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 .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on April 28, 2025.
Claims 1, 47 and 48 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 17, 19 – 30, 34, 35, 39, 41, 43 – 46, and 47 – 127 have been cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 18, 31 – 33, 36 – 38, 40, 42, 47, and 48 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 28, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 9, 18, 31 – 33, 47 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miskie in view of Swarmy and Waxman as set forth in the office action filed January 27, 2025. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 28, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 36 – 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miskie in view of Swarmy and Waxman and further in view of Heiman as set forth in the office action filed January 27, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 28, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 40 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miskie in view of Swarmy and Waxman and further in view of Fujinami as set forth in the office action filed January 27, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that each layer of Miskie is structurally different to layers of claim 1 and each layer of Miskie serves a different function to the layers of claim 1. Applicant further argues that the Examiner has construed the layers of Miskie differently to the way in which they are described in Miskie. Examiner respectfully disagrees. To the extent that the layers of Miskie is structurally different from the layers of claim 1, the structural differences do not appear to be claimed. Similarly, the function of the layers of the instantly claimed invention have not been claimed in a way to patentably distinguish the layers from Miskie. Finally, Examiner notes that the layers of the instant invention have not been claimed in a way to preclude the interpretation of the layers of the prior art combination as shown below. There is nothing in the instant specification the precludes the interpretation of a layer as a combination of layers and the claim uses the open-ended “comprising” language for the textile assembly, thereby allowing for additional, unclaimed layers.
Applicant argues that the addition of the transportation layer of Swarmy is not obvious because it serves no apparent function in the pad of Miskie as the top layer of Miskie already allows for rapid transport of moisture way from the top surface. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing in Miskie that teaches away from the addition of further layers. Just as Miskie teaches multiple absorbent layers, it would similarly have been obvious to provide multiple layers wicking moisture from the top layers to away from the surface to the absorbent cores below.
Applicant argues that a person would not reasonably construe layers 12 – 16 as a single layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted, there is nothing in the instant specification the precludes the interpretation of a layer as a combination of layers and the claim uses the open-ended “comprising” language for the textile assembly, thereby allowing for additional, unclaimed layers.
Applicant argues that Swarmy does not teach the claimed hydrophobic fiber material and that Swarmy specifically teaches the disadvantages of hydrophobic materials. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language is that the first layer “comprises or being made from at least one hydrophobic fiber material.” Even if the hydrophobic fibers of Swarmy are later treated with a hydrophilic material, they would still be interpreted as being “made from a hydrophobic fiber material.” The phrase “made from” does not appear to prohibit any post-processing of the fibers.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 - 7, 9, 18, 31 - 33, 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miskie (US20060189955A1) in view of Swarmy (US20210162091A1) and Waxman (US20110257618A1).
As per claims 1, 2, and 18, Miskie teaches:
A multi-layer liquid absorbing and retaining textile assembly (Abstract: “An invertible, multi-layer moisture management fabric pad has a top layer, a bottom layer, and a plurality of overlying moisture-absorbent intermediate layers located between the top and bottom layers.”)
An intermediate layer made of or constructed as a warp knitted spacer fabric having a plurality of sections, at least one of the plurality of sections being proximal to the first layer, at least another one of the plurality of sections being proximal to the second layer (Miskie teaches a 3-dimensional fabric spacer layer consisting of two fabric facings and a system of intermediate spacer yarns formed in the middle ([0062]). These layers are indicated by 51, 53 and 52 of Fig. 5, presented below. The two facings and the intermediate spacer yarns are interpreted as the claimed plurality of sections.)
The second layer being an absorbent layer that is adapted to retain the liquid at or proximal to a second side of the textile assembly that is oppositely facing to the first side (The combination of layers 12 – 16 as shown in Fig. 5 of Miskie is interpreted as the claimed second layer. Miskie teaches that layer 12 cooperates with the moisture absorbent layers 13 – 15 to move moisture outwardly away from the body of the user, which is interpreted as the claimed adapted to retain the liquid at a second side of the textile assembly that is oppositely facing to the first side.)
