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 .
Amendments to claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 14, amendments to the drawing, and amendments to the specification, in the response filed October 23, 2025, have been entered.
Note: The claim status of claim 14 indicated original, however, an amendment to the claim dependency has been shown and discussed in the remarks filed October 23, 2025, p. 11. Examiner is interpreting claim 14 as amended to depend on claim 2.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Claims 17-18 and 20-21 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards non-elected inventions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no support for the limitations “polyester fiberfill” (claims 3-5) or the percentages in claims 4-8 being weight percentages, and “a composition ratio of a material constituting the second reinforcing fiber of the second reinforcing portion is different from the composition ratio of a material constituting the third reinforcing fiber of the third reinforcing portion” (claim 10).
There is no explicit support for these limitation. There is no mention of fiberfill or polyester fiberfill in the originally filed disclosure. There is no mention as to the basis of the recited percentages, such as being weight percent. There is no mention of “composition ratio” in the originally filed disclosure. Therefore, the amendment introduces new matter.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim, modify this limitation(s) as disclosed in the originally filed disclosure, or remove the limitation(s).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the first reinforcing fiber of the first reinforcing portion is formed by mixing two or more materials from among wool (including woolen material, lamb's wool, merino wool, and pima wool), cotton, and polyester fiberfill in a certain ratio.” It is unclear if the listed materials in parenthesis are intended as exemplary or limiting for wool. It is also unclear if the entirety of the listed material are required as part of the wool. Additionally, the term “fiber” typically refers to a unit of matter that forms the basic elements of fabric and other textile structures (see Celanese, p. 4). Fiber can be blended to form yarns. While composite, bicomponent or multicomponent fibers are possible, those fiber involve two or more polymer types, not the natural fiber material wool and cotton. It is unclear if fiber is referring collectively to the fiber material forming the first reinforcing portion or individual fibers. If collective, it is unclear if other references to yarn and fiber refers to the collective yarn of fiber type and not limiting to just a single, individual yarn or fiber. It is unclear if there is a translation error and fiber is intended as yarn. It is also unclear how “a certain ratio” is intended to be further limiting apart from the presence of the materials recited. For the purpose of prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 3 as referring collectively to the first reinforcing fibers as being formed by mixing two or more material selected from the group consisting of wool, cotton, and polyester.
Similarly, claim 4-8 recites the limitation “-- wool (including woolen material, lamb's wool, merino wool, and pima wool).” It is unclear if the listed materials in parenthesis are intended as exemplary or limiting for wool. It is also unclear if the entirety of the listed material are required as part of the wool. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claims 4-6 as the wool types being exemplative and optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2020/0040488 to Almog.
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-16, Almog teaches a fabric that includes encapsulation zones including a first encapsulation region having a first level of elasticity, a second region encapsulation region having a second elasticity, and a third encapsulation region having a third elasticity (Almog, abstract, para 0004, 0031-0033). Along teach the fabric being knitted (Id., para 0031-0033, 0055-0059). Almog teaches an embodiment wherein encapsulation zone 210 is knit with a basic ground yarn or a single yarn with an additional knitting and the one or more other encapsulation region 211-214 (second reinforcing portion, third reinforcing portion, claim 2, 15) are knit with a basic ground yarn as well as with additional knitting yarn or extra knitting yarn (Id., para 0057, Fig. 2A) and teaches using a needle-based knitting techniques (Id., para 0056, 0087-0088), reading on the first reinforcing portion and second reinforcing portion being formed by a needling process. Region 214 is shown to being disposed to correspond to a central portion of a lower surface of the knitted web, reading on a first reinforcing portion with region 213 (second reinforcing portion) and region 212 (third reinforcing portion) being disposed to surround a periphery of the 214, or first reinforcing portion, on the lower surface of the knitted web, and a third reinforcing portion disposed to overlap the second reinforcing portion (claim 2) or disposed on the periphery of the second reinforcing portion (claim 15), respectively. Examiner would like to note that the portion having not been defined apart from being formed of different material and therefore the portion can encompass part of the second reinforcing portion or be disposed on the periphery. The additional knitting yarn or extra knitting yarn reads on first reinforcing fiber of a first reinforcing portion and a first reinforcing fiber of the second reinforcing portion being formed by being introduced into the single yarn of the knitted web to mix with the knitted web. Almog teaches a needled knitting process to form the encapsulated zone and teaches a basic ground yarn in some zones with other zones using the basic ground yarn as well as additional knitting yarn (Id., para 0057, 0087), which reads on the first reinforcing portion and the second reinforcing portion are formed by performing a needling process, thereby introducing the first reinforcing fiber and the second reinforcing fiber into the single yarn of the knitted web to mix with the knitted web. As the additional yarn is knitted with the ground yarn, the needling process introduces the additional yarn, or first reinforcing fiber and the second reinforcing fiber, into the ground yarn, or single yarn, of the knitted web to mix with the knitted web. Almog teaches each of the encapsulation regions 211-214 providing a different level of elasticity or flexibility or rigidness relative to each one of the other encapsulation regions and be achieved by reducing the size, the density, type or other knitting characteristic(s) of the knitting stitch or the knitting eye in each region (Id., para 0058). As the elasticity and/or rigidity is different, the first reinforcing portion and the second reinforcing portion would necessarily have different tensile strengths. Examiner would like to note that any different in tensile strength meets the claim limitation. As the materials are different in the locations, the first reinforcing portion, the second reinforcing portion, and the third reinforcing portion would be formed of different materials as differing by size, the density, type or other knitting characteristic(s). The limitation “cuttable” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. The fabric of Almog is capable of being cut, such as by laser, blade or scissor. Almog teaches the invention may use cutting and bonding units (Id., para 0091).
Regarding claim 3, Almog teaches the addition knitting yarn or extra knitting yarn may be or comprise polyester, cotton, or wool (Almog, para 0057, 0093), reading on the first reinforcing fiber of the first reinforcing portion being formed by mixing two or more material selected from the group consisting of polyester, cotton, or wool; the second reinforcing fiber of the reinforcing portion being formed of wool or cotton (claim 7); and the third reinforcing fiber of the third reinforcing portion being formed of wool or cotton (claim 8).
Regarding claims 9-10, Almog teaches the regions having different shape, such as an oval and a hexagon band (Almog, Fig. 3C, 3F, para 0050-0051), which result in the first reinforcing portion being formed so that a tensile strength in a first direction that is greater than a tensile strength in a second direction and the second reinforcing portion being formed so that a tensile strength in the second direction is greater than a tensile strength in the first direction due to the shape of the regions. Almog teaches each of the encapsulation regions 211-214 providing a different level of elasticity or flexibility or rigidness relative to each one of the other encapsulation regions and be achieved by reducing the size, the density, type or other knitting characteristic(s) of the knitting stitch or the knitting eye in each region (Id., para 0058), which means a ratio of a material constituting the second reinforcing fiber of the second reinforcing portion would be different from a ratio of material constituting the third reinforcing fiber of the third reinforcing portion due to the size, type, or density.
Regarding claims 12-13, Almog teaches regions having the same shape (Almog, Fig. 2A, para 0043, 0048), reading on a shape of the first reinforcing portion, a shape of the second reinforcing portion, and a shape of the third reinforcing portion being the same as each other.
Regarding claim 16, Almog teaches the regions having different shapes (Almog, para 0051, Fig. 3E), reading on a shape of the first reinforcing portion, a shape of the second reinforcing portion, and a shape of the third reinforcing portion are different from each other.
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 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2020/0040488 to Almog, as applied to claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-16.
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-16, in the event it is shown that Almog does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Almog discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fabric of Almog, wherein the encapsulation region are formed such as having the claimed features as taught as being predictably suitable for the invention of Almog and motivated by the desire of practicing the invention of Almog based upon the totality of the teachings of Almog.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2020/0040488 to Almog, as applied to claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-16, in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0352179 to Bell.
Regarding claims 4-6, Almog teaches the extra knitting yarn may be or comprise polyester, cotton, or wool (Almog, para 0057, 0093), reading on the first reinforcing fiber of the first reinforcing portion being formed by mixing two or more material selected from the group consisting of polyester, cotton, or wool (claim 4.
Almog is silent with regards to the first reinforcing fiber of the first reinforcing portion being formed by mixing 50% to 70% polyester and 30% to 50% wool (claim 4) or 50% to 70% polyester and 30% to 50% cotton (claim 5), or 40% to 60% polyester, 20% to 30% wool, and 20% to 30% cotton (claim 6).
However, Bell teaches a knitted fabric formed of yarns that impart different properties to portion of the fabric (Bell, abstract, para 0051). Bell teaches that cotton provides a soft hand, natural aesthetics, and biodegradability, stretch polyester each provide substantial stretch and recovery and recyclability, and wool provides high moisture absorption, in addition to insulating properties and biodegradability (Id., para 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the extra or additional yarns of Almog, wherein the blend of cotton, wool and/or polyester material is selected based on the desired soft hand, natural aesthetics, biodegradability, stretch and recovery, high moisture absorption, and insulating properties as taught by Bell as predictably influenced based on the cotton, polyester, and wool amounts. It should be noted that amount of cotton, wool and polyester are result effective variables. Increasing the amount of polyester would predictably increase stretch while increasing cotton will increase soft hand and increasing wool increase absorbency and insulating properties. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the blend since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2020/0040488 to Almog, as applied to claims 1-3, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-16, in view of WO 2005/094426 to Jagaric.
Regarding claim 11, Almog teaches at least one of the regions 211, 212, 213, 214, and 210 may have different thickness or fabric-thickness (Almog, para 0068-0069). Almog teaches the fabric being used in a bra (Id., para 0006-0007, 0012-0014, 0024-0026).
Almog does not explicitly teach a thickness of the central region (first reinforcing portion) being greater than a thickness of a second thickness of the second reinforcing portion and a thickness of the third reinforcing portion.
However, Jagaric teaches it is known in the bra art to have a thicker central region (Jagaric, para 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fabric of Almog, wherein a thicker central area, corresponding to a thickness of the first reinforcing portion, has a thickness greater than a thickness of the surrounding regions (second reinforcing portion and the third reinforcing portion) as taught by Jagaric, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known features predictably suitable for use in fabric forming bra and within the scope of Almog as taught as having different fabric thicknesses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim requires the first and second reinforcing portion being formed by performing a needling process, which introduces the reinforcing fiber into and interlaces them within the single yarns of the knitted web and Almog lacks the claimed composition configuration where the reinforcing fibers are physically entangled and mixed into the same knitted yarn network. However, the claim recites the limitation “the first reinforcing portion and the second reinforcing portion are formed by performing a needling process, thereby introducing the first reinforcing fiber and the second reinforcing fiber into the single yarn of the knitted web to mix with the knitted web.” The reinforcing fiber is not claimed as interlacing within the single yarns of the knitted web. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not fully commensurate in scope with the current claim limitations. Almog teaches a needled knitting process to form the encapsulated zone and teaches a basic ground yarn in some zones with other zones using the basic ground yarn as well as additional knitting yarn (Almog, para 0057, 0087), which reads on the first reinforcing portion and the second reinforcing portion are formed by performing a needling process, thereby introducing the first reinforcing fiber and the second reinforcing fiber into the single yarn of the knitted web to mix with the knitted web. As the additional yarn is knitted with the ground yarn, the needling process introduces the additional yarn, or first reinforcing fiber and the second reinforcing fiber, into the ground yar, or single yarn, of the knitted web to mix with the knitted web. If Applicant intends for a layer of reinforcing fiber to be position on the knitted web and needlepunched into a web to form the reinforcing portion, the claim would need to be amended accordingly, such as pulling from para 0056 of the published application.
Applicant argues that the claim requires different materials from the knitted web and Almog’s zone differ only by knitting pattern or stitch density, not by material composition. Examiner would like to highlight that the claim recites “the first reinforcing portion and the second reinforcing portion are formed of different materials.” The claim does not require the difference to be compositional. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current claim limitations. Additionally, Almog teaches the use of additional or extra knitting yarn (Almog, para 0057, 0101-0102), which reads on a first reinforcing fiber and a second reinforcing fiber with the first reinforcing portion and the second reinforcing portion are formed of different materials.
Applicant argues that the claimed needled structure yield higher stiffness, improve durability, and longer service life due to the integrated reinforcement. However, theses features are not claimed feature and therefore, not commensurate in scope with the claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 3019284 teaches a base material, such as a knitted fabric, with pattern pieces needled punched onto the surface. GB 2010350 teaches a decorated fabric with fibrous strands consolidated into the fabric in predetermined area by needlepunching.
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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789