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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 14-23) in the reply filed on 4/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 14-23 are presented for examination on the merits.
Specification - Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains both phrases that can be implied (“present invention discloses”) and legal phraseology often used in patent claims (“comprises”, “further comprises”). The abstract is also not in narrative form, as it appears to copy directly from the language used in claim 1, and it is longer than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The use of the terms “Bluetooth” and “Zigbee” (see pages 1 and 4 of specification), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 14-23 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 claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “at least one group of non-conductive warp threads and one conductive warp thread”. It is unclear whether the claimed group includes both “non-conductive warp threads and one conductive warp thread” or if the “at least one group of non-conductive warp threads” is intended to be read separately from “one conductive warp thread”.
Further regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “at least one group of non-conductive weft threads and one conductive weft thread”. It is unclear whether the claimed at least one group includes both “non-conductive weft threads and one conductive weft thread” or if the “at least one group of non-conductive weft threads” is intended to be read separately from “one conductive weft thread”.
Further regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the group of non-conductive warp threads” multiple times. These limitations are unclear because the previous recitation was to “at least one group”, therefore it is unclear whether only one group is required or if more than one group is acceptable, and if more than one group is acceptable, it is further unclear which group out of the multiple groups is being referred to in the limitations.
Further regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the group of non-conductive weft threads comprises at least one non-conductive thread”. This limitation is firstly unclear because the previous recitation was to “at least one group”, therefore it is unclear whether only one group is required or if more than one group is acceptable, and if more than one group is acceptable, it is further unclear which group out of the multiple groups is being referred to in this limitation. Moreover, the limitation is unclear because the introduction “group of non-conductive weft threads” already requires plural weft threads, so the later recitation of “at least one weft thread” renders the claim indefinite since it is now unclear whether one weft thread is sufficient to meet the limitation or if multiple weft threads are required. Further, it is unclear if a group can comprise only one thread.
Further regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “at least one non-conductive weft thread of the group of non-conductive weft threads”. As discussed above, it is unclear whether only one weft thread is required or multiple weft threads are required, and it is also unclear because the limitation was introduced originally as “at least one group of non-conductive weft threads” therefore it is unclear whether only one group is required or if more than one group is acceptable, and if more than one group is acceptable, it is further unclear which group out of the multiple groups is being referred to in this limitation.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “the group of non-conductive warp threads”. As described above, this limitation is unclear because the limitation was introduced originally as “at least one group of non-conductive warp threads” therefore it is unclear whether only one group is required or if more than one group is acceptable, and if more than one group is acceptable, it is further unclear which group out of the multiple groups is being referred to in this limitation.
Further regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “a single one third binding point in which the conductive warp thread is lifted above the at least one non-conductive weft thread”. This limitation is unclear because claim 14 already requires a third binding point. Is the “a single one third binding point” referring to that same third binding point, or is this an additional binding point? For the purposes of examination, it has been interpreted as the same third binding point as described in claim 14. Further, “at least one non-conductive weft thread” is unclear. Is this supposed to be referring to the “at least one group of non-conductive weft threads”? If so, must the conductive warp thread be lifted above all of the non-conductive weft threads in all groups? Or is it supposed to be referring to just at least one thread out of the threads in at least one of the at least one group?
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the group of non-conductive weft threads”. As described above, this limitation is unclear because the limitation was introduced originally as “at least one group of non-conductive weft threads” therefore it is unclear whether only one group is required or if more than one group is acceptable, and if more than one group is acceptable, it is further unclear which group out of the multiple groups is being referred to in this limitation.
Further regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the at least one non-conductive weft thread”. Is this supposed to be referring to the “at least one group of non-conductive weft threads”? If so, must the conductive warp thread be lifted above all of the non-conductive weft threads in all groups? Or is it supposed to be referring to just at least one thread out of the threads in at least one of the at least one group?
Further regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “each further binding point spaced apart by at least three non-conductive weft threads from a preceding third binding point along the warp direction”. The use of the term “preceding” is unclear in this context. What makes a third binding point “precede” another third binding point?
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “each first binding point is spaced apart from the first binding point of another sector by a distance ranging from 1.5 mm to 3.5 mm in the weft direction and/or the warp direction”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear how the distance is supposed to be measured. Does the distance need to be measured only along the weft direction or the warp direction? Or should the actual distance between the points be measured even if that distance does not fall exactly along the warp/weft direction?
PNG
media_image1.png
423
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “each sector comprises conductive warp threads and non-conductive warp threads”. This limitation is unclear because it is not clear whether the “conductive warp threads” and “non-conductive warp threads” recited in this claim are intended to refer back to the previously recited “at least one group of non-conductive warp threads and one conductive warp thread”, or if this limitation is introducing and referring to different conductive warp threads and nonconductive warp threads altogether.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “the conductive warp threads” and “the conductive weft threads”. This limitation is unclear because it is not clear whether the “conductive warp threads” and “conductive weft threads” recited in this claim are intended to refer back to the previously recited “one conductive warp thread” and “one conductive weft thread” (which would also be unclear because this claim recites plural threads, not just one) or if these are different, additional conductive warp threads and conductive weft threads (in which case the claim should distinguish these threads from those that were previously recited).
Further regarding claim 19, the claim recites “spinning metal fibers and a natural fiber a ratio ranging from 5% to 50% of metal fiber fibers”. This limitation is unclear because it appears that there is a word missing between “natural fiber” and “a ratio”. Further, “fiber fibers” is unclear because of the repetition and because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for there to be plural fibers or only one fiber required.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “the conductive warp threads” and “the conductive weft threads”. This limitation is unclear because it is not clear whether the “conductive warp threads” and “conductive weft threads” recited in this claim are intended to refer back to the previously recited “one conductive warp thread” and “one conductive weft thread” (which would also be unclear because this claim recites plural threads, not just one) or if these are different, additional conductive warp threads and conductive weft threads (in which case the claim should distinguish these threads from those that were previously recited).
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “the conductive warp threads” and “the conductive weft threads”. This limitation is unclear because it is not clear whether the “conductive warp threads” and “conductive weft threads” recited in this claim are intended to refer back to the previously recited “one conductive warp thread” and “one conductive weft thread” (which would also be unclear because this claim recites plural threads, not just one) or if these are different, additional conductive warp threads and conductive weft threads (in which case the claim should distinguish these threads from those that were previously recited).
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “the non-conductive warp threads” and “the non-conductive weft threads”. This limitation is unclear because it is not clear whether the “non-conductive warp threads” and “non-conductive weft threads” recited in this claim are intended to refer back to the previously recited “at least one group of non-conductive warp threads” and “at least one group of non-conductive weft threads” or if these are different, additional non-conductive warp threads and non-conductive weft threads (in which case the claim should distinguish these threads from those that were previously recited).
Regarding claim 23, the preamble to the claim recites “at least two pieces of fabrics”. It is unclear whether multiple fabrics are required or just two pieces of a fabric. The claim further recites “wherein two pieces of fabrics are sewn together”. This limitation is unclear because there is no article which refers back to the previously recited fabric, so it is unclear whether the fabric from the preamble is being referred to or if any two pieces of fabrics can be sewn together to meet the claim. The preamble also recited at least two pieces of fabric so it is unclear whether all the pieces would need to be sewn together or only two of the at least two pieces. The plural “fabrics” is also confusing for the same reasons recited above. For the purpose of examination, the claim has been interpreted as requiring a multilayered fabric comprising at least two pieces of the fabric according to claim 14, wherein the at least two pieces of fabric are sewn together.
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.
Claim(s) 14-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thornton (US 4557968).
