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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 5-7 are pending in the application. Claims 1-4 and 8-10 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 5-7, filed on 12/30/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the entirety of the elongated hydrophobic apertured section is more distal from the skin of a wearer.” It is unclear what the phrase “more distal from the skin of a wearer” is relative to. Claims 6-7 are rejected because they depend on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bower et al. (US 2013/0318676 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bower teaches an apparatus 2 that forms a breathable strap 40 ([0073] and FIG. 8). In this example the strap is formed as a stretchable continuous loop, which may be stretched to fit over a hand onto a wrist with a close fit ([0074]).
In FIG. 1, the apparatus 2 comprises: an internal structure 10 with passages 12; and a hydrophilic wicking material 4 ([0021]). The apparatus 2 may also comprise a hydrophobic material 6 ([0033]). The hydrophobic material 6 is positioned on the exterior side 16 of the internal structure 10 ([0033]). As shown in FIG. 2, layer 6 may extend beneath region 16 to some extent, which might help to prevent dirt ingress whilst still allowing for effective moisture removal ([0035]). The wicking material 4 may be formed from a porous material ([0032]). The hydrophobic material may be porous to provide capillarity ([0037]).
The examiner notes that the hydrophobic material 6, or a section thereof, would therefore meet the claimed elongated skin-contacting hydrophobic apertured section limitation, and the wicking material 4, or a section thereof, would meet the claimed elongated hydrophilic apertured section limitation. For instance, if the apparatus 2 as shown in FIG. 2 is viewed facing the surface 8, the examiner notes that this view of the apparatus 2 would represent an un-folded configuration of apparatus 2 in which a midline can be seen between the hydrophobic material 6 (or a section of hydrophobic material 6) and the wicking material 4 (or a section of wicking material 4) at either the left or right of FIG. 2. This un-folded configuration would be capable of being folded longitudinally about the midline to form a double-layer waistband such that the entirety of an elongated hydrophobic apertured section is directly adjacent a skin of a wearer and the entirety of an elongated hydrophilic apertured section is more distal from the skin of a wearer. In this regard, the examiner notes that the sizes of the claimed sections are not limited.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that, based on the un-folded configuration of the apparatus 2 represented by FIG. 2 of Bower, an entirety of an elongated section of Bower’s hydrophobic material 6 would be capable of being placed directly adjacent a skin of a wearer, and an entirety of an elongated section of Bower’s wicking material 4 would be capable of being more distal from the skin of a wearer when the two sections are folded about a midline between the sections.
Regarding claim 6, with respect to the wicking material 4, Bower teaches that examples of suitable material include, but are not limited to: woven or non-woven fibers; polymers (e.g. Polypropylene (PP), Polyester); cellulose or natural textile such as cotton or Merino Wool; technical textile such as polartec® which uses a bi-component structure of aligned fibers to draw in moisture and spread it laterally ([0032]). The examiner notes that the internal structure 10 may also be present within the wicking material 4 (see [0047], [0049] and FIG. 2). The resilient internal structure 10 is formed from a single piece of elastic material ([0046]). The material may be elastomeric ([0046]). As illustrated in cross-section in FIGS. 2, 4 and 5 and in top-plan view in FIG. 3, the resilient internal structure 10 comprises a web formed from a continuum of material that has a plurality of holes through the continuum ([0047]). Thus the examiner notes that the wicking material 4 would include elastomeric yarns in the form of the web of internal structure 10.
Bower also teaches that suitable materials for the hydrophobic material 6 may include: porous Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or other fluoropolymer materials which have intrinsically low surface energy; Porous Nylon, Polyester, Polypropylene which are subsequently treated with a hydrophobic material to lower their intrinsic surface energy ([0039]-[0041]). The hydrophobic material 6 may be created by deposition of a porous hydrophobic material on the outer surface of the hydrophilic wicking material 4, for instance by using a plasma deposition, dip-coating or spraying of a fluoropolymer, silicone, fluoro-silicone or wax-like material ([0042]). In the alternative, Samardzija is applied below.
Regarding claim 7, Bower teaches that some or all of the components of the apparatus 2 may be treated with bacteria-killing substances, such as silver particles ([0078]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bower et al. (US 2013/0318676 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Samardzija (US 2018/0235325 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bower remans as applied above.
In the event that Bower doesn’t teach wherein the elongated hydrophobic elongated apertured section comprises elastomeric yarn, Samardzija is applied below.
Samardzija teaches a wristband that comprises a band 150 (FIGS 1-13) ([0041]). The band 150 may have any size (including any length and/or width), and may have any desirable configuration ([0041]). Additionally, the band 150 may be formed from any suitable material, such as a fabric including those made from natural fibers and/or synthetic fibers ([0041]). Non-limiting examples of fabrics having synthetic fibers include polyesters, acrylics, nylons, rayon, acetates, spandex, and/or combinations thereof ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the hydrophobic fibers in the band of Bower with spandex fibers in order to adjust the stretchability of the band and/or in order to obtain a wristband that can alternatively be placed, located, positioned, and/or worn on or around a person's arm, ankle, leg, neck, waist, head, and/or any other portion of a person's body (see [0019] and [0041] of Samardzija).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “As previously argued and maintained, Applicant asserts that Bower is not a double layered waistband. Rather, Bower is directed to a headband.”
