yarn and therefore an open air space cross-sectional dimension).
Mandawewala at least suggests one of the weft yarns being inserted or at least two of the weft yarns being 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 component, and optionally in the warp component, 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 comprises 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 air 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 comprises 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 a 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 weft component, and optionally the warp component, comprises 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 comprises 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 (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 air 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 air space cross-sectional dimension is between about 5% and about 40% of the yarn cross-sectional dimension.
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, especially as such as range is known in the art for a hollow cotton yarn (see extrinsic evidence Nakanishi JP 2007/016356).
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.
Modified Mandawewala does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second package dyed staple yarns of each plied staple yarn of the weft component have a count between about 20 Ne and about 120 Ne.
Mittal at least 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”, wherein the aforementioned rejection of 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.
As such, modified Mandawewala teaches wherein the woven sheeting fabric has a total heat loss (Qt) that is greater than a comparative woven sheeting fabric having the same physical properties as the woven sheeting fabric except formed with staple yarns having cores that remain solid through manufacturing and finishing when each Qt is measured using a thermal and evaporative resistance test (“ASTM F 1868, Part C”),
wherein the woven sheeting fabric has an average total evaporative resistance value that is lower than average evaporative resistance value for the comparative woven sheeting fabric,
wherein the woven sheeting fabric has an average intrinsic thermal resistance value that is lower than an average intrinsic thermal resistance value for the comparative woven sheeting fabric
(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 comparative 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 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 about 100 and about 1000,
wherein the warp end density is about 50 warp ends per inch and about 350 warp ends per inch,
wherein the weft yarn density is about 100 and about 700 weft yarns per inch.
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.
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 comparative 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 temperature in the local 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 comparative woven sheeting fabric).
Regarding Claim 45, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Mandawewala further teaches wherein the physical properties comprise fiber content, weave structure, thread count, warp density, and weft density (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 comparative woven sheeting fabric).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 11 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), and Mittal et al (US Publication 2016/0273135), herein Mittal, further in view of Nakanishi (JP 2007/016356).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Mandawewala further teaches wherein the warp component comprises plied staple yarns (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--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 first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns in the warp component have a count about 20 Ne and about 120 Ne.
However, modified Mandawewala already teaches wherein first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns in the pile of the weft component have a count about 20 Ne and about 120 Ne (see rejection of Claim 1); in other words, modified Mandawewala teaches that staple yarns of open-air space have such a yarn count (in a weft component warp pile).
Nakanishi teaches staple yarns of open-air space in the warp component (see Fig. 1; [0008] "woven …fabric made primarily of hollow spun yarn…obtained by dissolving and removing polylactic acid fibers from a…spun yarn having polylactic acid fibers as a core component", wherein primarily indicates in the warp component; [0012] "hollow spun yarn include single-hole type shown in Figures 1"; [0024] "hollowness ratio...preferably 10 to 50%; [0020] "fibers used as the sheath component...are...natural fibers such as cotton"; [0022] "sheath component may be…short fibers...in order to improve the texture...staple fibers are particularly preferred").
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 warp component to also be staple yarns of open-air space, and therefore the first and second package dyed ring spun staple yarns of each plied staple yarn of the weft component with the claimed yarn count, as taught by Nakanishi, as a known arrangement for the purposes for quick dry ([0009]), which Mandawewala desires as well (Col. 1 Lines 13-15), and/or for easier manufacturing of utilizing the same yarn(s).
As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 33, 34, 38 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), and Mittal et al (US Publication 2016/0273135), herein Mittal, further in view of Debnath et al (USPN 10196763), herein Debnath.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Mandawewala does not explicitly teach wherein the woven sheeting fabric has an average total thermal resistance of 0.08.
However, Mandawewala does teach a low thermal conductivity (Col. 8 Lines 35-39 “the Hygro toweling fabrics and flat fabrics have a low thermal conductivity, and thus produce a warm feeling when pressed against the body. The towel fabric and the flat fabric are more voluminous and lighter than standard cotton towels or fabrics”).
Debnath further at least suggests wherein the woven sheeting fabric has an average total thermal resistance of 0.08 (Col. 4 Lines 56-58 “Thermal insulation: it is a measure of amount of heat a fabric can resist from its surface to dissipate in to the atmosphere”; Col. 5 Lines 43-46 “porous yarns and fabrics are 30 to 40% more voluminous than the normal and have 20 to 30% higher thermal insulation properties”).
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 average total thermal resistance of modified Mandawewala 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, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), especially in light of the recitation in Debnath.
Modified Mandawewala discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the average total thermal resistance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an average total thermal resistance as recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, especially in light of comparative recitation in Debnath.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure and/or modify Mandawewala’s average total thermal resistance, if necessary, based on intended use, such as how much average total thermal resistance is desired for the application based on design choice and/or intended use.