Regarding claim 14 as best understood by Examiner, Thornton discloses: An electromagnetic shielding fabric comprising: a non-conductive woven layer comprising a plurality of non-conductive warp threads and a plurality of non-conductive weft threads (non-conductive warp yarn 12, non-conductive fill yarn 14), both the non-conductive warp threads and the non-conductive weft threads made of a non-conductive material (non-conductive yarns are made of non-conductive material), and a conductive woven layer comprising a plurality of conductive warp threads and a plurality of conductive weft threads (electroconductive warp yarn 16, electroconductive fill yarn 18), both the conductive warp threads and the conductive weft threads at least partially made of an electrically conductive material (electroconductive yarns are made at least partially of electrically conductive material), wherein the non-conductive woven layer defines a patterned surface of the fabric (a woven layer inherently defines a patterned surface of the fabric because it has a weave pattern) and the conductive woven layer defines a grid-like structure (a woven layer inherently defines a grid-like structure because the threads/yarns in a woven material create a grid-like structure as a result of being woven together; “the combination of the raised lines of electroconductive warp yarns 16 and the raised electroconductive fill yarns 18, 19 form a substantially square raised grid pattern on the back side of the fabric” column 7, lines 57-60), the non-conductive woven layer and the conductive woven layer interwoven together (“the conductive yarn is woven into the base fabric as an integral portion of said fabric” column 5, lines 52-53), wherein the fabric comprises a plurality of sectors arranged adjacent to one another in a warp direction and/or in a weft direction (see exemplary sector shown in annotated figure 1 provided below), each sector comprising at least one group of non-conductive warp threads and one conductive warp thread (see annotated figure 1 provided below, the sector includes non-conductive warp threads (12) and at least one conductive warp thread (16)), and at least one group of non-conductive weft threads and one conductive weft thread (see annotated figure 1 provided below, the sector includes non-conductive weft threads (14) and at least one conductive weft thread (18)), wherein the group of non-conductive warp threads comprises at least two non-conductive threads (see annotated figure 1 provided below, there are at least two non-conductive warp threads (12)), and the group of non-conductive weft threads comprises at least one non-conductive thread (see annotated figure 1 provided below, there is at least one non-conductive weft threads (14)), and, on the patterned surface of the fabric, each sector further comprises: a first binding point in which the conductive warp thread is lowered beneath the conductive weft thread (see annotated figure 1 below showing the first binding point), and a second binding point for each non-conductive warp thread of the group of non-conductive warp threads, in which the non-conductive warp thread is lifted above the conductive weft thread (see annotated figure 1 below showing the second binding points for each non-conductive warp thread in the group of non-conductive warp threads), and alternating sectors along the warp direction and/or the weft direction comprise: a third binding point in which the conductive warp thread is lifted above at least one non-conductive weft thread of the group of non-conductive weft threads, the third binding point adjacent to the first binding point in which the conductive warp thread is lowered beneath the conductive weft thread (see annotated figure 1 below showing the third binding point; Examiner notes that if all sectors have a third binding point, then it follows that alternating sectors have the third binding point, as the claim does not specify that other sectors do not have a third binding point).
PNG
media_image2.png
731
905
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15 as best understood by Examiner, Thornton discloses: The fabric according to claim 14, wherein the group of non-conductive warp threads comprises three non-conductive warp threads (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 above showing three non-conductive warp threads in the group of non-conductive warp threads), and wherein alternating sectors along the warp direction and/or the weft direction comprise a single one third binding point in which the conductive warp thread is lifted above the at least one non-conductive weft thread (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 above showing the third binding point; Examiner notes that if all sectors have a third binding point, then it follows that alternating sectors have the third binding point, as the claim does not specify that other sectors do not have a third binding point).
Regarding claim 16 as best understood by Examiner, Thornton discloses: The fabric according to claim 14, wherein the group of non-conductive weft threads comprises at least four non-conductive weft threads (see annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 above showing at least four non-conductive weft threads in the group of non-conductive weft threads), and wherein each sector comprises at least one further third binding point in which the conductive warp thread is lifted above the at least one non-conductive weft thread, each further third binding point spaced apart by at least three non-conductive weft threads from a preceding third binding point along the warp direction (see annotated figure 1 provided below showing the further third binding point).
