DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1, 3-7, and 11-14 in the reply filed on November 20, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 20, 2025.
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Currently claim 2 is cancelled and claims 8-10 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1, 3-7, and 11-14 pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “2” has been used to designate both the draining body layer, e.g., in paragraph [0067] and the first layer, e.g., in paragraph [0068];
reference character “3” has been used to designate both the , the, and the absorbent core, e.g., in paragraph [0069];
reference character “4” has been used to designate both the and the ;
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification includes figures and graphs within the body of text rather than filed separately in drawing sheets. See MPEP 601. The inclusion of drawings and graphs in the specification provides ambiguity regarding what is being referred to when a figure is discussed. For example, Figure 44 on page 17 of the specification as filed provides a structure for the layers not represented in the drawings. Additionally, it is the first figure presented however the numbering begins at 44. It is therefore unclear whether figures are missing. Figure 50 on page 19 appears to be the same as Fig. 2a in the drawings, however different labels for the layers are used. It is therefore unclear whether Figure 50 and Fig. 2a represent the same structure. Similarly, Figure 51 on page 20 appears to be the same as Fig. 3 also with different labels for the layers. Starting on page 24 the specification provides graphs and refers to them by their figure numbers (e.g., Figure 61 on page 24). This is also unclear because a Figure 61 is not present in the drawings.
All figures in the body of the specification (including drawings and graphs) should be moved to the drawing sheets and numbered and referenced accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-7, and 11-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the liquid" in lines 4 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the " in line, 7, and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second layer, namely the intermediate layer” in lines 7-8. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the second layer and the intermediate layer are being limited to being the same layer. Previously in lines 1-2, claim 1 defines the multi-layer knit structure as being at least three layers and refers to a first and a third layer, but does not define the layers in relation to each other. It is therefore not clear from the previously defined structure that the second layer is necessarily located between the first and third layers to make it equivalent to the intermediate layer. For the purposes of examination the second layer will be interpreted as equivalent to the intermediate layer, and the multi-layer knit structure as comprising at least a first layer, a second layer, and a third layer, wherein the second layer is located between and connects the first and third layers, pending further clarification from Applicant. Clearly defining the first, second, and third layers as well as using consistent labels for each layer would aid in overcoming the rejection.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the intermediate layer has hydrophobic transverse threads … and is a hydrophilic inlay” in lines 7-9. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how the intermediate (second) layer can be defined as both hydrophilic and hydrophobic. It is further unclear how the intermediate (second) layer can be both transverse to the first and third layers as well as an inlay, which is known in the art as extending the length of the plane of the fabric. Paragraphs [0024]-[0025] of the instant specification describes the inlay material as filling material. Therefore, the intermediate (second) layer will be interpreted as including hydrophobic transverse threads and hydrophilic inlay. Amending the claim to recite –wherein the second layer comprises transverse threads connecting the first and third layers and a hydrophilic filling material—or a similar amendment, would aid in overcoming the rejection of record.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “hydrophobic thread (fiber)” in line 1. The limitation is indefinite because the terms “thread” and “fiber” are not necessarily synonyms. While a thread is often considered a fiber, a fiber is not always a thread. It is therefore unclear whether “(fiber)” limits the hydrophobic thread. It is recommended to delete “(fiber)” to clarify the structure claimed.
Similar recitations of (fiber) are made in lines 5, 16, and 19 and are indefinite for the reasons presented above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “hydrophobic thread (fiber) selected from the following list, namely synthetic materials such as PET or PA or merino wool, wool blends, or other hydrophobic materials and combinations thereof in any composition: in lines 2-4. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the materials following “namely…” are limiting the list or are provided as non-limiting examples. It is further unclear whether merino wool, wool blends, and other hydrophobic materials are included in the list of possible hydrophobic threads or whether they are included as examples of synthetic materials. Since wool is not a synthetic material, the materials listed after PA will be interpreted as further limiting the hydrophobic thread. Finally, it is unclear what the scope of “other” hydrophobic materials is, as the thread is already defined as hydrophobic. Amending the claim to recite –hydrophobic thread selected from synthetic materials, merino wool, wool blends, and combinations thereof—or a similar amendment, would aid in overcoming the rejection of record.
Claim 3 uses “namely” again in lines 6, 16, and 20. As explained above, it is unclear whether the materials following “namely…” are limiting the list or are providing non-limiting examples. It is recommended to delete the recitation of “namely”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 contains the trademark/trade name Tencel, Deocell, and Deowool in lines 6 and 12. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe lyocell fibers in the case of Tencel of Deocell and a blend of lyocell, wool, and cotton in the case of Deowool and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “synthetic monofilaments or multifilaments (PET, PA, PP)” in line 9. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether (PET, PA, PP) limit the synthetic monofilaments/multifilaments or are provided as examples. It is recommended to delete (PET, PA, PP) to clarify the materials claimed.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the upper portion (ground thread) of the third layer” in line 15. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether “(ground thread)” limits the structure of the upper portion of the third layer. It is recommended to delete the recitation of (ground thread).