Furthermore, especially as modified Mandawewala teaches the structure and materials, it would at least suggest the same test result.
Regarding Claim 34, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 33.
Mandawewala does not explicitly teach wherein the woven sheeting fabric has the average total evaporative value of 0.00737.
Debnath at least suggests wherein the woven sheeting fabric has the average total evaporative resistance value of 0.00737 (Col. 4 Lines 56-58 “Thermal insulation: it is a measure of amount of heat a fabric can resist from its surface to dissipate in to the atmosphere”; Col. 5 Lines 43-46 “porous yarns and fabrics are 30 to 40% more voluminous than the normal and have 20 to 30% higher thermal insulation properties” where, as best understood from applicant’s disclosure, the value of the thermal insulation would result in an average evaporative resistance value based on specific testing conditions).
As best understood, 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 average total evaporative resistance of modified Mandawewala 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, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), especially in light of the recitation in Debnath.
Modified Mandawewala discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the average total evaporative resistance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an average total evaporative resistance as recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, especially in light of the comparative recitation in Debnath.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure and/or modify Mandawewala’s average total evaporative resistance, if necessary, based on intended use, such as how much evaporative resistance is desired for the application.
Furthermore, especially as modified Mandawewala teaches the structure and materials, it would at least suggest the same test result.
Regarding Claim 38, modified Mandawewala teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 34.
Mandawewala does not explicitly teach wherein the woven sheeting fabric has the average intrinsic thermal resistance value of 0.012.
However, Mandawewala does teach a low thermal conductivity (Col. 8 Lines 35-39 “the Hygro toweling fabrics and flat fabrics have a low thermal conductivity, and thus produce a warm feeling when pressed against the body. The towel fabric and the flat fabric are more voluminous and lighter than standard cotton towels or fabrics”),
and the average intrinsic thermal resistance is merely an environmental average bare plate thermal resistance value subtracted from the average total thermal resistance (see applicant specification [0100], wherein the average total thermal resistance value is also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, see rejection of Claim 33).
Debnath further at least suggests wherein the woven sheeting fabric has the average intrinsic thermal resistance value of 0.012 (Col. 4 Lines 56-58 “Thermal insulation: it is a measure of amount of heat a fabric can resist from its surface to dissipate in to the atmosphere”; Col. 5 Lines 43-46 “porous yarns and fabrics are 30 to 40% more voluminous than the normal and have 20 to 30% higher thermal insulation properties”, which suggests an average total thermal resistance value, and therefore also then suggesting an average intrinsic thermal resistance value).
As best understood, 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 average intrinsic thermal resistance of modified Mandawewala 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, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), especially in light of the recitation in Debnath.
Modified Mandawewala discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the average intrinsic thermal resistance value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an average intrinsic thermal resistance as recited, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, especially in light of comparative recitation in Debnath.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure and/or modify Mandawewala’s average intrinsic thermal resistance, if necessary, based on intended use, such as how much average intrinsic thermal resistance is desired for the application based on design choice and/or intended use.
Furthermore, especially as modified Mandawewala teaches the structure and materials, it would at least suggest the same test result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 11, 33, 34, 38, 43, 45 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to applicant remarks on 112(a), 112(b) for the comparative woven sheeting fabric— examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the specification discloses at least five examples (A-E). No specific definition was attributed to any of those examples to be construed as the “comparative woven sheeting fabric.” As such, there is no requirement that the interpretation of the term be directed to one of the examples. See MPEP 2173.01. Examiner notes that the claims can be read in light of the specification to help disclose what is included within broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, but that limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), MPEP 2111.
Similarly then, pertaining to remarks on page 8 that Claim 43 “local environment conditions” refers to 25°C beginning in [0099]—examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, [0099] did not set forth a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term such that the term “local environment conditions” is inherently defined as 25°C. Not only does this not narrow the broadest reasonable interpretation as applicant would desire, it additionally causes issues with 112(b) indefiniteness, as there is no metes and bounds to the term “local” let alone “local environment conditions”, which does not allow one to know when the claim is infringed.
Pertaining to remarks on page 12 that there is no rule or MPEP or case law that does not allow positively claiming a comparison—examiner respectfully disagrees; attention is directed to the rejection herein, similar to the remarks in the advisory action of 4/27/26, which cited MPEP 2173.05(i). Furthermore, the rejection is valid under U.S.C. 112(b) – see rejections herein for further expounding, such as how a comparative element will have variables not disclosed in the specification and therefore the metes and bounds will never be definite.
Claiming the comparisons not only does not move the case forward towards patentability but further causes a plethora of indefiniteness issues. As remarks on page 13 themselves admit, the comparisons are all met functionally; inasmuch as the structure of the claimed woven sheeting fabric is met, so then would any comparison. Relatedly, claim limitations or further specific amendments as to values pertaining to the comparisons are not recommended as it will not move the case forward.
Summarily of prosecution thusfar, the prior art of record clearly shows that the elected embodiment of Figs. 3A-4B are obvious. Hollow cotton yarn is well-known in the art (see including pertinent art of record throughout prosecution), let alone made hollow with PVA. It is also well known to ply such yarns. Other structural aspects are also taught. No persuasive amendments have been made as to what is other structure (if disclosed) that makes the application novel and/or non-obvious over the prior art of record. Amendments could try to incorporate an unclaimed variable from one of the examples, but without any specific criticality disclosed, such amendments are not suggested. For example, if there was Example A1, A2, A3, where A1 weight of 3.61 oz/yd2 clearly resulted in a significant average total thermal resistance of 0.08 that weights of A2, A3 clearly taught away from, there could be criticality. However, remarks do not show as such. Remarks on pages 14-15 indicate that sheeting made from examples D and E keep a user cooler than sheeting of example C. However, looking at [0109] which outline the structures of examples D, E, relative to example C, the critical difference seems to be that examples D, E use the hygro cotton in Figs. 3A-4B (which is already taught by the prior art). The only other difference is that of the weft cotton count, but no criticality was ever assigned to such a variable that clearly show that the weft cotton count range cannot be 80. As such, examiner has no suggested structural amendments pertaining to the yarn that would move the case forward, as the yarn of Figs. 3A-4B seems to be the crux of the invention and is taught. In an attempt to find other suggestions, Examiner attention is then directed to whether or not the structure of the fabric, in which the yarn is applied, could move the case forward. However, it is also well known to weave with hollow yarns, in the plies and/or ground weft and/or ground warp (see including pertinent art of record throughout prosecution), and the original disclosure does not show any special weave pattern that could be amended into the claims.
Pertaining to remarks beginning on page 13 that there is support for Claim 43 “comparative woven sheeting fabric that does not include the first and second package dyed ring spun yarns”—examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons similarly indicated above. The term “comparative woven sheeting fabric” was never given a special/specific definition in the original disclosure. As such, the metes and bounds is unclear as to when one would infringe, and therefore there is no support for the recitation. Though [0097] recites Example A and [0109] recites Example C as being without the hygro cotton, the term as claimed does not inherently narrow the interpretation to one of these specific examples, let alone providing definitiveness as to which example. Similarly as indicated above, even if the term were clarified to provide the specifics of Example A or Example C, the amendments would not move the case forward.
Pertaining to remarks on pages 16-17 that Claim 1 “inserted” and “co-inserted” does not merit a product by process interpretation—examiner respectfully disagrees. First, remarks on page 17 admit with [0033] that the insertion or co-insertion is disclosed as involving a warp shed, which involves a loom. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “insertion” and “co-insertion”, as evidenced by [0033], includes that of an apparatus and therefore a method of making/process (involving a warp shed/loom). However, Claim 1 is directed to a product claim (fabric), not an apparatus claim (loom), which merits the product by process interpretation. Furthermore, [0033] further discloses that co-insertion is a technique to insert multiple wefts in a single weft insertion event. Again, this is pertaining to a method of making/process. With a method of making in a product claim, the recitation merits product by process interpretation. To expound: with a product by process interpretation, regardless of whether the fabric is made by tapestry weaving or a loom, inasmuch as the product is taught, the process is obvious.
Pertaining to remarks on page 24 that Mittal teaches away from the combination with Mandawewala—examiner respectfully disagrees. As expounded on pages 24-25 of the office action of 10/22/25, Mandawewala teaches a cotton sheath, and Mittal was utilized to teach a known yarn count of cotton sheath, both being in the same art of endeavor at least of cotton sheaths, if not also of bedding/sheeting/towels, as indicated in the rejection. However, remarks are directed to the Mittal having a non-removable polyester core, which is piecemeal, as the recitation of a removable core was already taught by Mandawewala. The actual modification with Mittal is not addressed. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, there is no teaching away found, as Mittal does not specify that its yarn count cannot be utilized with a hollow cotton sheath.
Pertaining to remarks on page 25 that the office action uses the claims as a roadmap (is hindsight)—examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Pertaining to remarks on page 25 that the office action uses too many references and therefore the claims are not obvious—examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
As aforementioned, examiner has no suggestions for allowable subject matter. Applicant options include pre-appeal or appeal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Foster (USPN 2387320) directed to single or plied cotton yarn with acetate removed; Yu et al (USPN 10422063) directed to a woven fabric with cotton pile made hollow with polyester removed; Ezaki (JPH 09302543) directed to woven fabric with cotton yarn made hollow with PVA removed; Shiraishi (JPH 05230738) directed to 100% cotton woven towel fabric.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights