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 claim 1, in the response filed March 27, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. For example, JP 2009-46800 is cited in the disclosure but not included on an IDS.
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, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2007/0004303 to Tanaka.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12, Tanaka teaches a stretchable composite fabric treated with a water-repellent treatment (water-repellent cloth given water repellent processing) that is woven (cloth) comprising a composite yarn B containing stretchable yarns (3) (stretch fiber) as a core with a yarn (4) having an individual fiber thickness more preferable 1.0 dtex or less for high water repellency (ultrafine fiber having a single fiber fineness of 1 dtex or less (Tanaka, para 0028, 0033, 0079-0086, 0118-0122). Tanaka teaches the stretchable composite fabric having an elastic elongation of more preferably 8 to 30% (Tanaka, para 0108). Tanaka teaches yarn (3) being a stretchable side-by-side type-conjugated polyester fibers (conjugate fiber made of two component joined in a side-by-side manner) or stretchable polytrimethylene terephthalate fibers (polyester fibers) (Id., para 0079-0080) and the yarn (4) comprising non-stretchable polyester fibers (Id., para 0083), reading on the fabric being a polyester fabric as containing polyester. Tanaka teaches the yarns being combined with air jet (Id., para 0084, 0078), reading on the composite yarn being an air mingled yarn. Tanaka teaches the fabric having at least one surface applied with a water-repellent treatment, including a silicone resin water-repellent agent (Id., para 0033, 0113-0114), reading on the woven fabric being subjected to fluorine-free water repellent. Tanaka also teaches the woven fabric comprising composite yarn (A) which comprising low-self elongative yarn (1) that includes polyetherester fibers and polyester-mixed resin fibers, or polyester fiber with a 5-sulfoisophthalic acid component and low-self-elongative yarn (2) that includes polyester fibers (Id., para 0089-0091, 0061, 0071), reading on the fabric being a polyester fabric. Tanaka teaches the fabric having a hydraulic pressure resistance of 100 mmH2O or more (Id., para 0035).
While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 10% or more stretchability in the warp direction or the weft direction, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. 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). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the elastic elongation, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9-10 and the claimed properties of the cloth having a water-repellent roll-off angle of 15° or less (claim 1), after 10 washes as specified in JIS L0217-1995 (using the JAFET standard combination detergent), the degree of water repellency measured in accordance with JIS L1092-2009 7.2, Test for Resistance to Surface Wetting (Spray Method), is Level 3 or higher (claim 7), the recovery of stretchability in the warp direction or the weft direction measured in accordance with JIS L1096-2010 8.16, B-1 Method, is 85% or more (claim 9), and the tear strength in the warp direction or the weft direction measured in accordance with JIS L1096-2010 8.17, D Method, is 7 N or more (claim 10), although the prior art does not disclose these features, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art combination since the prior art combination teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Tanaka teaches a water repellent woven fabric formed from composite yarn comprising stretchable fibers having a side-by-side structure formed from the claimed components with yarn containing filaments having denier less than 1 dtex forming the sheath of the composite yarn having a cover factor within the claimed range, a high water repellency including achieving class 5, and treated with a water repellent treatment, including a silicone water repellent agent. Tanaka teaches the low denier of the individual fiber and the high cover factor contributing to the high water repellency. Tanaka teaches a woven fabric having the claimed structural and chemical limitations. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Tanaka teaches composite fabric being a woven fabric having a cover factor of 2500 or more defined by the claimed formula (Tanaka, para 0032, 0118). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of 1,500 to 4,000 (claim 12), the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. 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). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the cover factor, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka teaches composite yarn (B) having a length ratio of yarn (3) to yarn (4) of preferably 0.9 to 0.2 (Tanaka, para 0083) and teaches the yarn 4 having individual fiber thickness of more preferably 1.0 dtex or less to promote high water repellency (Id., para 0085). Tanaka teaches the combination of yarn (3) with yarn (4) being subjected to a desired yarn-processing procedure such as an air jet interlace treatment or a covering type yarn-combining procedure with the fiber of the yarn (4) in the sheath extending outward and are bent or curved to cause the resultant composite yarn B to exhibit a bulky composite yarn appearance (Id., para 0084), reading on fine fiber loops composed of the ultrafine fiber.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches an embodiment having a water repellency of a surface formed of class 5 in accordance with JIS L 1092 spray method (Tanaka, 0174-0181)
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches the composite fabric being used in clothing (Tanaka, para 0036-0039), reading on a textile product comprising the water-repellent cloth.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2007/0004303 to Tanaka, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12 above, in view of WO 2017/131400 to Choi.