PNG
media_image1.png
351
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the plurality of sections comprise at least three sections that are a first section, a second section and a middle section, with the middle section interconnecting the first and second sections, the first section being proximal to the first layer and the second section being proximal to the second layer (Miskie teaches that the spacer layer consists of two fabric facings 51 and 52 with a system of spacer yarns 53. Fabric facing 51 is interpreted as the claimed first section, fabric facing 52 is interpreted as the claimed second section, and the system of spacer yarns 53 is interpreted as the middle section. The middle section connects the first and second sections as claimed. The first section is next to the first layer and the second section is next to the second layer as claimed.)
Wherein the knitting density of the first, second and middle sections are high to low in the following order: i. the second section, ii. The first section, iii. The middle section (Miskie teaches that the first facing comprises a fine mesh fabric having at least 400 uniform mesh openings per square inch and the second facing comprises a fabric having less than 50 mesh openings per square inch ([0042 – 0043]). Since the middle section is a system of spacer yarns, it will naturally have the lowest density. The second facing has a lower amount of mesh opening per square inch than the first facing, therefore the density of the second facing is higher than that of the first facing.)
Wherein the first section is warp knitted to form a plurality of pores to receive the liquid from the first layer (In [0042], Miskie teaches that the first facing of the spacer, which is interpreted as the claimed first section, has at least 400 uniform, mesh openings per square inch. These openings are interpreted as the claimed pores. As the first facing of the spacer is below the first layer, it would naturally receive the liquid from the first layer as claimed.)
Wherein the middle section is warp knitted to form a substantially vertically oriented fibres (Regarding the orientation of the fibers in the middle section, Miskie incorporates the teachings of Gehring (US6103641A) (Miskie, [0062]) as an example of the spacer layer. In Fig. 1 of Gehring, produced below, the middle sections yarns, indicated by 4 are shown as oriented perpendicularly to the fabric facings, which would result in the claimed vertically oriented fibers assuming a horizontal orientation of the fabric facings.)
PNG
media_image2.png
870
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein the second section is warp knitted to form a plurality of pores to receive the liquid from the middle section ([0063]: “Capillary action attracts water from the first facing 51 of the spacer layer 11 where it is abundant and rapidly transports it to the second facing 52 of the top spacer layer 11 where it is less abundant.”)
Wherein pores of the second section are smaller in size than the pores of the first section (Miskie teaches that the first facing comprises a fine mesh fabric having at least 400 uniform mesh openings per square inch and the second facing comprises a fabric having less than 50 mesh openings per square inch ([0042 – 0043]). Therefore, Miskie teaches an embodiment wherein the first facing is more porous than the second facing. As porosity can be adjusted by the number of or the size of the pores, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the same difference in porosity between the two facings by making the pores of the second section smaller than the pores of the first section.)
Miskie does not teach:
A first layer made of or constructed as a pique knitted, one-way wicking material
The first layer being adapted to transfer liquid from a first side of the textile assembly to the intermediate layer
The intermediate layer is adapted to receive the liquid from the first layer
Wherein the first layer comprises or is made from at least one hydrophobic fibre material
Wherein the first layer is formed as a pique knitted mesh
Swarmy teaches a textile material that can be used in a reusable hygiene product (Abstract), which is similar to the structure and end application of Miskie. Swarmy teaches that the top layer that lies against the skin of the user is a transportation layer ([0553]). This transportation layer allows for quick transport of the fluid to the layers below and provides a relatively dry top layer ([0554]). Swarmy teaches that this fabric is preferably a knit pique fabric ([0554]). Swarmy teaches that the layer is preferably a polyamide or a polyester ([0555]). These materials are hydrophobic materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a transportation layer (interpreted as the claimed first layer) on top of the textile material of Miskie wherein the transportation layer is made of a pique knitted mesh material wherein the first layer is made of at least one hydrophobic fibre material as claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably produce a textile material with a transportation layer that allows for quick transport of the fluid to the layers below and to provide a relatively dry top layer as taught by Swarmy ([0554]). Since the transportation layer is knitted, it is non-continuous and is interpreted as the claimed mesh material. Since the transportation layer is intended to receive liquid and transport them to the layers below, it is interpreted as being adapted to transfer liquid from a first side of the textile assembly to the intermediate layer as claimed.
