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 .
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claims 1-8, claim 1 recites that the interval maintaining yarns are inclined at a predetermined angle and continuously interlaced and connected to form a zigzag pattern in a direction from one side to the other side by alternately being connected to the lower sheet layer and the upper sheet layer. Applicant’s specification as originally claimed does not appear to teach the claimed pattern by alternately being connected to the lower sheet layer and the upper sheet layer. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claims 1-8, claim 1 recites that the interval maintaining yarns are inclined at a predetermined angle and continuously interlaced and connected to form a zigzag pattern. It is unclear if the claimed limitations are directed to the manner of forming the air cushion, such as by inclining the interval maintaining yarns at a predetermined angle, or if the claimed limitations are structural limitations necessarily required by the claims.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “cutting portions.” It is unclear if the portions are actually cut, or if the portions are merely described as cutting portions without being cut.
Additionally, although Applicant’s submissions of November 30, 2025, recites that “cutting portions” refers to portions of the interval maintaining yarns where material has been removed or cut away, creating intermittent spacing, it is unclear how such an interpretation is consistent with claim 1, which requires the interval maintaining yarns to be “continuously interlaced and connected… in a direction from one side to the other side by alternately being connected to the lower sheet layer and the upper sheet layer.” If the interval maintaining yarns has portions where material has been removed or cut away, the yarns cannot also be continuously interlaced and connected as claimed. Note that page 7 recites “the cutting portion, in which no interval maintaining yarns layer is disposed”, that page 9 references 220 as a cutting portion which does not reference an interval maintaining yarn in the Figures, and that page 21 recites “[b]ecause the cutting portion 220 is a section in which the interval maintaining yarn layers 130 are intermittently eliminated, the interval maintaining yarns are not cut in case that the raw fabric is cut by using the cutting portion.”
Regarding claims 3-6, claim 3 recites a punching needle part disposed above the upper sheet layer or below the lower sheet layer and configured to penetrate the upper sheet layer and the lower sheet layer simultaneously. It is unclear how a needle part disposed above or below the layers can necessarily penetrate the layers simultaneously.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, claim 7 recites “an EF polymer layer.” “EF” is not a specific polymer layer known in the art, and it is unclear if “EF” is referencing a structure or a composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPN 5,413,837 to Rock.
Regarding claims 1-7, Rock teaches a three-dimensional knit or woven fabric including a first fabric layer, a second fabric layer and a yarn interconnecting the two layers, wherein both the first and second fabric layers have a barrier layer adhered to the outside surfaces (Rock, Abstract). Rock teaches that the three-dimensional knit or woven fabric is either woven on a double-plush loom or knit on a double needle bar warp knitter (Id., column 2 lines 47-68). Rock teaches that the barrier layer deposited on the fabric layers include a suitable film such as polyvinyl chloride (Id., column 3 lines 28-35), applied by transfer coating (Id., column 3 lines 41-46). Rock teaches that another fabric layer may be adhered to either of the barrier layers (Id., column 4 lines 3-17). As shown in at least Fig. 2 of Rock, an upper sheet layer is disposed above a lower sheet layer and provided in parallel with the lower sheet layer and spaced apart.
Regarding the claimed yarns being inclined at a predetermined angle and continuously interlaced and connected to form a zigzag pattern as claimed, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, since the fabric is a three-dimensional knit or woven comprising yarns, wherein the fabric has a honeycomb configuration or a basket weave or any knit construction, and wherein the layers are left uncut and interconnected by a plurality of yarns (see Rock, column 2 lines 47-68), Rock appears to teach the claimed structure.
Alternatively, the manner of inclining, interlacing, and forming the cushion, as additionally set forth in claims 1 and 3-6, is interpreted product by process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 2, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, since Rock teaches a substantially similar structure as claimed, and since Rock teaches that the layers may be cut or uncut, Rock appears to teach the claimed cutting portions.
Regarding claim 7, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, Rock teaches applying a barrier layer comprising polyvinyl chloride by direct lamination or roller coating of a solution, and additionally applying another fabric layer, such as a nylon or polyester material (Rock, column 3 line 27 to column 4 lines 12). Note that since there does not appear to be any distinction between the PVC coating layer and the PVC sheet, the barrier layer of Rock appears to be within the scope of the claimed structure. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fabric of Rock, and further applying a second PVC coating layer, as one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the thickness of the coating layer can be enhanced by applying multiple layers.
Additionally, as Applicants’ specification does not recite any materials within the scope of the EF polymer layer, the fabric layer of Rock appears to be within the scope of the claimed layer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rock in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0299854 to Hilleary.
Regarding claims 1-7, Rock appears to teach the claimed structure. Additionally, Hilleary teaches a similar spacer fabric comprising first and second fabric layers spaced apart from each other, wherein the first and second fabric layers are interconnected to each other with one or more spacer fibers that interconnect the first and second fabric layers, wherein the spacer fabric can be used in garments (Hilleary, Abstract). Hilleary teaches that the orientation of the spacer fibers is generally selected so that the spacer fibers are capable of reversibly maintaining the space between the first and second fabric layer (Id., paragraph 0023). Hilleary teaches that the angle can generally vary between about 30º and 150º, and are generally oriented about 90º (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fabric of Rock, wherein the spacer fibers are angled between the fabric layers, as taught by Hilleary, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fabric having spacer fibers oriented such that they are predictably capable of reversibly maintaining the space between the first and second fabric layer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rock in view of USPN 5,385,036 to Spillane.
Regarding claims 1-7, Rock appears to teach the claimed structure. Additionally, Spillane teaches a warp knitted textile spacer fabric comprising pile yarns integrated with and extending between fabric substructures in differing angular orientations to the widthwise and lengthwise dimensions of the fabric, producing a pyramidal truss-like system of pile segments which maintain the fabric substructures in spaced parallel relation yet are resiliently compressible and resist relative shear movements of the fabric substructures (Spillane, Abstract, column 10 lines 15-56). ). As shown in at least Figs. 9 and 10, yarns appear to be continuously interlaced and connected to form a zigzag pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fabric of Rock, wherein the spacer fibers are angled and connected to form a zigzag pattern between the fabric layers, as taught by Spillane, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fabric having spacer fibers oriented such that they are resiliently compressible and resist relative shear movements of the fabric layers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rock, as applied to claims 1-7 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2003/0167551 to Findlay.
Regarding claim 8, Rock teaches applying a barrier layer comprising polyvinyl chloride by directly lamination or roller coating of a solution. Rock does not appear to teach curing the layer. However, Findlay teaches a garment assembly comprising a knitted or woven layer which is coated with an abrasion-resisting material including polyvinyl chloride (Findlay, Abstract, paragraphs 0017-0020, 0033). Findlay teaches that the polymer is cured, and that the cured polymer will generally be resistant to dry cleaning solvents (Id., paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fabric of Rock, wherein the PVC layer is cured, as taught by Findlay, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fabric having known and predictable properties, including abrasion resistance and resistance to solvents, suitable for the intended application.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rock in view of Hilleary, as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Findlay.
Regarding claim 8, Rock teaches applying a barrier layer comprising polyvinyl chloride by directly lamination or roller coating of a solution. Rock does not appear to teach curing the layer. However, Findlay teaches a garment assembly comprising a knitted or woven layer which is coated with an abrasion-resisting material including polyvinyl chloride (Findlay, Abstract, paragraphs 0017-0020, 0033). Findlay teaches that the polymer is cured, and that the cured polymer will generally be resistant to dry cleaning solvents (Id., paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fabric of the prior art combination, wherein the PVC layer is cured, as taught by Findlay, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fabric having known and predictable properties, including abrasion resistance and resistance to solvents, suitable for the intended application.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rock in view of Spillane, as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Findlay.
Regarding claim 8, Rock teaches applying a barrier layer comprising polyvinyl chloride by directly lamination or roller coating of a solution. Rock does not appear to teach curing the layer. However, Findlay teaches a garment assembly comprising a knitted or woven layer which is coated with an abrasion-resisting material including polyvinyl chloride (Findlay, Abstract, paragraphs 0017-0020, 0033). Findlay teaches that the polymer is cured, and that the cured polymer will generally be resistant to dry cleaning solvents (Id., paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fabric of the prior art combination, wherein the PVC layer is cured, as taught by Findlay, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fabric having known and predictable properties, including abrasion resistance and resistance to solvents, suitable for the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 30, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, Applicant argues that “cutting portions” refers to portions of the interval maintaining yarns where material has been removed or cut away, creating intermittent spacing. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear how such an interpretation is consistent with claim 1, which requires the interval maintaining yarns to be “continuously interlaced and connected… in a direction from one side to the other side by alternately being connected to the lower sheet layer and the upper sheet layer.” If the interval maintaining yarns have portions where material has been removed or cut away, the yarns cannot also be continuously interlaced and connected as claimed. Note that page 7 recites “the cutting portion, in which no interval maintaining yarns layer is disposed”, that page 9 references 220 as a cutting portion which does not reference an interval maintaining yarn in the Figures, and that page 21 recites “[b]ecause the cutting portion 220 is a section in which the interval maintaining yarn layers 130 are intermittently eliminated, the interval maintaining yarns are not cut in case that the raw fabric is cut by using the cutting portion.”
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that the term “or” indicates alternative embodiments. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The issue is not whether the punching above or below is simultaneous. The issue is that the claim recites a punching needle part disposed above the upper sheet layer or below the lower sheet layer and configured to penetrate the upper sheet layer and the lower sheet layer simultaneously. It is unclear how a needle part disposed above or below the layers can necessarily penetrate the layers simultaneously. In other words, if the needle is above the sheet, it would penetrate the upper sheet prior to penetrating the lower sheet. However, the claim requires both sheets to be penetrated simultaneously, which does not appear possible as claimed.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Applicant argues that the term “EF polymer layer” is sufficiently definite in context, as one of ordinary skill would understand the EF polymer layers as the outermost polymer layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The issue is not the placement of the EF polymer layer, but the identity of “EF” in “EF polymer layer” as claimed. As set for the above, “EF” is not a specific polymer layer known in the art, and it is unclear if “EF” is referencing a structure or a composition. Applicant’s response does not provide any context or clarity as to what “EF polymer layer” necessarily entails.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections, Applicant argues that Rock fails to teach or suggest the claimed “inclined at a predetermined angle,” as the interconnecting yarns extend substantially perpendicular to the plane of the fabric layer, whereas the claimed limitation describes yarns that extend at an angle other than perpendicular to the sheet layers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the yarns interconnect the first and second fabric layers such that the layers are spaced apart, the yarns are necessarily inclined as claimed. Additionally, even if Rock teaches yarns that are substantially perpendicular to the plane of the fabric, such a structure is within the scope of the claimed invention. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments that the yarns extend at an angle other than perpendicular to the sheet layers is unsupported by the specification and not set forth in the claims.
Applicant argues that Rock fails to teach continuous interlacing from one side to the other side, as Rock’s interconnecting yarns are discrete vertical pile connections that extend only vertically between the fabric layers at a single location. Additionally, Applicant argues that Rock’s interconnecting yarns do not exhibit the alternating connection structure.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, since the fabric is a three-dimensional knit or woven comprising yarns, wherein the fabric has a honeycomb configuration or a basket weave or any knit construction, and wherein the layers are left uncut, Rock appears to teach the claimed structure.
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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786