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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are currently pending.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
No amendments to the claims were made.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod (US 2005/0053756 A1) in view of Chitrangad (US 5,187,003 A) and in further view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0046099 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, and 16-17,
Axelrod teaches an animal toy (an article) with increased puncture and tear resistance comprising: a compressible material (a core or filler material) comprising a foamed polymeric material, or natural or synthetic batting composed of polyester, nylon, cotton, or wool; a fabric (a first fabric), being woven or knit fabric, disposed over at least a portion of the compressible material (in contact with the core material); and a second woven fabric (a second fabric) composed of a plush fabric which may be an outer layer which is bonded or stitched to the first fabric and would be considered to be remote from the core that is located on the other side of the first fabric from the core (Axelrod: abstract; par. 0001, 0010-0012, and 0022-0026).
Axelrod is silent towards the cover factor of the first fabric being between 70 and 95% and when the fabric is woven the pattern is plain, satin, or twill woven fabric.
Chitrangad teaches a fabric for ballistic protection (improved resistance to puncture) composed of fibers such as para-aramid (similar fibers to those used in Axelrod) and may be woven weave patterns such as plain, satin, or twill weaves to achieve a cover factor of between 60% to 95%, which overlaps with the claimed 70% to 95% and the narrower 80% to 95% range, to provide improved ballistic properties (Chitrangad: abstract; col. 1, lin. 5-10; col. 2, lin. 11 – col. 3, lin. 1-12). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Axelrod and Chitrangad are in the corresponding field of fabrics composed of para-aramid fibers which desire improved puncture resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first fabric of Axelrod to have a woven pattern of plain, satin, or twill weaves and a cover factor within in the claimed range to provide improved ballistic properties as taught by Chitrangad.
Axelrod is silent towards the first fabric explicitly having a tensile strength of at least 600 N/5 cm. However, Axelrod in view of Chitrangad teaches the first fabric is composed of high strength fibers having a tensile strength of greater than or equal to 50,000 psi with examples up to 650,000 psi which converts to well over 600 N/5 cm and would be within the claimed range (Axelrod: abstract; par. 0018).
Axelrod does not explicitly teach wherein a first quilted yarn on the outer surface of the textile having a tenacity of at least 45 cN/tex and an elongation at break of no greater than 10% and a second quilting yarn on the inner surface of the textile having a tenacity of at least 15 cN/tex and an elongation at break greater than 10% and wherein the two yarns are quilted into a pattern having rows spaced apart by a distance of at least 50 mm.
Wang teaches a laminated fabric (an article) that is slash and cut resistant (Wang: abstract; par. 0002). Figure 21 details first and second fabric layers (406 and 408) which are quilted together with a quilting pattern with cut-resistant polymer yarns (110, 112, 114, and/or 116) which may be composed of different materials that match the quilted yarn materials utilized in Applicant’s Example 1, such as Kevlar (a p-aramid) for a first quilting yarn and a different yarn such as polyester for a second quilting yarn (Wang: par. 0025, 0028-0029, and 0125-0134). The first and second yarns are quilted into a pattern where the first quilted yarn would have a portion on the outer surface of the textile and the second quilting yarn would have a portion on the inner surface of the textile as shown in Figure 21 as both fibers interlock and extend through both fabric layers. The fibers may be sized and spaced apart to yield the desired level of cut resistance, tear resistance, and puncture resistance (Wang: par. 0134 and 0142). Thus, as the fibers are made of the same composition, as disclosed in the specification, and may be sized accordingly, there would exist an embodiment in which the first quilted yarn would have the claimed tenacity and elongation break and the second quilting yarn would have the claimed tenacity and elongation break intrinsically. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Axelrod and Wang are in the corresponding field of laminated fabrics with the corresponding desire to provide improved tearing and puncture resistance. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add a first and second quilted yarn to the textile of Axelrod having the claimed properties, such as the claimed tenacity and elongation break for the first and second quilting yarn, by adjusting the quilting pattern spacing, such as the claimed pattern spacing, the yarn size, and yarn composition of the first and second quilted yarn for the desired, cut, tear, and puncture resistance as taught by Wang.
Axelrod does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second fabric are bonded with an adhesive. However, Axelrod does teach the first and second fabric layers may be bonded (Axelrod: par. 0025).
Wang teaches the fabric layers (406 and 408) may bonded with an adhesive or a cement (Wang: par. 0169).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bond the first and second fabric layers of Axelrod with an adhesive to provide improved coupling between the two fabric layers as taught by Wang.
Axelrod does not explicitly teach a plane seam having a seam strength of at least 600 N or at least 800 N.
Wang teaches at least one seam placed on the textile to secure other materials or regions onto the textile (Wang: par. 0024, 0075-0076, and 0161-0168). The seam is shown to be a single line (a plane) stitch in Fig. 23 and thus may be considered a plane seam. The seam may be formed from the cut-resistant yarns or fibers which includes Kevlar material which is the same material utilized in Applicant’s specification and thus would inherently have the claimed at least 800 N seam strength (Wang: par. 0024, 0075-0076, and 0161-0168). When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add a plane seam having the claimed seam strength to the textile of Axelrod to provide the ability to attach additional materials or aesthetic regions to the article as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 2,
Axelrod in view of Chitrangad and Wang teaches the article required by claim 1. The prior art combination is silent towards the textile having a tensile strength of greater than 1000 N, a tear strength greater than 80 N, and a puncture resistance greater than 100 N.
However, each reference teaches a desire to improve these properties as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the teachings of the cited prior art combinations to increase each of the tensile strength, tear strength, and puncture resistance to provide a product with improved durability and resistance to the cutting, tearing, or puncturing events. Additionally, the combination of Axelrod, Chitrangad, and Wang teach the claimed structure and composition which results in the first and second fabrics, the first and second quilting yarns, and the seam to have the claimed properties as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Thus, the resulting textile article would also intrinsically possess the claimed properties. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod in view of Chitrangad and in further view of Wang and in further view of Cushingham et al. (US 2014/0245516 A1).
Regarding claim 7,
Axelrod in view of Chitrangad and Wang teaches the article required by claim 1. The cited prior art combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first fabric is Milanese, raschel, tricot, circular or flat knit fabric. However, Axelrod does teach the first fabric may be knitted (Axelrod: par. 0012).
Cushingham teaches fabrics with ballistic protection (Cushingham: abstract). The fabrics can be formed from yarns or fibers in which any traditional weave or knitting techniques may be utilized including raschel, tricot, and circular knits (Cushingham: par. 0017). Thus, it is known in the art of fabrics with ballistic (puncture) protection to utilize the claimed knitting techniques to provide improved ballistic protection yarns for forming the fabric.
Axelrod and Cushingham are in the corresponding field of fabrics with improved puncture resistance. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the first fabric of Axelrod to be a raschel, tricot, or circular knit fabric to provide improved ballistic properties as taught by Cushingham.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod in view of Chitrangad and in further view of Wang and in further view of Ritchey (US 2009/0071412 A1).
Regarding claim 15,
Axelrod in view of Chitrangad and Wang teaches the article required by claim 1. The cited prior art combination does not explicitly teach wherein the adhesive is a rubber cement or food grade adhesive.
Ritchey teaches a dog toy comprising connecting multiple fabrics (such as fabric pieces 30 and 40) with an adhesive including rubber cement (Ritchey: abstract; par. 0016, 0026, and 0030).
Axelrod and Ritchey are in the corresponding field of textile articles for use in dog toys. Wang and Ritchey are in the corresponding field of fabrics adhered together with fabrics with resistance to puncture or piercing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bond the first and second fabric of Axelrod, Chitrangad, and Wang together with an adhesive such as a rubber cement to facility improved bonding and better secure the two fabrics together as taught by Ritchey.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art combination does not teach or suggest that the first and second quilting yarns are different.
The argument is not found persuasive as the art does teach the feature required by claim 1 that the first and second quilting yarns are different. That is, Wang teaches a laminated fabric (an article) that is slash and cut resistant (Wang: abstract; par. 0002). Figure 21 details first and second fabric layers (406 and 408) which are quilted together with a quilting pattern with cut-resistant polymer yarns (110, 112, 114, and/or 116) which may be composed of different materials that match the quilted yarn materials utilized in Applicant’s Example 1, such as Kevlar (a p-aramid) for a first quilting yarn and a different yarn such as polyester for a second quilting yarn (Wang: par. 0025, 0028-0029, and 0125-0134).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783