Claim 3 at lines 15-18 provides a list of hydrophobic thread material, including “optionally fusible thread (low thermoplastic thread)”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the optional fusible thread is included in the list. The inclusion of fusible thread in the list of possible materials would already make its presence optional, as long as one of the materials from the list is selected. The presence of “optionally” in the list therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is further unclear whether “(low melting thermoplastic thread)” limits the fusible thread or is provided as an example. It is recommended to delete both “optionally” and “(low melting thermoplastic thread)”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the lower portion of the third layer is made of hydrophobic thread (fiber) selected from the following list, namely wool, wool blends optionally both felted or further optionally fusible thread, polyamide and combinations thereof in any composition” in lines 19-21. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what materials are included in the list. It is unclear whether the “further optionally” refers to the wool and wool blends as the first optionally does, or refers to the list of materials for the hydrophobic thread. In the case of the latter, as described above, the inclusion of fusible thread in the list of possible materials would already make its presence optional, as long as one of the materials from the list is selected. In the case of the formed it is unclear whether the limitation is stating that the wool blend may optionally comprise a fusible thread or if another structure is implied. Similarly it is unclear whether polyamide is included in the list as a possible material for the hydrophobic thread or can only be provided in a wool blend. It is recommended to amended the claim to recite –the lower portion of the third layer is made of hydrophobic thread selected from wool, wool blends, fusible thread, polyamide, and combinations thereof--.
Regarding claims 4-7 and 11-14, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 are use claims, claiming the use of the textile sheet in different fields and sectors. The claims are indefinite because they do not recite any active, positive steps delimiting how these uses are actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Esteves De Sousa Fangueiro (US 2013/0045651) teaches a three-dimensional multifunctional knitted structure comprising two independent layers (first and third layers) connected by cross-threads (second layer) specifically engineered to perform several functions as an absorbent structure of medium incontinence men’s reusable underwear (paragraph [0001]). The knitted inner layer (first layer) is produced with a hydrophobic fiber yarn in order to transport liquid (paragraph [0025]). The cross-threads (second layer) include hydrophilic and hydrophobic yarns to control the absorption capacity and dry sensation of the structure at the same time (paragraph [0025]). The outer layer (third layer) keeps the liquid transported from passing through and controls odor and microorganism growth (paragraph [0025]). In order to guarantee that the liquid is not passing through the outer layer (third layer), a breathable polyurethane coated or laminated layer is used (paragraph [0025]). Esteves De Sousa Fangueiro further teaches the hydrophobic yarn of the inner layer (first layer) is polypropylene, polyester, or polyamide, the hydrophobic cross-threads are polyester, and the hydrophilic cross-threads are viscose (paragraph [0025]).
Bird (US 3250095) teaches plating hydrophilic yarns with hydrophobic yarns such that the hydrophilic yarns absorb and hold perspiration away from the skin of a wearer (col. 1, line 71 – col. 2, line 3).
Rock (US 5344698) teaches a composite textile fabric for moving urine or other bodily fluids away from the skin and retaining it (col. 1, lines 51-62). The composite fabric includes a first fabric layer comprised of hydrophilic synthetic yarn and a second fabric layer that is comprised of a moisture absorbent yarn where the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer are formed integrally and concurrently by knitted a plaited construction so that the layers are distinct and separate yet integrated (col. 1, lines 51-62). The composite textile fabric further includes a barrier layer that may be microporous and hydrophobic to prevent the wearer’s outer garment from getting wet (col. 5, lines 5-12).
Johnson (US 2372497) teaches a stuffed fabric comprising two knitted webs spaced apart to received a suitable filler therebetween, said webs being secured together by knitting a loop of one web through a loop of the other web at intervals throughout the fabric (col. 1, lines 5-12).
Pernick (US 5735145) teaches a weft knit fabric having first and second parallel knit layers, one of said layers being hydrophilic and the other being hydrophobic, said layers being joined together by a series of knit courses forming spacer yarns which secure the fabric layer together in a spaced relationship to each other and which wick moisture from the hydrophobic layer to the hydrophilic layer (col. 1, lines 5-17).
Vaglio Tessitore (US 2013/0000011) teaches a knitted dual-layer fabric comprising a first layer as an inner layer adapted to be in contact with skin of a user and having water repellent and/or hydrophobic properties; a second layer as an outer layer having hydrophilic or water absorbent properties; and a binding yarn connecting and binding together the inner layer and the outer layer (paragraph [0003]).
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