DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching all claims does not induce further search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because it is respectfully submitted that MPEP 803 and search burden applies to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty Articles and Rules as it is applied to applications entering the National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 as a Designated or Elected Office in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is covered in MPEP Chapter 1800. See MPEP 801. Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more special technical features. See MPEP 1893.03(d). As described in the Restriction Requirement mailed on November 5, 2025, the Groups lack unity of invention because the common technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Pan (US 2017/0071268). Search burden is not a consideration when considering unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 12-24 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-11 pending for examination.
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 5 and 6 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 5 depends from claim 3 and recites the limitation “weaving using plating, such that the hydrophobic yarns constitute the first layer and the hydrophilic yarns constitute the second layer” in lines 3-4. The limitation is indefinite because plating is known in the art as two yarns being woven or knit together to form a single layer fabric that has a different color/characteristic/quality on the front face and the back face. Therefore, yarns that are plated together would not form layers as the plated yarns are unable to be separated into individual layers and would not be considered adjacent to each other as required by claim 3. Additionally claim 5 refers to the second layer as constituting hydrophilic yarns whereas in claim 3 the second layer is hydrophobic.
The alternate limitation of claim 5 also specifies plating in line 9 and is indefinite for the reasons presented above. For the purposes of examination claim 5 will be interpreted as requiring the layered structure in claim 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the wettability form the first surface to the second surface varies in gradient” in lines 2-3. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what “varies in gradient” requires. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as requiring a wettability gradient between the first surface and the second surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (US 2017/0071268).
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Pan teaches the management of fluid flow utilizing different adjacent wettability regions to form a fluidic network structure on a substrate (paragraph [0007]). Fig. 1A is a schematic diagram of one embodiment 100 of a liquid-absorptive region 102 (second region) forming a channel 118 within a liquid-repellent region 104 (hydrophobic first region) of a substrate 106 (Fig. 1A; paragraph [0108]). The different wettability regions form a wettability gradient from less liquid-absorptive regions (first surface) to more liquid-absorptive regions (second surface) (the first surface has a wettability smaller than that of the second surface) (paragraph [0016]). In one embodiment 800 shown in Fig. 8A-C, the inner layer of the material has 5 mm liquid-absorptive circles 802 which penetrate through the material substrate and connect to the outer layer of the material (first surface and second surface have an area of 19.6 mm2) (paragraph [0125]).
With respect to claim 2, Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The limitation “being obtained by one of more of the following methods: …” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Pan teaches the fluidic network structure can be constructed by printing a liquid-repellent coating pattern onto a liquid-absorptive material (paragraph [0144]). The fabric may also be created by knitting liquid repellent and liquid-absorptive fibers together (paragraph [0155]). Therefore, Pan appears to meet the structure resulting from method (a), (b), (c), and/or (d).
With respect to claim 3, Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above. Pan further teaches that multiple layers of material can also be combined to form the fluidic network structure (paragraph [0137]). For example a first layer of liquid-repellent material with circle patterns can be bonded to a second layer of liquid-repellent material with the outer liquid-absorptive channel patterns (second regions) (paragraph [0137]).
With respect to claim 4, Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. Pan further teaches the substrate is a textile (paragraph [0144]). The limitation “being obtained by one of more of the following methods (a)-(d)” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Pan teaches the fluidic network structure can be constructed by printing a liquid-repellent coating pattern onto a liquid-absorptive material (paragraph [0144]). The fabric may also be created by knitting liquid repellent and liquid-absorptive fibers together (paragraph [0155]). Therefore, Pan appears to meet the structure resulting from method (a), (b), (c), and/or (d).
With respect to claim 5, Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. The limitations of claim 5 are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Pan teaches the fluidic network structure can be constructed by printing a liquid-repellent coating pattern onto a liquid-absorptive material (paragraph [0144]). The fabric may also be created by knitting liquid repellent and liquid-absorptive fibers together (paragraph [0155]). Therefore, Pan appears to meet the structure resulting from claim 5.
As discussed in the 112(b) rejection of claim 5 above, plating yarns does not form a layered structure as is claimed, therefore since Pan teaches layers as explained in claim 3 Pan is interpreted as meeting the claim.
With respect to claim 7, Pan teaches the management of fluid flow utilizing different adjacent wettability regions to form a fluidic network structure on a substrate (paragraph [0007]). Fig. 1A is a schematic diagram of one embodiment 100 of a liquid-absorptive region 102 (second region) forming a channel 118 within a liquid-repellent region 104 (hydrophobic first region) of a substrate 106 (Fig. 1A; paragraph [0108]). The different wettability regions form a wettability gradient from less liquid-absorptive regions (first surface) to more liquid-absorptive regions (second surface) (paragraph [0016]). The fluid moves along the gradient from the less liquid-absorptive regions to the more liquid absorptive regions (smart material configured to directionally transport liquid from the first surface to the second surface when required (paragraph [0016]).
With respect to claim 11, Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above. Pan does not explicitly teach the liquid-absorptive region 102 (second region) is an ultrasonic oscillating atomizing sheet configured to release liquid transported to the second surface to air when the first surface transports the liquid to the second, surface, causing the liquid to continuously flow from the first surface to the second surface, however it is reasonable to presume this function is inherent to the liquid-absorptive regions 102 (second region) of Pan.
Support for said presumption can be found in that the instant specification describes in paragraphs [0203]-[0207] that driving liquid movement can be made by adjusting ultrasonic oscillation in localized regions. It is clear from paragraphs [0205]-[0206] that the oscillation is provided by an external voltage source, and the atomizing sheet needs only to provide resonance. Paragraphs [0205] and [0207] of the specification state that the ultrasonic oscillation atomization system can be combined with any one or more of the controllable liquid transport fabrics including those described in Examples 1, 3, 4, or 5. Example 1 relates to controllable liquid transport fabric with varied wettability (instant specification; paragraphs [0162]-[0174]), Example 3 relates to a controllable liquid transport fabric with localized hydrophilic regions (paragraphs [0181]-[0183]), and Examples 4 and 5 relate to woven fabrics with controllable liquid transport properties (instant specification; paragraphs [0184]-[0193]).
As described in the rejections of claims 1 and 7 above, Pan teaches liquid-absorptive regions which provide a wettability gradient through the fabric (Pan; paragraphs [0016], [0108]) as seen in instant Examples 1 and 3. Pan also teaches the fabric may also be created by knitting liquid repellent and liquid-absorptive fibers together (Pan; paragraph [0155]) similar to instant Examples 4 and 5. It is noted that while the titles of Examples 4 and 5 reference a woven fabric, the actual process performed in making the fabric is knitting (instant specification; paragraphs [0186], [0192]). Since Pan teaches the same materials as the claimed invention it is reasonable to presume it will perform in the claimed manner when an ultrasonic oscillating atomization process is used.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Volden (US 2010/0288370).
With respect to claim 7, Volden teaches a textile comprising first and second conductive layers (second region) and at least one porous layer positioned between first and second conductive layers (first region) (paragraph [0015]). The conductive layers are connected to an electronic signal generator such that, in use, a voltage can be applied across said porous layer to effect directional flow of liquid across said textile (smart material configured to directionally transport liquid from the first surface to the second surface when required) (paragraph [0014]). The conductive layers can be formed by conductive ink coated onto the textile or can be conductive filaments (paragraph [0037]). The porous layer (first region) is a porous membrane made of a hydrophobic polymer (paragraph [0048]). The conductive layer is connected to an electrode layer (paragraph [0118]) and it is known in the art that when an electric field is applied the liquid will be attracted towards he oppositely charged electrode (paragraph [0007]).
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.
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.
4. 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao (US 2020/0131693).
The applied reference has common joint inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Lao teaches a directional water transportable hydrophobic fabric by a selective plasma treatment via a patterned mask to create gradient wettability channels through the fabric thickness (paragraph [0007]). The fabric (e.g., superhydrophobic fabric) (first region) comprises a plurality of hydrophilic domains (second region) connecting a first side of the fabric (first surface) and a second side of the fabric (second surface) opposite the first side (paragraphs [0008], [0035]). Water is directionally transported from a hydrophobic surface to a less hydrophobic surface through the domains (the first surface has a wettability smaller than the second surface) (paragraph [0007]).
Each of the plurality of domains may have a size of, individually, 100 microns to 5 mm, preferably 500 microns to 3 mm (paragraph [0039]). The domains may have a variety of shapes including round (paragraphs [0038], Fig. 4). For a round shape each individual domain would have an area 0.0078 mm2 to 19.6 mm2, preferably 0.20 mm2 to 7.07 mm2. As can be seen in Figs, 5A and B, the area of the fabric opposite the spot that is plasma treated to form the domain (second region) is also affected by the treatment, therefore it is expected that the area of the domain on the first surface and the second surface will be the same (Figs. 5A and 5B; paragraph [0081]).
