DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 03/06/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12, and cancelled claims 4 and 11 on 05/14/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12 are rejected.
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 .
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.
Claim 5 is 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, “protrusions have a width of 10.0 microns or less” in line 3. There is no mention of protrusions in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. It is not clear if protrusions are part of the woven fabric or how the protrusions connect to the fabric. Therefore, the Examiner will interpret claim 5 as reciting, “wherein the grooves of the synthetic fiber filament have a depth of 1.0 micron to 10.0 micron and inlets of the grooves have a width of 1 micron to 10 micron” as meeting the limitations of claim 5.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. 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 1-3, 5-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidu et al. (WO2011152059A1) (Kidu) in view of Tawatari et al. (JP 2019026944A) (Tawatari).
Kidu is cited in the IDS filed 05/12/2022. Citations to Kidu may be found in the translation provided by Applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 9
Kidu teaches swimwear comprising a stretch woven fabric for use in swimwear in which covering coated threads are arranged in warp and weft yarns, the covering coated threads each include an elastic fiber as a core yarn and a synthetic fiber filament as a sheath yarn. The woven fabric comprises a weave structure in which one of the warp yarn and the weft yarn has a large number of float yarns on a surface of the woven fabric. Preferably the woven fabric includes a 2/1 twill weave, a 5-harness satin weave, or a combination of these weave structures. See, e.g., abstract, page 2, lines 1-2, page 3, lines 9-12 and 38-45, page 4, lines 14-31, page 5, lines 17-19. The 5-harness satin weave possesses a ratio of resistance yarn of 20% as 5 intersection points in a weave repeat of 25 intersection points. The 2/1 twill possesses a ratio of 33.3% as 3 intersection points in a weave repeat of 9 intersection points. Further, Applicant’s specification acknowledges 1/2 twill, 2/1 twill, and 5-harness satin weave as satisfying the claimed ration of resistance yarn. Paragraphs [0042], [0044], and [0049].
Given Kidu teaches the woven fabric of the swimwear includes a warp yarn or weft yarn with a large number of float yarns on its surface, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try placing the direction with a large number of float yarns in a body length direction of the swimwear, as placing the large number of float in the body long direction of the swimwear is a finite number of predictable solutions (i.e., in other words, the large number of floats are in the body length direction or body width direction), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Kidu does not explicitly teach a plurality of grooves in a surface of the fibers of the woven fabric.
With respect to the difference, Tawatari teaches a core-sheath composite fiber suitable for use in clothing that exhibits excellent water-repellent performance. The core-sheath composite fiber includes a plurality of grooves on a surface of the sheath in a fiber length direction. The groove has a wide part satisfying the following formulae (IV) and (V):
(SWmax)/(SWmin)≥1.3 (IV)
0.5≤(SH/D)≤0.25 (V)
SWmin: width of the inlet groove (microns)
SWmax: width of the wide part of the groove (microns)
D: fiber diameter (micron)
SH: groove depth (micron)
By setting the ratio of (SWmax)/(SWmin)≥1.3, the narrow inlet makes it difficult for water droplets to enter the grooves and the air trapped inside the grooves pushes the water droplets up, thereby maintaining an air layer and achieving a water-repellent effect. The ratio of fiber diameter to groove depth ranges as shown in formula V in view of water droplet penetration and groove deformation. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001-0002], [0013-0017], [0026-0027].
Tawatari and Kidu are analogous art as they are both drawn to sheath-core composite fibers suitable for clothing that exhibits excellent water-repellent performance.
In light of the motivation as provided by Tawatari, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of grooves on the surface of the sheath of Kidu in a fiber length direction, wherein the grooves satisfy formulae (IV) and (V), in order to provide water repellency to the fiber, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2
Kidu in view of Tawatari teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kidu further a woven fabric in which covering coated threads are arranged in warp and weft yarns, the covering coated threads each include an elastic fiber as a core yarn and a synthetic fiber filament as a sheath yarn. The woven fabric is a 2/1 twill fabric possessing a cover factor of 3,025. The warp direction is the direction with a large number of float yarns, as shown in FIG. 3 and described in paragraph [0044] of Applicant’s specification. As the weft and warp yarn the same, the fineness Dx and Dy are also the same. Therefore, given the warp density is larger than the weft density, cfx ≥ cfy must be true. Page 6, lines 25-33.
Regarding claim 5
Kidu in view of Tawatari teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above.
Tawatari further teaches the core-sheath composite fiber possesses a groove depth of 3.1 microns and a groove inlet width of 0.9 microns. The core-sheath fiber exhibited durable, good water repellent performance. Paragraph [0087-0088].
Tawatari and Kidu are analogous art as they are both drawn to sheath-core composite fibers suitable for clothing that exhibits excellent water-repellent performance.
In light of the motivation as provided by Tawatari, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a groove depth of 3.1 microns and a groove inlet width of 0.9 microns in the core-sheath composite fiber of Kidu in view of Tawatari, in order to provide water repellency to the fiber, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Kidu in view of Tawatari discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed groove inlet width. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the groove inlet width to the claimed range since the claimed range and the prior art range are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, for the benefit of attaining durable, good water repellency.
Regarding claim 7
Kidu in view of Tawatari teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kidu further teaches the synthetic fiber filament is a polyamide fiber. Page 3, lines 38-45, lines 37-38 and page 6, lines 25-33.
Regarding claim 8
Kidu in view of Tawatari teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kidu further teaches the weft or warp yarn of the weave structure possesses a number of floats is 2 to 6 relative to the other yarn. Therefore, the number of jumps at the intersection point of the warp and weft yarns is 2 to 6. Preferred twill weave structures include 2/1 twill. In light of the disclosure of Kidu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try a 1/2 twill weave structure in the woven fabric of Kidu, as in the 1/2 twill weave structure two weft yarns possess two floats relative to the other yarn, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10
Kidu in view of Tawatari teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kidu further teaches the woven fabric is subjected to water repellent finishing. Page 5, lines 7-11.
Regarding claim 12
Kidu in view of Tawatari teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above.
Tawatari further teaches a core-sheath composite fiber suitable for use in clothing that exhibits excellent water-repellent performance. The core-sheath composite fiber includes a plurality of grooves on a surface of the sheath in a fiber length direction. The groove has a wide part satisfying the following formulae (IV) and (V):
(SWmax)/(SWmin)≥1.3 (IV)
0.5≤(SH/D)≤0.25 (V)
SWmin: width of the inlet groove (microns)
SWmax: width of the wide part of the groove (microns)
D: fiber diameter (micron)
SH: groove depth (micron)
By setting the ratio of (SWmax)/(SWmin)≥1.3, the narrow inlet makes it difficult for water droplets to enter the grooves and the air trapped inside the grooves pushes the water droplets up, thereby maintaining an air layer and achieving a water-repellent effect. The ratio of fiber diameter to groove depth ranges as shown in formula V in view of water droplet penetration and groove deformation. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001-0002], [0013-0017], [0026-0027].
Tawatari and Kidu are analogous art as they are both drawn to sheath-core composite fibers suitable for clothing that exhibits excellent water-repellent performance.
In light of the motivation as provided by Tawatari, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the grooves on the surface of the sheath of Kidu in view of Tawatari satisfies formulae (IV) and (V), in order to provide water repellency to the fiber, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidu et al. (WO2011152059A1) (Kidu) in view of Masuda et al. (US 2018/0030622) (Masuda).
Kidu is cited in the IDS filed 05/12/2022. Citations to Kidu may be found in the translation provided by Applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 9
Kidu teaches swimwear comprising a stretch woven fabric for use in swimwear in which covering coated threads are arranged in warp and weft yarns, the covering coated threads each include an elastic fiber as a core yarn and a synthetic fiber filament as a sheath yarn. The woven fabric comprises a weave structure in which one of the warp yarn and the weft yarn has a large number of float yarns on a surface of the woven fabric. Preferably the woven fabric includes a 2/1 twill weave, a 5-harness satin weave, or a combination of these weave structures. See, e.g., abstract, page 2, lines 1-2, page 3, lines 9-12 and 38-45, page 4, lines 14-31, page 5, lines 17-19. The 5-harness satin weave possesses a ratio of resistance yarn of 20% as 5 intersection points in a weave repeat of 25 intersection points. The 2/1 twill possesses a ratio of 33.3% as 3 intersection points in a weave repeat of 9 intersection points.
Given that Kidu discloses the stretch woven fabric that overlaps the presently claimed stretch woven fabric, including the use of a 2/1 twill weave, 5-harness satin weave, or combination of these weaves, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use a 2/1 twill weave, 5-harness satin weave, or combination of these weaves, which is both disclosed by Kidu and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Kidu does not explicitly teach a plurality of grooves in a surface of the fibers of the woven fabric.
With respect to the difference, Masuda teaches a fiber comprising a surface portion possessing grooves in a direction perpendicular to the fiber axis. The groove height (H) is shown in FIG. 2. The groove inlet width is calculated from the ratio of the width at the projection tip to the distance between the adjacent projection tip which ranges from 0.1 to 0.9. Masuda teaches a fiber possessing a groove depth of 1.3 microns and a width at the projection tip of 0.8 microns. The groove inlet width ranges from 0.88 to 7.2 microns. This fiber possesses good water repellency and abrasion resistance. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0017-0018], [0079-0081], [0090], [0095], [0098], [0155-0159], and FIG. 1-2.
PNG
media_image1.png
425
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Masuda and Kidu are analogous art as they are both drawn to water-repellent fibers for clothing applications.
In light of the motivation as provided by Masuda, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fiber of Kidu such that it possesses a plurality of grooves on its surface in a fiber length direction, wherein the depth of the grooves is 1.3 microns and the inlet width of the grooves ranges from 0.88 to 7.2 microns, in order to provide good water repellency and abrasion resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 2
Kidu in view of Masuda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kidu further a woven fabric in which covering coated threads are arranged in warp and weft yarns, the covering coated threads each include an elastic fiber as a core yarn and a synthetic fiber filament as a sheath yarn. The woven fabric is a 2/1 twill fabric possessing a cover factor of 3,025. The warp direction is the direction with a large number of float yarns, as shown in FIG. 3 and described in paragraph [0044] of Applicant’s specification. As the weft and warp yarn the same, the fineness Dx and Dy are also the same. Therefore, given the warp density is larger than the weft density, cfx ≥ cfy must be true. Page 6, lines 25-33.
Regarding claim 7
Kidu in view of Masuda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kidu further teaches the synthetic fiber filament is a polyamide fiber. Page 3, lines 38-45, lines 37-38 and page 6, lines 25-33.
Regarding claim 8
Kidu in view of Masuda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kidu further teaches the weft or warp yarn of the weave structure possesses a number of floats is 2 to 6 relative to the other yarn. Therefore, the number of jumps at the intersection point of the warp and weft yarns is 2 to 6. Preferred twill weave structures include 2/1 twill. In light of the disclosure of Kidu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try a 1/2 twill weave structure in the woven fabric of Kidu, as in the 1/2 twill weave structure two weft yarns possess two floats relative to the other yarn, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10
Kidu in view of Masuda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kidu further teaches the woven fabric is subjected to water repellent finishing. Page 5, lines 7-11.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections over claim 1 are withdrawn. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection over claim 5 is maintained, for reasons set forth below.
The previous 35 U.S.C 103 rejections are substantially maintained. Any modification to the rejection is in response to the amendment of claim 1 and cancellation of claims 4 and 11.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as set forth below.
Applicant primarily argues paragraph [0071] of the specification which refers to FIG. 11 shows protrusion are formed between two adjacent grooves on the surface of the synthetic fiber filament. This connects the feature to the claimed woven fabric. Remarks, pages 6-7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The present claims does not make it clear the claimed fiber filament includes protrusions.
Applicant primarily argues does not teach the combined specific directional assignment of float yarns in the body length direction and the quantified resistance yarn ratio used to reduce water friction resistance. Remarks, pages 8-9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, while Kidu may not explicitly measured the claimed resistance yarn ratio or teach setting the resistance yarn ratio for the purpose of reducing water friction resistance, the fact remains the woven fabric of Kidu meets the claimed limitation. The 5-harness satin weave possesses a ratio of resistance yarn of 20% as 5 intersection points in a weave repeat of 25 intersection points. The 2/1 twill possesses a ratio of 33.3% as 3 intersection points in a weave repeat of 9 intersection points. Further, Applicant’s specification acknowledges 1/2 twill, 2/1 twill, and 5-harness satin weave as satisfying the claimed ratio of resistance yarn. Paragraphs [0042], [0044], and [0049]. It is not required that Kidu teach the claim limitation to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.
Secondly, given Kidu teaches the woven fabric of the swimwear includes a warp yarn or weft yarn with a large number of float yarns on its surface, as discussed in the rejection above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try placing the direction with a large number of float yarns in a body length direction of the swimwear, as placing the large number of float in the body long direction of the swimwear is a finite number of predictable solutions (i.e., in other words, the large number of floats are in the body length direction or body width direction).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position Kidu does teach the claimed limitations.
Applicant further argues the difference in water friction resistance force and peeling angle of the boundary layer between Example 1 and Comparative Example 3 shows the superior performance of the claimed invention. Remarks, pages 10-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. It is Applicants’ burden to explain why their proffered results are considered to be unexpected, are considered to be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter, and are considered to be the consequence of a comparison to the closest prior art. See, e.g., In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).
The claims must be commensurate in scope with the results. In this case, Example 1 uses a specific woven fabric, a 1/2 weft twill weave, that possesses a ratio of resistance yarn 33.3%. It is noted the present claims broadly recite a woven fabric and is therefore open to any woven fabric. In addition, Applicant has compared a singular data point to a comparative example. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
Applicant further argues Tawatari does not disclose a woven fabric structure, directional float yarn alignment, or use in swimwear applications. Remarks, pages 11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
It is noted that while Tawtari does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Tawtari is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, i.e., grooves in a fiber’s surface for improved water repellent effect, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. Since water repellency is a known desirable characteristics in swimwear, it follows one of ordinary skill in the art would look to improve the water repellency of the swimwear.
Applicant further argues Masuda does not disclose a specific weave structure, resistance yarn configuration, or directional alignment. Remarks, page 11.
It is noted that while Masuda does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Masuda is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, i.e., grooves in a fiber’s surface for improved water repellent effect, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. Since water repellency is a known desirable characteristics in swimwear, it follows one of ordinary skill in the art would look to improve the water repellency of the swimwear.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789