PNG
media_image3.png
731
905
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18 as best understood by Examiner, Thornton discloses: The fabric according to claim 14, wherein each sector comprises conductive warp threads and non-conductive warp threads in a ratio selected among: 1:3; 1:5, 1:7, and 1:9 (as noted in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above, this claim has multiple interpretations. First, that the ratio is defined for only the conductive warp threads and non-conductive warp threads in the group, in which case Thornton teaches a 1:3 ratio as shown in the annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 above, showing 1 conductive warp thread and 3 non-conductive warp threads. Second, the ratio is defined for all the threads in the sector, in which case Thornton teaches a 2:6 (1:3) ratio (2 conductive warp threads and 6 non-conductive warp threads) as also shown in annotated figure 1 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 above).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cobanoglu (US 2019/0297756).
Regarding claim 14 as best understood by Examiner, Cobanoglu discloses: An electromagnetic shielding fabric comprising: a non-conductive woven layer comprising a plurality of non-conductive warp threads and a plurality of non-conductive weft threads (parts of fabric 12 that are “woven with regular yarns 12a, 12b” paragraph 62), both the non-conductive warp threads and the non-conductive weft threads made of a non-conductive material (“a fabric 12 that is preferably a denim fabric” paragraph 59; “woven with regular yarns 12a, 12b” paragraph 62, cotton, para. 0086), and a conductive woven layer comprising a plurality of conductive warp threads and a plurality of conductive weft threads (“electrically conductive elements 2 are arranged to form a part of the warp 12a and of the weft 12b” paragraph 59; “electrically conductive elements 2 form a grid” paragraph 62), both the conductive warp threads and the conductive weft threads at least partially made of an electrically conductive material (“electrically conductive elements 2 are core-spun cotton yarns having a core comprising a copper magnet wire” paragraph 63), wherein the non-conductive woven layer defines a patterned surface of the fabric (a woven layer inherently defines a patterned surface of the fabric because it has a weave pattern) and the conductive woven layer defines a grid-like structure (a woven layer inherently defines a grid-like structure because the threads/yarns in a woven material create a grid-like structure as a result of being woven together; “electrically conductive elements 2 form a grid having substantially square openings, woven with regular yarns 12a, 12b” paragraph 62; see figure 4 showing the patterned surface), the non-conductive woven layer and the conductive woven layer interwoven together (“electrically conductive elements 2 form a grid having substantially square openings, woven with regular yarns 12a, 12b” paragraph 62), wherein the fabric comprises a plurality of sectors arranged adjacent to one another in a warp direction and/or in a weft direction (see annotated figure 4 below), each sector comprising at least one group of non-conductive warp threads and one conductive warp thread (see annotated figure 4 below; Examiner notes that the “group of non-conductive warp threads” as defined for each sector contains the warp threads that are identified for the second binding point), and at least one group of non-conductive weft threads and one conductive weft thread (see annotated figure 4 below), wherein the group of non-conductive warp threads comprises at least two non-conductive threads (see annotated figure 4 below; Examiner notes that the “group of non-conductive warp threads” as defined for each sector contains the warp threads that are identified for the second binding point, which includes two non-conductive warp threads in each sector), and the group of non-conductive weft threads comprises at least one non-conductive thread (see annotated figure 4 below), and, on the patterned surface of the fabric, each sector further comprises: a first binding point in which the conductive warp thread is lowered beneath the conductive weft thread (see annotated figure 4 below showing the first binding point in each sector), and a second binding point for each non-conductive warp thread of the group of non-conductive warp threads , in which the non-conductive warp thread is lifted above the conductive weft thread(see annotated figure 4 below showing the second binding points in each sector), and alternating sectors along the warp direction and/or the weft direction comprise: a third binding point in which the conductive warp thread is lifted above at least one non-conductive weft thread of the group of non-conductive weft threads, the third binding point adjacent to the first binding point in which the conductive warp thread is lowered beneath the conductive weft thread (see annotated figure 4 below showing the third binding point in the first sector).
PNG
media_image4.png
638
887
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17 as best understood by Examiner, Cobanoglu discloses: The fabric according to claim 14, wherein each first binding point is spaced apart from the first binding point of another sector by a distance ranging from 1.5 mm to 3.5 mm in the weft direction and/or the warp direction (“electrically conductive elements 2 may be arranged to form a mesh or a grid provided with openings having extension less than 400 mm2. Preferably, the extension of these openings may be comprised between 1 mm2 and 100 mm2” paragraph 54; Cobanoglu discloses specifically that the openings between the grid of electrically conductive elements may be 1mm2, which means there is a 1 mm spacing between the electrically conductive elements. As can be seen in annotated figure 4 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 above, there are 2 openings between a first binding point of one sector and the first binding point of an adjacent sector. Figure 4 is also annotated below to show simplified annotations with just the first binding points labeled and the distance between them. Using the first interpretation that the “distance” as claimed is only describing the distance as measured along the warp or weft direction regardless of any other deviations in other directions, there is 2 mm between the first binding point of a first sector and a first binding point of an adjacent sector in the weft direction, which is in the claimed range of 1.5 to 3.5 mm, and since the claim is “and/or”, the distance along the weft direction being within the claimed range is sufficient to meet the claim limitation under this interpretation. Alternatively, even if the true distance between the first binding points is being referred to by the claim (i.e., the distance needs not be measured strictly along either the warp or weft direction), using the Pythagorean Theorem, the distance between the first binding points can be calculated to be 2.24 mm, which is also in the claimed range of 1.5 mm to 3.5 mm).
PNG
media_image5.png
638
965
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 19-21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobanoglu as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Dordevic (US 5103504).
Regarding claim 19 as best understood by Examiner, Cobanoglu teaches: The fabric according to claim 14, wherein the conductive warp threads and the conductive weft threads are made of yarns obtained by spinning metal fibers and a natural fiber (“electrically conductive elements 2 are core-spun cotton yarns having a core comprising a copper magnet wire” paragraph 63).
Cobanoglu does not explicitly teach: a ratio ranging from 5% to 50% of metal fiber fibers.
However, Dordevic teaches an electromagnetic shielding fabric with conductive warp threads and conductive weft threads made of yarns obtained by spinning metal fibers and a natural fiber in a ratio ranging from 5% to 50% of metal fibers (“the textile fibers comprise cotton fibers and are twined with the steel fibers which measure 6 to 10 micrometers in diameter and constitute a content of 10 to 15% per weight of the mixed yarn” column 1, line 67-column 2, line 3).
Dordevic teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of electromagnetic shielding fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the electrically conductive elements of Cobanoglu specifically out of yarns obtained by spinning cotton and steel fibers in a ratio of 10-15% steel by weight, as taught by Dordevic, because “owing to the content and fineness of steel fibers […], a textile fabric suitable for effective shielding against excessive electromagnetic microwave radiation can be obtained in a clothing fabric quantity, which textile fabric is not too stiff” (Dordevic, column 2, lines 13-18). The use of the cotton/steel spun yarns therefore would result in an effective yet comfortable material which is beneficial for use in clothing.
Regarding claim 20 as best understood by Examiner, Cobanoglu as modified discloses: The fabric according to claim 19, wherein the conductive warp threads and the conductive weft threads have a yarn count ranging from 12.5 g/km to 125 g/km (as modified by Dordevic, the conductive warp and weft threads are made of the spun cotton/steel yarn as taught by Dordevic; “the yarn fineness of the textile fabric is in the range of 30 to 50 tex (g per km)” Dordevic, column 2, lines 8-9; Examiner notes that 30-50 g/km is fully within the claimed range of 12.5-125 g/km).
Regarding claim 21 as best understood by Examiner, Cobanoglu as modified discloses: The fabric according to claim 19, wherein the conductive warp threads and the conductive weft threads are made of yarns having a fineness ranging from 8 m/g to 50 m/g (as modified by Dordevic, the conductive warp and weft threads are made of the spun cotton/steel yarn as taught by Dordevic; “the yarn fineness of the textile fabric is in the range of 30 to 50 tex (g per km)” Dordevic, column 2, lines 8-9; Examiner notes that 30 tex is equivalent to 33.3 m/g and 50 tex is equivalent to 20 m/g, so the disclosed range in Dordevic is equivalent to 20-33.3 m/g, which is fully within the claimed range of 8-50 m/g).
Regarding claim 23 as best understood by Examiner, Cobanoglu discloses: A multilayered fabric comprising at least two pieces of fabrics according to claim 14 (“the electromagnetic shield 1 is coupled to a pocket, for example made of the shielding fabric 12 of the present invention. The pocket can be assembled to a garment (for example a pair of pants)” paragraph 90; the electromagnetic shield is one piece of fabric according to claim 14, and the pocket made of the shielding fabric 12 of the present invention is a second piece of fabric according to claim 14, and the creation of a pocket creates a multilayered fabric comprising at least two pieces of fabric according to claim 14).
Cobanoglu does not explicitly disclose wherein two pieces of fabrics are sewn together.
However, Dordevic teaches a garment such as a pair of pants (16) that is constructed using an electromagnetic shielding fabric. Specifically, Dordevic teaches “the clothing according to the invention is completely or partially made of a textile fabric according to the invention. […] For the manufacture of this textile fabric, usual pieces of fabric are cut out which are sewed together along joint seams” (column 3, lines 6-13).
Dordevic teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of electromagnetic shielding fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use sewing, as taught by Dordevic, to attach the two pieces of fabric of Cobanoglu in order to “avoid interruption of the shielding effect” (Dordevic, column 3, lines 19-20). Further, sewing is a common and well known method of garment construction in the art.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobanoglu as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Goenka (US 2017/0088985) and as evidenced by Sun (US 2025/0057458).
Regarding claim 22 as best understood by Examiner, Cobanoglu as modified does not explicitly disclose: The fabric according to claim 14, wherein the non-conductive warp threads are made of wool and each non-conductive warp thread comprises two yarns having a fineness equal to 60m/g, and the non-conductive weft threads are made of wool and each non-conductive weft thread comprises two yarns having a fineness equal to 28 m/g.
However, Goenka teaches a woven fabric with warp threads that are made of wool (“the warp yarns may be spun staple yarns that include natural fibers, e.g., cotton fibers. […] other natural fibers include silk, linen, flax, bamboo, hemp, wool, and the like” paragraph 22) comprising two yarns (“in one example, the warp yarn is 2-ply yarn” paragraph 24) and wool weft threads (“the first weft yarn 42 can include cotton fibers blended with other natural or synthetic fibers. In such an example, the natural fibers could include silk, linen, flax, bamboo, hemp, wool, and the like. The first weft yarn can include cotton and synthetic fibers” paragraph 26) comprising two yarns (“the first weft yarn 42 can be a 2-ply […] yarn” paragraph 38)
Goenka teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of woven textiles. Therefore, it firstly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the non-conductive warp and weft threads of Cobanoglu out of 2-ply yarns that include wool, as taught by Goenka, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07. Further, wool has improved thermal insulation properties when compared to cotton that would be beneficial when making garments that are intended to be worn in colder climates. Further, although Goenka teaches ranges that encompass the claimed fineness values (“the warp yarn count is between 20 Ne (266 denier) and about 40 Ne (133 denier)” paragraph 24; Examiner notes that 266 denier is equivalent to 33.8 m/g and 133 denier is equivalent to 67.7 m/g; “the first weft yarn 42 can have a count in the range between about 8 Ne (664 denier) to about 120 Ne (44.3 denier)” paragraph 28; Examiner notes that 664 denier is equivalent to 13.6 m/g and 44.3 denier is equivalent to 203.2 m/g), it does not teach the specific fineness values claimed. However, since the ranges taught by Goenka overlap with the claimed values, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to potentially modify the warp and weft fineness to a value within a range already taught by the prior art, especially in light of the entirety of paragraphs 24 and 28 of Goenka which teach that many ranges for the fineness are possible, suitable, and contemplated, as a matter of obvious design choice depending on the desired final product because it is well known in the textile art, as evidenced by Sun (see paragraph 149), that the denier/fineness of the constituent yarns contributes to the mechanical and aesthetic properties of the resulting textile. Examiner further notes that the instant application provides no evidence or disclosure of criticality for the specific claimed values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Thornton (US 4606968), Swallow (US 2020/0375290), Sunshine (US 2021/0079569), and Rock (US 2002/0104837) teach relevant woven fabrics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights