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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 6, 8-9, 11-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitigawa (JP 2004/052191) in view of Tanaka et al. (CN 1871384) as evidenced by PG Pub. 2019/0055682 and Katsube (JP 2006/336162) or in the alternative over Kitigawa (JP 2004/052191) in view of Du et al. (CN 111004361) in view of Tanaka et al. (CN 1871384) as evidenced by PG Pub. 2019/0055682 and Katsube (JP 2006/336162).
Regarding claim 1, Kitigawa teaches a low breathability woven fabric having a breathability in the claimed range characterized in that the low breathability woven fabric includes a stretch fiber which is an elastic fibers (polytrimethylene terephthalate is taught). As evidenced by JP 2006/336162, polytrimethylene terephthalate fiber is elastic.
Kitigawa is silent regarding the claimed elongation in the warp or weft direction. However, Kitigawa teaches such a similar fabric made of such similar materials arranged in such a similar fashion and also teaches the yarn is false twisted crimped, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed elongation in order to affect the elongation properties of the fabric to provide more stretch in a particular direction for clothing for examples as is known in the art.
Kitigawa teaches the total fabric cover factor is 1500-3000 wherein the total fabric cover factor equals the sum of the warp cover factor and the weft cover factor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed warp and weft cover factor through routine experimentation given the teachings of Kitigawa in order to affect the fabric properties including strength, air permeability, etc. and arrive at the claimed invention.
The fabric is given water repellant processing [0024]. Kitigawa is silent regarding the claimed water repellant being fluorine-free. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a fluorine-free water repellant in order to be environmentally friendly as is known in the art. In the alternative, Du et al. teach fluorine-free water repellant for textiles because it is low VOC, non-toxic and the finished fabric has significantly improved physical and chemical properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fluorine-free water repellant for textiles because it is low VOC, non-toxic and the finished fabric has significantly improved physical and chemical properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Katsube and the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed polyurethane or polyether ester based fiber combined with other yarns as a composite elastic yarn. However, Tanaka et al. teaches polyurethane or polyether-ester based yarn combined with other yarns (for example in a sheath core arrangement) in order to provide improved comfort, elasticity, recover, water absorption and properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composite yarn of Tanaka et al. including the claimed polyurethane or polyether-ester based yarn in Katsube and the previous combination in order to provide improved comfort, elasticity, recover, water absorption and properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Kitigawa is silent regarding the claimed down leakage. However, given Kitigawa teaches such a similar fabric with such similar air permeability and given the down leakage is generally determined by the air permeability of the cloth as evidenced by PG Pub. 2019/0055682, it is clear that the fabric of Kitigawa possesses the claimed down leakage.
Regarding claim 6, the woven have a plain structure or a ripstop taffeta structure as plain weave or any known weave is taught.
Regarding claim 8, the woven fabric is not given a waterproof coating or not laminated as the water repellant processing is optional and lamination is not taught.
Regarding claim 9, the woven fabric is not calendared as calendaring is not taught.
Regarding claims 11-12, Kitigawa is silent regarding the claimed slip resistance and Rotating box IDFL 20-1. However, given Kitigawa teaches such a similar fabric made of such similar yarns with such similar total and single fiber fineness dtex, weave pattern, cover factor, yarns that can be false twisted crimped, the claimed slip resistance and Rotating box IDFL 20-1 are inherent to the fabric of Kitigawa.
Regarding claim 13, Kitigawa teaches a textile product comprising the low breathability woven fabric according to claim 1 and being selected from the group consisting of downwear, down jackets, comforters, sleeping bags and sportswear [0029].
Regarding claim 17, Kitigawa teaches a low breathability woven fabric having a breathability in the claimed range characterized in that the low breathability woven fabric includes a stretch fiber which is an elastic fibers (polytrimethylene terephthalate is taught). As evidenced by JP 2006/336162, polytrimethylene terephthalate fiber is elastic.
Kitigawa is silent regarding the claimed elongation in the warp or weft direction. However, Kitigawa teaches such a similar fabric made of such similar materials arranged in such a similar fashion and also teaches the yarn is false twisted crimped, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed elongation in order to affect the elongation properties of the fabric to provide more stretch in a particular direction for clothing for examples as is known in the art.
Kitigawa teaches the total fabric cover factor is 1500-3000 wherein the total fabric cover factor equals the sum of the warp cover factor and the weft cover factor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed warp and weft cover factor through routine experimentation given the teachings of Kitigawa in order to affect the fabric properties including strength, air permeability, etc. and arrive at the claimed invention.
The fabric is given water repellant processing [0024]. Kitigawa is silent regarding the claimed water repellant being fluorine-free. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a fluorine-free water repellant in order to be environmentally friendly as is known in the art. In the alternative, Du et al. teach fluorine-free water repellant for textiles because it is low VOC, non-toxic and the finished fabric has significantly improved physical and chemical properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fluorine-free water repellant for textiles because it is low VOC, non-toxic and the finished fabric has significantly improved physical and chemical properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Katsube and the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed polyurethane or polyether ester based fiber combined with other yarns as a composite elastic yarn. However, Tanaka et al. teaches polyurethane or polyether-ester based yarn combined with other yarns (for example in a sheath core arrangement) in order to provide improved comfort, elasticity, recover, water absorption and properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composite yarn of Tanaka et al. including the claimed polyurethane or polyether-ester based yarn in Katsube and the previous combination in order to provide improved comfort, elasticity, recover, water absorption and properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2011/0033687 teaches a woven low air permeability fabric.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Kitigawa and Katsube does not teach the polyurethane or polyether-ester based yarn. Tanaka et al. teaches the newly claimed polyether ester based yarn.
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being in condition for allowance, but depending upon a rejected claim. It is noted all of the limitations of claims 15-16 were not incorporated into the independent claims and thus are not in condition for allowance.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights