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 1 – 9 in the reply filed on December 30, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10 – 15 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that the use of the term “grey” in the disclosure should really be using the term “greige” instead. This is a textile term that describes an unbleached, undyed fabric as it is taken from the loom, before finishing treatment has been performed.
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 – 9 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.
The term “knotting spots” in claim 1 is considered to not be proper terminology to describe a component in an interwoven fabric. As disclosed in the applicant’s disclosure, an interwoven fabric is formed by interlacing perpendicular yarns together, alternating from over one surface to over the opposite surface of the fabric, to form a woven structure. The term “knotting” suggests not just laying one yarn over or under another as is done in weaving, but suggests looping the yarn over an end through to form a immovable tied in connection between the yarns. Knots are known to be formed in other methods of textile making, but not weaving. Therefore, the use of the term suggests that two types of fabric making is being done at once to produce the claimed fabric. The applicant has not taught how the two different methods are integrated together to be used on the same fabric simultaneously. Thus, the applicant should clarify the term knotting spot by using language that is more specific to making layered woven fabric instead. Otherwise, the term suggests fabrics which are knotted together like quilting or hook and look tufting methods. For purposes of examination the term is interpreted as a yarn which is woven in both the top and bottom layer by travelling between the two layers, as suggested by paragraph 45 in the specification. Claims 2 – 9 are rejected due to their dependency.
The term “plaiting stitch” in claim 2 is indefinite. A plaiting stitch as shown in the figures is shown as used in a knit fabric. The claims are to a woven fabric. It is not clear what the applicant considers the difference to be between a two layer double weave fabric as recited in claim 1 and the “plaited” structure in claim 2. A plaited loop can not be added to the woven fabric. Further, Plaiting is just requiring that one layer covers over the underneath layer. The double weave structure would sufficiently plait the underneath layer. Therefore, it is not clear what additionally, structural limitations are required in the plaited structure.
Definition of Terms
The term “thermally conductive yarn” is interpreted as defined in the disclosure, as a fiber capable of conducting heat (Specification, paragraph 32). Examples were listed as polyester and polyamide (Specification, paragraphs 33 and 43).
The term “hygroscopic yarn” is defined as a material which attracts and holds water at room temperature (Specification, paragraph 29). Examples of hygroscopic materials include rayon viscose, cotton, and regenerated cellulose, which includes lyocell or Tencel (Specification, paragraph 31 and 42).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 209368452U in view of Emden et al. (2008/0096001).
CN 209368452U discloses an interlaced cool woven fabric comprising a cooling fiber, composed of a cool sensation fiber, and a moisture absorbing yarn, composed of a moisture absorbing fiber (Claim 1). The absorbent yarn is ultrafine cellulose yarn such as Tencel or viscose spun yarn (claims 2 – 3). This is equivalent to the applicant’s hygroscopic yarn. The cool synthetic filament yarn is polyester or nylon, also known as polyamide (claims 4 and 5). This is equivalent to the applicant’s thermally conductive yarn. Additionally, CN 209368452U teaches that the fabric is design so that the cool fiber is slightly higher of the surface of the fabric so that the user will contact the higher material, the cool yarn (claims 8 – 10).
While CN 209368452U discloses that the fabric is knit so that the cool yarn is more exposed on the surface, CN 209368452U fails to teach that the fabric includes two layers of different materials that are interwoven together. Emden et al. is drawn to wicking fabrics (abstract). Emden et al. teaches that the fabrics can include different yarns within different layers that are woven to form a double weave (paragraph 72). The back and front of the fabric have different sets of warp yarns and weft yarns to form two layers with by some of the yarns occasionally interlace with the other layer (paragraph 72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the combination of cool synthetic yarns and moisture absorbing yarns taught by CN 209368452U could be joined together so that the cooling yarn is next to the skin as desired by CN 209368452U (page 3, 2nd paragraph), by forming a double weave fabric where one surface is the cool feeling yarn and the other yarn is the moisture absorbent yarns. Thus, the fabric would include two different material layers woven together by interlacing points between the two layers. Thus, claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected.
With regards to the properties of the hygroscopic and polyamide yarns, CN 209368452U, discloses using the same materials as the applicant, general known viscose and polyamide fibers. The applicant has not discloses that the fibers are specially treated or modified to produce the claim properties. Hence, although CN 209368452U does not explicitly teach the limitations moisture regains and thermal conductivity, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e. viscose and nylon) and in the similar production steps (i.e. forming yarns and fabrics) used to produce the clothing. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594. In the alternative, the claimed properties would obviously have been provided by the process disclosed by CN 209368452U.Thus, claims 3, 4, and 5 are rejected.
With regards to the yarn’s structures recited, the compact spiro spinning and fully drawn yarn and method limitations related to how the yarns are made. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In the present case CN 209368452U has discloses using spun yarns and filament yarns respectively. These would have similar structures to the ones produced by the method limitation. Thus, claims 6 and 7 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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.
jlj
February 21, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789