Regarding this contention, applicant discloses that the terms and phrases "waistbands, underbands bras, skirts, trousers, underwear, headbands, caps (skull caps), hats, shorts, trousers, long johns, tights and articles of clothing having an elastic section configured to hold or secure the textile in place on a wearer of the textile" are used in the present disclosure interchangeably and inclusively with "elastic band" ([0005] as-filed). Bower teaches a breathable strap that is formed as a stretchable continuous loop and may be stretched to fit over a hand onto a wrist with a close fit ([0073]-[0074]). The apparatus may be fixed in place as a wrist band ([0024]). Therefore, the breathable strap or wrist band of Bower would meet the claimed “waistband” limitation.
Applicant contends the following: “As best understood by Applicant, the Action's articulated reason regarding Bower is an imaginary mental construct derived from Bower's article… Unfortunately, Bower makes no reasonable suggestion to perform this mental gymnastics on its article as suggested by the Action, nor is there any reasonable likelihood of success in doing so. A fair reading of Bower, in contrast, teaches away from the present claims, as recited at paragraph [0043]-[0044]… The structural arrangement [in paragraphs [0043]-[0044] of Bower] is contra to the Actions articulated manifested hypothetical article. This structural arrangement of material layers of Bower is mutually exclusive of what is presently claimed wherein the skin-contacting surface is hydrophobic. As such, Bower teaches away from the present claims notwithstanding any mental exercising by the Action.”
Regarding this contention, the examiner notes that the claimed limitations "skin-contacting" and "directly adjacent a skin of a wearer'' are interpreted as intended use limitations. The examiner notes that the hydrophobic material 6 and the hydrophilic wicking material 4 in the apparatus 2 of Bower are exposed layers and thus would be capable of being placed directly adjacent a skin of a wearer as claimed. In addition, the claimed elongated skin-contacting hydrophobic apertured section and elongated hydrophilic apertured section are not limited to any particular size or shape, and would be met by sections of the hydrophobic material 6 and the hydrophilic wicking material 4 in the apparatus 2 of Bower. Therefore, an entirety of each of these sections would be capable of being placed either directly adjacent a skin of a wearer or more distal from the skin of a wearer, as claimed.
Applicant contends the following: “Claim 7 recites a metal-, a metal oxide-, or a metal salt-containing polypropylene yarn. As one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand, an article "treated with bacteria-killing substances" would involve the application of some such substances to the article, e.g, a coating. In contrast, claim 7 requires a polypropylene yarn containing a metal-, a metal oxide-, or a metal salt, which would be part of the article. For at least this structural differentiation of a metal-, a metal oxide-, or a metal salt-containing polypropylene yarn versus a coating, Bower fails to disclose or reasonably suggest what is recited in claim 7.”
Regarding this contention, it is the examiner’s position that a metal-, a metal oxide-, or a metal salt-containing polypropylene yarn would be met by a yarn that comprises a metal-, a metal oxide-, or a metal salt as a coating. In addition, Bower teaches that some or all of the components of the apparatus 2 may be treated with bacteria-killing substances, such as silver particles ([0078]). The “components” of the apparatus 2 would also reasonably include the materials that the yarns are made of.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2015/0282998 A1 (Arizti) teaches absorbent articles comprising, on a wearer-facing surface of the absorbent article, a first zone in a front visual portion and a second zone in a visual back portion (Abstract and [0140]). Referring to FIG. 15, a topsheet 24 comprises a first zone Z1 and a second zone Z2 ([0140]). Either of, or both of, zones Z1 or Z2 may comprise apertures (also referred to as geometric treatments) ([0140] and [0073]). Zone Z1 may comprise a substantially transferrable chemical treatment that may be hydrophobic, and zone Z2 may comprise a substantially transferrable chemical treatment that may have a different hydrophilicity ([0143]).
US 2010/0228213 A1 (Berland) teaches an absorbent article such as a diaper, panty diaper, panty liner, sanitary napkin, incontinence protection or the like wherein at least one part of this absorbent article comprises a pattern of hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions ([0001]). According to one embodiment, the part of the absorbent article comprising the pattern is a perforated topsheet (e.g. plastic film or nonwoven) having a regular pattern of perforations wherein at least one part of the hydrophilic regions, preferably the majority or all hydrophilic regions are applied in register with said perforations ([0059]).
US 2016/0129663 A1 (Moss) teaches apertured webs that are particularly suited for use in disposable absorbent articles ([0002]). The apertured webs may form at least a portion of a waist band ([0133]). Both or all layers of an multi-layer apertured web may be apertured ([0075]-[0076]). A wearer-facing layer of an apertured web may be hydrophobic while a garment-facing layer of the apertured web may be hydrophilic ([0077]). In an embodiment (FIG. 6), the apertures in a second apertured layer 22 may be smaller than (e.g., 10% less area, 20% less area, 30% less area etc.) the apertures in a first apertured layer 20 ([0084]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789