NOTE: The English Machine Translation of WO 2017/131400 is being used for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12, in the event that the water repellent roll off angle being 15° or less is associated with the type of water-repellent treatment, Choi teaches a water-repellent agent of a silicone-based emulsion comprising a silicone oil, specifically a non-fluorine-based silicone; an emulsifier; and water that is not only harmless to human and the environment since it does not contain fluorine-based products but also exhibits excellent water repellency and excellent water-repellent and washing durability (Choi, abstract, p. 2-3), reading on a fluorine-free water repellent. Choi teaches since the non-fluorine-based silicone component is used, the texture of the fiber after water repellent treatment is excellent, the touch feeling is excellent so that a softener process can be omitted (Id., p. 3). Choi teaches the water-repellent agent being applied to woven fabric, including stretchable fabric and polyester woven fabrics (Id., p. 7). Choi teaches an embodiment having a water repellency, spray test, according to AATCC 22-1996 of ISO 5 grade (Id., p. 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fabric of Tanaka, wherein the silicone resin water-repellent agent is the silicone water repellent agent of Choi, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known silicone water repellent agents predictably suitable for use on fabrics, including polyester woven fabrics and fabrics having stretch, and by the desire to impart excellent water repellency, water repellent durability, and excellent feel, as well as use a material that is harmless to humans and the environment since it does not contain fluorine.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2007/0004303 to Tanaka, optionally in view of Choi, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0239289 to Iwashita.
Regarding claim 4, in the event that a surface of the fabric having formed thereon fine fiber loops composed of the ultrafine fiber with sufficient specificity, Iwashita teaches a water-repellent woven fabric having excellent water repellency formed from a composite yarn containing a false-twist crimped textured yarn containing filaments that have a single yarn fineness of not more than 1 dtex that has been subjected to interlacing process and woven into a fabric having a cover factor from 1,500 to 2,800 (Iwashita, abstract, para 0008-0012, 0029). Iwashita teaches the composite yarn contained in the woven fabric has lotus-leaf-like fine irregularities formed on the surface of the woven fabric leading to excellent water repellency (Id., para 0017, 0039), reading on a surface of the fabric having formed thereon fine fiber loops composed of the ultrafine fiber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fabric of Tanaka, wherein the fabric has lotus-leaf0like fine irregularities on the surface as taught by Iwashita, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known woven fabric structure predictably for use in water repellent fabric comprising composite yarns having filaments with a single yarn fineness not more than 1 dtex and by the desire to impart excellent water repellency.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2007/0004303 to Tanaka, optionally in view of Choi, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9-12 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0177753 to Ukuma.
Regarding claim 10, in the event that the tear strength in the warp or the weft direction is not necessarily present in the fabric of Tanaka, Ukuma teaches a woven fabric having a cover factor of 1800 or more that has been subjected to water-repellent processing (Ukuma, abstract, para 0008-0016). Ukuma teaches the fabric being woven from composite yarns that contain false-twist crimped yarns having an overall fineness of 10 to 100 dtex and a single-yarn fiber diameter of 0.5 dtex or less, including fiber formed of polyesters such as polyethylene terephthalate and polytrimethylene terephthalate (Id., para 0019-0028). Ukuma teaches tear strength of the woven fabric being 7 N or more achieved by employing ripstop weave (Id., para 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the fabric of Tanaka, wherein the fabric has a tear strength as taught by Ukuma, such as by using the ripstop weave of Ukuma, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known woven fabric and weave types predictably suitable for water repellent woven fabric having high cover factors formed using composite yarn having individual fiber fineness less than 1 dtex and by the desire to ensure high tear strength, taught in the art as being desirable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regards to the application of Tanaka, that Tanaka fails to teaches the woven fabric being a polyester fabric as Tanaka includes polyetherester fiber and a polyester fabric includes no fibers other than polyester fibers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the current claim limitation as fabric is not limited to consistent of polyester fiber. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a polyester woven fabric is a woven fabric comprising polyester. A polyester is “a polymer in which the polymer units are joined by esters” as evidenced by Cambridge dictionary (Cambridge, p. 2 polyester, noun, chemistry). A polyetherester is a polymer containing ester bonds. A polyester encompasses copolymer that contain other bonds in addition to the ester bonds, such as ether. Therefore, the polyetherester of Tanaka is within the scope of a polyester.
Applicant argues that Tanaka teaches away from a surface of the cloth having a water-repellent roll-off angle of 15 or less because the woven fabric of Tanaka includes water-absorbent yarn. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanaka teaches the fabric having a hydraulic pressure resistance of 100 mmH2O or more (Tanaka, para 0035). Tanaka teaches the water repellency of a surface formed mainly from the composite yarn (B) being class 5 (Id., para 0181), indicating that surface has a high water repellency. Claim 1 requires a surface of the cloth to have a water repellent roll-off angle of 15° or less. Only one surface, such as the surface mainly formed from the composite yarn (B), to have the claimed roll-off property. As the measured water repellency of this surface is Class 5 as well as a high hydraulic head, the roll-off angle, both indications of water repellency, would also be low as being highly water repellent. Applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the instant disclosure teaches the presence of a moisture-absorbing elastomer fiber (see para 0025, 0031 of the published application) as being within the scope of the invention. This supports that the mere presence of the water absorbing fiber does not necessarily equate the roll-off angle being outside the claimed range. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2019/0093289 to Follmann teaches a water repellent substrate and teaches the water roll-off may be controlled by adjustment of the microfiber composition, microfiber loading, and use of additive, such as additional water repellent achieving a low roll-off angle of no more than 10.
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 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights