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 .
Election/Restrictions
(restated per request of Applicant from Non-Final dated 12/1/2025)
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 08/14/25 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The restriction is made final.
Response to Amendment
The Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks dated 02/27/26. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been entered and are made of record.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 5 and 8-10; cancelled claim 3 and added new claim 21. The pending claims at this time under review are claims 1, 2 and 4-10 and 21. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 3, 5 and 8-10 are sufficient to overcome the rejections made over 35 USC § 112-2nd. Those rejections are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s summation of the interview on the prior art is not correct. During the interview it was reiterated that Applicant needed to show how the properties of surface energy were being achieved. The current claim amendments are not reflective of that discussion. It was suggested that the criticality of the why the structure alone of their PE yarn/fiber renders the fabric hydrophilic, Applicant stated that modifying the PE yarn/fiber surface with surface energy changes PE from being hydrophobic to a hydrophilic. Language was discussed that perhaps making it a product by process or somehow introducing the elements from the method claims may make the claim language clearer and differentiate from a PE yam fiber with irregular morphology or that of Chen et al. The current claim amendment does not breathe life into how the multifilament continuous PE yarn or fiber is rendered hydrophilic other by a change in fiber size, fiber density, change in cross section, which Chen teaches.
Applicant argues that WO 2016/044609 issued to Chen et al does not teach that a surface energy of the at least one of the multi-filament yarns comprising polyethylene or the continuous fibers comprising polyethylene is modified to change a hydrophilicity thereof. Again, the PE yarn/ fiber/ filament is present and the structure of the yarn has been modified. Accordingly, that is all that is needed in order to impart hydrophilicity. At ¶¶ 0054-0057 of Chen et al, teach that the polyethylene infrared-transparent, visible-opaque fabrics change surface properties based on fiber size and separation. As there is a change in the size morphology, then the PE yarn would be rendered hydrophilic. This argument is not found to be persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a 1) as being anticipated by WO 2016044609A1 issued to Chen et al.
Regarding modified Claim 1, where Applicant now seeks a hydrophilic fabric, comprising:
at least one of multi-filament yarns comprising polyethylene or continuous fibers comprising polyethylene, the at least one of multi-filament yarns comprising polyethylene or continuous fibers comprising polyethylene being at least one of
wherein a surface energy of the at least one of the multi-filament yarns comprising polyethylene or the continuous fibers comprising polyethylene is modified to change a hydrophilicity thereof, the at least one of the multi-filament yarns comprising polyethylene or the continuous fibers comprising polyethylene have a modified surface that causes the respective yarns Applicant is directed to the teachings of Chen et al who at teach a hydrophilic fabric infrared-transparent, visible-opaque fabrics which can be made of fibers which are hydrophilic; [¶¶ 0047 and 0086], comprising: at least one of multi-filament yarns (the infrared-transparent, visible-opaque fabrics can include two or more types of yarn; [¶0071]) comprising polyethylene or continuous fibers comprising polyethylene (polyethylene -were identified for use in infrared-transparent, visible-opaque fabrics [¶0047]), the at least one of multi-filament yarns comprising polyethylene or continuous fibers comprising polyethylene being at least one of spun, woven, or knitted together to form the fabric (polyethylene, used as material for fiber in yarn in the infrared-transparent, visible-opaque fabrics, is melt spun from extruder; [¶0077, Figs. 8a & 8b], knit [¶ 00730 or woven [¶¶ 0005, 0037, 0055] wherein the at least one of the multi-filament yarns comprising polyethylene or the continuous fibers comprising polyethylene have a modified surface that causes the respective yarns and/or fibers to be at least partially-hydrophilic (chemical modification by temperature of fibers to absorb azo dyes in water; [¶ 0087]), wherein the continuous fibers are aligned substantially in parallel with respect to each other (yarn is formed with parallel fibers arranged into circular arrays; [¶ 0054 and Fig. 5], and wherein the fabric is devoid of non-polyethylene yarns and non-polyethylene fibers that mechanically reinforce the fabric (Fig. 14 shows yarn woven into fabric by a loom wherein the yarn used is made entirely from polyethylene fibers as shown in Fig. 8 with a close up in Fig. 5, therefore the fabric is devoid of non-polyethylene yarns or fibers that could mechanically reinforce the fabric; [¶¶ 0054 and 0083].
The PE yarn/ fiber/ filament is present and the structure of the yarn has been modified. Accordingly, that is all that is needed in order to impart hydrophilicity. At ¶¶ 0054-0057 of Chen et al, teach that the polyethylene infrared-transparent, visible-opaque fabrics change surface properties based on fiber size and separation. As there is a change in the size morphology, then the PE yarn would be rendered hydrophilic.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the hydrophilic fabric of claim 1, wherein the modified surface comprises at least one of a changed fiber size, a changed fiber density, or a changed cross-section of the at least one of multi-filament yarns comprising polyethylene or continuous fibers comprising polyethylene; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0054-0057 of Chen et al, where they teach that the polyethylene infrared-transparent, visible-opaque fabrics change surface properties based on fiber size and separation.
Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the hydrophilic fabric of claim 1, wherein the fabric is devoid of a coating disposed on the at least one of multi-filament yarns comprising polyethylene or continuous fibers comprising polyethylene to make the polyethylene more hydrophilic; Applicant is ¶¶ 0054, 0083 and Fig. 14 which shows yarn formed into fabric wherein the yarn used is made entirely from polyethylene fibers as shown in Fig. 8 with a close up in Fig. 5, therefore the fabric is devoid of non-polyethylene yarns or fibers that could mechanically reinforce the fabric.
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the hydrophilic fabric of claim 1, wherein the fabric has a thickness approximately in the range of 300 microns to 1000 microns, and wherein a thermal conductivity of the continuous fibers comprising the fabric is approximately in the range of about 0.1 Watts per meter Kelvin to about 60 Watts per meter Kelvin; Applicant is directed to ¶0101 and Table 2 which show that the fabric has a thickness is 500 microns. For the thermal conductivity of the continuous fibers comprising the fabric is approximately in the range of about 0.1 Watts per meter Kelvin to about 60 Watts per meter Kelvin Applicant is directed to ¶ 0081, where Chen et al teach that the range of thermal conductivity in fibers as approximately 50 to 150 Watts per meter Kelvin.
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the hydrophilic fabric of claim 1, wherein the polyethylene comprises at least one of low-density polyethylene, linear low-density polyethylene, medium-density polyethylene, high-density polyethylene, low molecular weight polyethylene, or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0048 and FIG. 4b which shows ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE).
Regarding Claim 9, where Applicant seeks that the hydrophilic fabric of claim 1, wherein the fabric has a thickness approximately in the range of 300 microns to 1000 microns; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0101 where the fabric has a thickness approximately in the range of about 300 microns to about 1000 microns.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016044609A1 issued to Chen et al. in view of USPUB 20200297556A1 issued to Wyner et al.
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the hydrophilic fabric of claim 1, wherein an exposed surface thereof is hydrophilic and a portion of the fabric below the exposed surface is hydrophobic; Chen et al teach what is set forth above for Claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an exposed surface thereof is hydrophilic and a portion of the fabric below the exposed surface is hydrophobic. This is remedied by the teachings of Wyner et al.
Wyner et al are from the same art of endeavor of creating functional fabrics.
Wyner et al. at ¶ 0031 teach an exposed surface thereof is hydrophilic (one layer that can be the exposed surface can be hydrophilic and a portion of the fabric below the exposed surface is hydrophobic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hydrophilic fabric of Chen et al wherein an exposed surface thereof is hydrophilic and a portion of the fabric below the exposed surface is hydrophobic as taught by Wyner et al to provide leak resistance, fluid absorbance, and may provide stain resistance as well as taught at ¶ 0030 of Wyner et al.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016044609A1 issued to Chen et al. in view of USPUB 2005/0277353A1 issued to Lovasic et al.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the hydrophilic fabric of claim 1, wherein a fiber crystallinity of the fabric is approximately in the range of about 50% to about 100%; Chen et al teach what is set forth above for Claim 1 but fails to further disclose a fiber crystallinity of the fabric is approximately in the range of about 50% to about 100%.
This is remedied by the teachings of Lovasic et al who too create fabrics.
Lovasic et al discloses wherein a fiber crystallinity of the fabric is approximately in the range of about 50% to about 100%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chen et al.’s fabric wherein a fiber crystallinity of the fabric is approximately in the range of about 50% to about 100% as taught by Lovasic et al to give a pleasing visual appearance to the as shown at ¶ 0039.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016044609A1 issued to Chen et al. in view of Wettability Tests of Polymer
Films and Fabrics and Determination of Their Surface Energy by Contact-Angle Methods to Pappas D et al.
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the hydrophilic fabric of claim 1, wherein a water-fiber contact angle of the hydrophilic fabric is approximately in the range of about 50 degrees to about 80 degrees; Chen et al teach what is det forth above for claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a water-fiber contact angle of the hydrophilic fabric is approximately in the range of about 50 degrees to about 80 degrees. Pappas et al discloses wherein a water-fiber contact angle of the hydrophilic fabric is approximately in the range of about 50 degrees to about 80 degrees [see pages 5-7 where the evaluation of varying contact angles ranging between 50 and 80 of a polyethylene surface]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Chen et al with the teachings of Pappas et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reach desired hydrophilicity and absorption of water into the fabric.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016044609A1 issued to Chen et al. in view of USPUB 20160250831A1 issued to Gladish et al.
Regarding new claim 21, where Applicant seeks that hydrophilic fabric of claim 1, where the modified surface further comprises remnants of one or more of oxidation, ultraviolet light radiation, plasma treatment or friction on the surface of respective yarns or fibers; Chen teaches what is set forth above but does not expressively suggest that the surface is modified and has remnants of one of more of oxidation, ultraviolet light radiation, plasma treatment or friction on the surface of respective yarns or fibers. This is remedied by the teachings of Gladish et al.
Gladish et al relates to surface modification of textiles as substrates by plasma processing. The textiles may consist of synthetic fibers, natural fibers, blends, as well as bio-based fiber materials. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used the plasma treatment in Chen. One would have been motivated to do so as taught by Gladish that such processes to require less energy and space, and fewer chemicals and byproducts. By selecting biomaterials of varying hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity plasma processing may be used to impart characteristics such as water repellency and dyeability.
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 Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights