DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks dated 08/13/2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been entered and are made of record. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 15; cancelled claims 4, 5, 6 and 19. The limitations of claims 4-6 have been incorporated into modified claim 1. Claim 19 was duplicative to claim 1 and thus cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 7-18 are pending and stand rejected.
The rejection made over 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn in lieu of the claim amendments made to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s first traversal is that the cited reference of USPUB 20110033687 issued to Deguchi does not teach a uncopolymerized nylon as claimed. Applicant’s claims are open ended and simply claim a “nylon.” Applicant instant disclosure also does not teach a uncopolymerized nylon nor do they define nylon. Thus, this traversal is not found to be convincing.
Applicant’s second traversal is the weight percentages of nylon and polyester are not taught by Deguchi. As previously stated, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp to determine a specific amount of the composition and arrangement within a ply of a woven. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of nylon or polyester or how much of one fiber was required in a given direction based on the desired end result properties. Since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed amount in any given direction (warp or weft) is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of nylon or polyester or how much of one fiber was required in a given direction based on the desired end result properties.
Furthermore, % by weight is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Deguchi’ s composite with nylon yarn in a percentage ranging from 45% to 80% and polyester yarn is between 20% to 60% by weight since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize nylon or polyester % by weight to reap the benefits that nylon or polyester would provide if one were to increase or decrease the amount in any given direction. One could have a greater percentage of polyester fibers to increase the physical property of heat resistance as taught by Deguchi at ¶ 0012 or the properties of tear strength (nylon) again as taught by Deguchi.
Lastly, even if it is alternating or a mixture of both materials are done, they both are present and the claims only require the percentage to be the weight of the total fabric. Thus, this traversal is also not resounding. The rejections are maintained and modified to accommodate Applicant’s claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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) 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20110033687 A1 issued to Deguchi.
Deguchi discloses a thin woven ripstop [¶ 0007, 0029] made from thermoplastic synthetic fibers of a fineness from 5 to 30dtex (when converted 4.5 to 27 denier) [¶ 0007, 0012, 0015, 0033, abstract] are disposed in at least some of the warp and weft threads of a woven fabric. The synthetic fibers may be disposed in one of the warps and the wefts or may be disposed in both of the warp or wefts [¶0012-0014] and the number of intersections of the warp and weft threads of said woven fabric is from 23000 to 70000/2.54 cm2. Said woven fabric in the thin woven fabric is subjected to a silicone resin treatment [¶ 0006-0007, 0022-0023, 0026, 0029-0032, 0045 and abstract]. The thin woven fabric has a basis weight of the woven fabric is 15 to 50 g/m2- ¶ 0007. The woven fabric is coated with a silicone resin in an amount of 0.1 to 10% wt. ¶ 0007. At ¶0034, the instant reference teaches that the weaving machines to weave the wovens are not limited and can be water or air jet looms, rapier looms etc.
Regarding modified Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a composite woven fabric, comprising: nylon yarn in a percentage of between 40% to 80% by weight in said composite woven fabric, said nylon yarn configured for being woven along with at least one other yarn into said composite woven fabric;
said at least one other yarn comprising polyester yarn in a percentage of between 20% to 60% by weight in said composite woven fabric, said polyester yarn configured for being woven along with at least said nylon yarn into said composite woven fabric;
wherein said nylon yarn and said polyester yarn each exhibit a denier range of between 10D and 50D; and wherein said nylon yarn and said polyester yarns are woven together into a ripstop composite woven fabric; Applicant is directed to the intro paragraph of this rejection and more specifically to ¶0012-0014 where the instant reference teaches that the woven fabric comprising a thermoplastic synthetic fiber of a fineness 5 to 30 dtexes disposed in at least a part of warps or wefts of the woven fabric. The thermoplastic synthetic fiber may be disposed in one of the warps and the wefts, or may be disposed in both of the warps and the wefts. The thermoplastic synthetic fiber in the present invention is not particularly limited, and polyester fibers, polyamide fibers, polyolefin fibers, or the like. Further Table 1 shows that are specific percentages of what the warp and weft are.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp to determine a specific amount of the composition and arrangement within a ply of a woven. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of nylon or polyester or how much of one fiber was required in a given direction based on the desired end result properties. Since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed amount in any given direction (warp or weft) is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of nylon or polyester or how much of one fiber was required in a given direction based on the desired end result properties.
Furthermore, % by weight is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Deguchi’ s composite with nylon yarn in a percentage ranging from 45% to 80% and polyester yarn is between 20% to 60% by weight since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize nylon or polyester % by weight to reap the benefits that nylon or polyester would provide if one were to increase or decrease the amount in any given direction. One could have a greater percentage of polyester fibers to increase the physical property of heat resistance as taught by Deguchi at ¶ 0012 or the properties of tear strength (nylon) again as taught by Deguchi.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 1, wherein both said nylon yarn and said polyester yarn are woven in both warp and weft directions of said composite woven fabric; see rationale for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 1, wherein said nylon yarn is woven in the warp direction of said composite woven fabric and said polyester yarn is woven in said weft direction of said composite woven fabric: see rationale for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 1, wherein said ripstop composite woven fabric exhibits yarns per inch count in the weft direction in a range of between 129 to 169, and wherein said ripstop composite woven fabric exhibits yarns per inch count in the warp direction in a range of between 223 to 233; Applicant is directed to Table 1 of the instant reference which teaches and overlaps Applicant’s ranges.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 1, wherein said ripstop composite fabric is woven on one of an air-jet loom, a water-jet loom, and a dobby loom; Applicant is directed to ¶0034, of the instant where the reference teaches that the weaving machines to weave the wovens are not limited and can be water or air jet looms, rapier looms etc.
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 9, wherein said face side of said ripstop composite woven fabric is coated with one or more of a durable water repellent (DWR) and silicone coating; Applicant is directed to ¶0006-0007 and 0021-0024.
Regarding Claim 13, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 1, wherein said ripstop fabric has an uncoated fabric weight range of between 23 and 40 GSM; Applicant is directed to ¶0007 of the instant reference where the basis weight of the fabric is 15 to 50 g/m2.
Regarding Claim 14, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 12, wherein said ripstop composite woven fabric has a coated fabric weight range of between 29 and 50 GSM; Applicant is directed to ¶0007 of the instant reference where the basis weight of the fabric is 15 to 50 g/m2.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20110033687 A1 issued to Deguchi in view of USPUB 20200139689A1 issued to Lau et al.
Deguchi teaches what is set forth above but lacks the teaching of a polyurethane coating. This is remedied by the teachings of Lau et al.
Lau and Deguchi are both from the same art of endeavor in that the coating woven ripstop fabrics used particularly useful in garments as work wear, outerwear, outdoor applications, casual wear, fashion wear, personal protective equipment, and as specialty equipment.
Regarding Claims 9, 11, 12 and 15-18 Lau et al. teach using ripstop wovens made from nylon and/or polyester yarns or a combination [¶ 0028-0032]. The yarn size of the woven fabric may be less than about 30 denier [¶0034]. The woven fabric may have a weight of less than 60 grams per square meter (gsm, or g/m2) [¶0035]. At ¶ 0038-0046, the instant reference teaches that woven fabric may be coated with an undercoating. The coating layer may comprise a polymer. Suitable polymers for the coating layer may include a polyacrylate, a polyurethane, a polyester, a silicone, or a combination thereof. The textile comprising the woven fabric, low emissivity layer, and coating layer may be treated with a durable water repellent (DWR) finish that may be adjacent the woven fabric. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to added the additional polyurethane layer to the composite of Deguchi. One would be motivated to do so as polyurethane coatings on such fabrics provide the additional benefits of packageability or thermal resistance, without significantly disfavoring the structural integrity of the fabric.
Regarding modified Claim 15, where Applicant seeks that a composite woven fabric, comprising: nylon yarn in a percentage ranging from 40% to 80% by weight in a woven fabric, said nylon yarn configured for being woven along with at least one other yarn into said woven fabric; said at least one other yarn comprising a polyester yarn in a percentage ranging from 20% to 60% by weight in said woven fabric, said polyester yarn configured for being woven along with at least said nylon yarn into said woven fabric; wherein said nylon yarn and said polyester yarn are woven together into a ripstop fabric having a face side and a backside; and
wherein said face side of said ripstop fabric is coated with one or more of a durable water repellent (DWR) and silicone coating, and wherein said back side of said ripstop fabric is coated with a polyurethane coating; See rationale above and for claim 1. Further, it should be noted that the % by weight is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Deguchi’ s composite with nylon yarn in a percentage ranging from 45% to 80% and polyester yarn is between 20% to 60% by weight since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize nylon or polyester % by weight to reap the benefits that nylon or polyester would provide if one were to increase or decrease the amount in any given direction. One could have a greater percentage of polyester fibers to increase the physical property of heat resistance as taught by Deguchi at ¶ 0012 or the properties of tear strength (nylon) again as taught by Deguchi.
Regarding Claim 16, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 15, wherein said nylon yarn and said polyester yarn each exhibit a denier range of between 10 D to 50 D; Applicant is directed to ¶’s 0007, 0012, 0015, 0033 of Deguchi where the linear density is taught. It should be noted that the instance reference uses dtex as their unit of measure and when converted to deniers it is 4.5 to 27, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding Claim 17, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 15, wherein said ripstop fabric exhibits a yarns per inch count in the weft direction in a range of between 129 to 169, and wherein said ripstop fabric exhibits a yarns per inch count in the warp direction in a range of between 223 to 233; Applicant is directed to Table 1 of Deguchi which teaches and overlaps Applicant’s ranges.
Regarding Claim 18, where Applicant seeks that the composite woven fabric of claim 15, wherein said ripstop fabric has an uncoated fabric weight range of between 23 and 40 GSM and a coated fabric weight range of between 29 and 50 GSM; Applicant is directed to ¶0007 of Deguchi where the basis weight of the fabric is 15 to 50 g/m2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Arti R Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-3:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
ASP