The surface area of the domain (second region) of Lao range substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Lao, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claim 2, Lao teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The limitation “being obtained by one of more of the following methods: …” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Lao teaches formation of a hydrophobic fabric by a selective plasma treatment via a patterned mask to create gradient wettability channels through the fabric thickness (paragraph [0007]). The fabric (e.g., superhydrophobic fabric) (first region) comprises a plurality of hydrophilic domains (second region) connecting a first side of the fabric (first surface) and a second side of the fabric (second surface) opposite the first side (paragraphs [0008], [0035]). Water is directionally transported from a hydrophobic surface to a less hydrophobic surface through the domains (the first surface has a wettability smaller than the second surface) (paragraph [0007]). Therefore, Lao appears to meet the structure resulting from at least method (a), (b), and (c).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2017/0071268) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Rock (US 2008/0057809).
With respect to claim 8, Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above.
Pan is silent as to the smart material being a temperature sensitive material such that the second surface changes form a hydrophobic surface to a hydrophilic surface when an ambient temperature reaches a threshold temperature, allowing a directional transport of liquid from the first surface to the second surface.
Rock teaches a textile fabric including a smooth surface with one of more regions (second region) having a bound coating of hydrogel exhibiting expansion or contraction in response to a change in relative humidity or exposure to liquid sweat or a combination thereof, adjusting insulation performance, air movement, and/or liquid management of the textile fabric in response to ambient conditions (paragraph [0004]). Rock further teaches the hydrogel has a volume phase transitional critical temperature (VPTCT) where the hydrogel absorbs moisture at temperatures below the VPTCT and expels moisture at temperatures above the VPTCT (paragraph [0009]). This change in temperature can be caused by a change in ambient temperature (paragraph [0027]). During use, at temperatures below the VPTCT of the gel (threshold temperature), the fabric absorbs liquid moisture, e.g., sweat, which it then transports away from the user’s skin towards the smooth outer surface where it is absorbed by the hydrogel (paragraph [0027]).
Since both Pan and Rock teach liquid transport fabrics it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluidic channel network of Pan to include hydrogel as disclosed by Rock in order to allow the movement of water in response to a change in ambient temperature.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (US 2017/0071268) as applied to claim 7 above and Pan (US 2017/0071268) in view of Rock (US 2008/0057809) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Volden (US 2010/0288370).
With respect to claim 9, Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above and Pan in view of Rock teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
Pan and Pan in view of Rock are silent as to the material being further provided with a thermally conductive wire in contact with the second region, the thermally conductive wire being an electrical wire or coated thereon with an electrically conductive coating or integrated with a temperature-sensitive element, thereby heating the temperature-sensitive material to become hydrophilic when a power is on.
Volden teaches a textile comprising first and second conductive layers and at least one porous layer positioned between first and second conductive layers (paragraph [0015]). The conductive layers are connected to an electronic signal generator such that, in use, a voltage can be applied across said porous layer to effect directional flow of liquid across said textile (paragraph [0014]). The conductive layers can be formed by conductive ink coated onto the textile or can be conductive filaments (paragraph [0037]). The conductive layers can also heat the textile (paragraphs [0001], [0014]).
Since both Pan in view of Rock and Volden teach liquid transport fabrics affected by temperature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide conductive wires on the fabric of Pan and Pan in view of Rock in order to control heating of the fabric and thus also control when the second region and the hydrogel absorbs or expels water.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Li (US 2005/0101209) discloses a woven fabric consisting of a generally uniformly woven structure of hydrophobic and hydrophilic materials that has inner and outer exposed surfaces of hydrophobic and hydrophilic materials (abstract). The inner exposed surface is between 40% and 70% hydrophobic material, and the outer exposed surface is predominantly hydrophilic material (abstract).
Li (US 2005/0188470) discloses an integrated processing technique for preparing moisture management textiles or fabrics wherein a treatment of fibers with imparts a hydrophobic or hydrophilic property such that when incorporated into the fabrication of composite structured textiles or fabrics a hydrophobic inner surface and the hydrophilic outer surface is formed (abstract). The integrated processing technique for preparing moisture management textiles also includes finishing the textiles or fabrics with to enhance the fabric's liquid water one way transfer properties (abstract). The advantage of this invention is the possibility to manufacture the pure cotton woven/knitting fabrics with the good moisture management properties (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789