The combination of layers 12 – 16 as shown in Fig. 5 of Miskie is interpreted as the claimed second layer. Layers 13 – 15 are taught to be moisture absorbent layers as claimed. Miskie teaches that the bottom layer, represented by 16 comprises a non-porous, fluid impermeable, moisture vapor permeable barrier fabric ([0061]). Miskie does not teach:
A second layer that is tricot knitted and is made of or constructed as a microfiber material
Waxman teaches a reusable absorbent article including a hydrophilic top layer, a soaking layer, a liquid impermeable layer and a backing layer (Abstract). Waxman teaches that the bottom layer is made of a substantially liquid impermeable material that provides a non-slip surface ([0023]). Waxman teaches that preferably the bottom layer is made of a polyester tricot fabric ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fluid impermeable barrier fabric, indicated as 16 of Miskie from a tricot knit microfiber material such as the polyester tricot fabric taught by Waxman because Waxman teaches that the material is a known barrier fabric for use in similar reusable absorbent articles ([0023]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
As per claim 4, Miskie teaches:
Wherein the liquid transferred from the first layer is adapted to be received by the first section, the middle section, and the second section of the intermediate layer in the following sequential order before being transferred to the second layer: i. the first section, ii. The middle section, iii. The second section (As the layers are defined sequentially from the top portion of the fabric, it is the examiner’s position that the liquid will be transferred in the claimed order.)
As per claim 9, Miskie teaches:
Wherein the microfibre material comprises a plurality of gaps in between for collecting liquid ([0063]: “The spacer yarns 53 comprise moisture-wicking fibers, such as acrylic acid and polyester, which are made to promote the transport of moisture by capillary wicking…. CoolMax® fibers, for example, have four longitudinal channels built into their cross-sectional geometry giving a 20% higher perimeter area than traditional round fibers. The result is higher water/vapor transport through enhanced surface exposure for capillary action.”)
As per claims 31 - 33, it is the Examiner’s position that the behavior of the textile assembly when external force or pressure is applied, when the textile assembly is twisted and when the textile assembly is stressed or unstressed is an intended use of the textile assembly and the behavior is a direct result of the structure of the textile assembly. Since the prior art assembly teaches the same structure claimed, it is interpreted as behaving in the manner claimed. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
As per claim 47, Miskie teaches:
A multi-layer liquid absorbing and retaining textile assembly (Abstract: “An invertible, multi-layer moisture management fabric pad has a top layer, a bottom layer, and a plurality of overlying moisture-absorbent intermediate layers located between the top and bottom layers.”)
An intermediate layer made of or constructed as a spacer fabric, the spacer fabric being warp knitted to have a plurality of sections with at least one of the plurality of sections being proximal to the first layer and at least another one of the plurality of sections being proximal to the second layer (Miskie teaches a 3-dimensional fabric spacer layer consisting of two fabric facings and a system of intermediate spacer yarns formed in the middle ([0062]). These layers are indicated by 51, 53 and 52 of Fig. 5, presented above. The two facings and the intermediate spacer yarns are interpreted as the claimed plurality of sections.)
Each one of the plurality of sections being of different knitting density from another one of the plurality of sections (Miskie teaches that the first facing comprises a fine mesh fabric having at least 400 uniform mesh openings per square inch and the second facing comprises a fabric having less than 50 mesh openings per square inch ([0042 – 0043]). Since the middle section is a system of spacer yarns, it will naturally have the lower density than the other two fabrics.)
Miskie does not teach:
A first layer made of or constructed as a one-way wicking material
Swarmy teaches a textile material that can be used in a reusable hygiene project (Abstract), which is similar to the structure and end application of Miskie. Swarmy teaches that the top layer that lies against the skin of the user is a transportation layer ([0553]). This transportation layer allows for quick transport of the fluid to the layers below and to provide a relatively dry top layer ([0554]). Swarmy teaches that this fabric is preferably a knit pique fabric ([0554]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a transportation layer (interpreted as the claimed first layer) on top of the textile material of Miskie wherein the transportation layer is made of one-way wicking material as claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably produce a textile material with a transportation layer that allows for quick transport of the fluid to the layers below and to provide a relatively dry top layer as taught by Swarmy ([0554]).
The combination of layers 12 – 16 as shown in Fig. 5 of Miskie is interpreted as the claimed second layer. Layers 13 – 15 are taught to be moisture absorbent layers as claimed. Miskie teaches that the bottom layer, represented by 16 comprises a non-porous, fluid impermeable, moisture vapor permeable barrier fabric ([0061]). Miskie does not teach:
A second layer that is tricot knitted and is made of or constructed as a microfiber material
Waxman teaches a reusable absorbent article including a hydrophilic top layer, a soaking layer, a liquid impermeable layer and a backing layer (Abstract). Waxman teaches that the bottom layer is made of a substantially liquid impermeable material that provides a non-slip surface ([0023]). Waxman teaches that preferably the bottom layer is made of a polyester tricot fabric ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fluid impermeable barrier fabric, indicated as 16 of Miskie from a tricot knit microfiber material such as the polyester tricot fabric taught by Waxman because Waxman teaches that the material is a known barrier fabric for use in similar reusable absorbent articles ([0023]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding the limitation “to be formed or be incorporated into a garment for absorbing and retaining liquid emitted from a human body,” and “for collecting and retaining liquid,” Examiner is of the position that the clauses are a statement of intended use that do not further limit the claimed invention. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
As per claim 48, Miskie teaches:
A multi-layer liquid absorbing and retaining textile assembly (Abstract: “An invertible, multi-layer moisture management fabric pad has a top layer, a bottom layer, and a plurality of overlying moisture-absorbent intermediate layers located between the top and bottom layers.”)
An intermediate layer made of or constructed as a warp knitted spacer fabric and formed as a plurality of sections with at least one of the plurality of sections being proximal to the first layer and at least another one of the plurality of sections being proximal to the second layer (Miskie teaches a 3-dimensional fabric spacer layer consisting of two fabric facings and a system of intermediate spacer yarns formed in the middle ([0062]). These layers are indicated by 51, 53 and 52 of Fig. 5, presented above. The two facings and the intermediate spacer yarns are interpreted as the claimed plurality of sections.)
The second layer is adapted to retain the liquid at or proximal to a second side of the textile assembly that is oppositely facing to the first side (The combination of layers 12 – 16 as shown in Fig. 5 of Miskie is interpreted as the claimed second layer. Miskie teaches that layer 12 cooperates with the moisture absorbent layers 13 – 15 to move moisture outwardly away from the body of the user, which is interpreted as the claimed adapted to retain the liquid at a second side of the textile assembly that is oppositely facing to the first side.)
Miskie does not teach:
A first layer of a pique knitted one-way wicking configuration
The intermediate layer is adapted to receive the liquid from the first layer
The first layer is adapted to transfer liquid from a first side of the textile assembly to the intermediate layer
Swarmy teaches a textile material that can be used in a reusable hygiene project (Abstract), which is similar to the structure and end application of Miskie. Swarmy teaches that the top layer that lies against the skin of the user is a transportation layer ([0553]). This transportation layer allows for quick transport of the fluid to the layers below and to provide a relatively dry top layer ([0554]). Swarmy teaches that this fabric is preferably a knit pique fabric ([0554]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a transportation layer (interpreted as the claimed first layer) on top of the textile material of Miskie wherein the transportation layer is made of a pique knitted material as claimed, motivated by the desire to predictably produce a textile material with a transportation layer that allows for quick transport of the fluid to the layers below and to provide a relatively dry top layer as taught by Swarmy ([0554]). Since the transportation layer is intended to receive liquid and transport them to the layers below, it is interpreted as being adapted to transfer liquid from a first side of the textile assembly to the intermediate layer as claimed.
The combination of layers 12 – 16 as shown in Fig. 5 of Miskie is interpreted as the claimed second layer. Layers 13 – 15 are taught to be moisture absorbent layers as claimed. Miskie teaches that the bottom layer, represented by 16 comprises a non-porous, fluid impermeable, moisture vapor permeable barrier fabric ([0061]). Miskie does not teach:
A second layer that is tricot knitted and is made of or constructed as a microfiber material
Waxman teaches a reusable absorbent article including a hydrophilic top layer, a soaking layer, a liquid impermeable layer and a backing layer (Abstract). Waxman teaches that the bottom layer is made of a substantially liquid impermeable material that provides a non-slip surface ([0023]). Waxman teaches that preferably the bottom layer is made of a polyester tricot fabric ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fluid impermeable barrier fabric, indicated as 16 of Miskie from a tricot knit microfiber material such as the polyester tricot fabric taught by Waxman because Waxman teaches that the material is a known barrier fabric for use in similar reusable absorbent articles ([0023]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding the limitation “for absorbing and retaining liquid emitted from a human body,” Examiner is of the position that the clause is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Claims 36 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miskie (US20060189955A1) in view of Swarmy (US20210162091A1) and Waxman (US20110257618A1) as applied to claims 1 - 7, 9, 18, 31 - 33, 47 and 48 above, and further in view of Heiman (US5290269A).
As per claims 36 – 38, the prior art combination does not teach:
Wherein the textile assembly comprises a leakproof layer sealing and/or trapping liquid at the second layer at least on a side of the second layer that is opposite to side of the second layer that is proximal to the intermediate layer
Wherein the leakproof layer is laminated, stitched, attached or otherwise adhered to at least the second layer
Wherein the leakproof layer is a resin coated woven leakproof textile
Heiman teaches washable, reusable incontinent pads in diapers (Abstract). Heiman teaches that these textiles contain a woven fabric with a polymeric coating thereon (Column 11, Lines 58 – 61). Heiman teaches that this layer is constructed to withstand high amounts of hydrostatic water pressure without allowing passage of water therethrough (Column 11, Lines 49 – 57).
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 structure of the prior art combination to include a leakproof layer attached to the second layer wherein the leakproof layer is a resin coated woven leakproof textile as claimed because Heiman teaches that such layers were known to be predictably suitable as leakproof layers in similar reusable absorbent articles and that such layers provide high levels of protection against water pressure without allowing passage of water (Column 11, Lines 49 - 61). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miskie (US20060189955A1) in view of Swarmy (US20210162091A1) and Waxman (US20110257618A1) as applied to claims 1 - 7, 9, 18, 31 - 33, 47 and 48 above, and further in view of Fujinami (US393898A).
As per claims 40 and 42, the prior art combination does not teach:
Wherein the textile assembly further comprises a fourth layer located between the first layer and the intermediate layer
Wherein the fourth layer is a light knit textile material comprising carbon powder or crystals
Fujinami teaches an article for treating body fluid that contains a cover layer, an absorbent layer and a water-proofing layer (Abstract). This is a similar structure and function as the prior art combination. Fujinami teaches an embodiment wherein a layer of mesh active carbon powder is including in the absorbent layers of the article in order to provide deodorizing benefits to the textile (Column 5, Lines 36 – 50).
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 textile article of the prior art combination to include a fourth layer that is a light knit textile material comprising carbon powder in between the first layer and the intermediate layer as claimed motivated by the desire to predictably produce a textile with deodorizing properties as taught by Fujinami (Column 5, Lines 36 – 50).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights