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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment submitted on May 26, 2026, has been entered. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 8, 10 and 13 have been amended and no claims have been added. Therefore, the pending claims are 1 – 15. Claims 10 – 15 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The amendment to the specification has been entered. The objection to the disclosure is withdrawn due to amendment.
The amendment to the claims is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 objection to the term “knotting spots” since the term has been removed.
The 35 USC 103 rejection over CN 209368452U is withdrawn since the claim has been amended to focus on a woven product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for points of connection between two woven layers formed by yarns that are interlaced to be interwoven into the other layer, does not reasonably provide enablement for a woven structure where the layers are interwoven by yarns that are only between the two layers as shown in Figure 2, as discussed by the Applicant (Response, pages 8 – 9). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. First, it is noted that the Figure 2 does not show if the fabric is a woven fabric, knitted fabric, or other structure. Second, it is not clear that the connecting points shown between the layers are formed as an integral process, during production of individual layers. Thus, the Figure itself is not sufficient evidence to define the interlacing points as being only between the layers. Further, as discussed in the applicant’s specification, interweaving occurs by interlacing yarns at right angles to the form a fabric. At the intersection of yarns, one yarns goes over the other yarn to form a connection. The connections between yarns occur because yarns are interlaced together by going over and under in a pattern. When a woven fabric is made so that one type of yarns is on one surface and second type of yarn in on the opposite surface the fabric is either woven so that there is a surface made from a majority of warp yarns and the opposite surface is made from a predominant of weft yarns. However, even these structures include spaced apart points where the yarn from the other surface comes through to connect the layers together. Examples of these types of fabrics are warp-faced twill, weft-faced twill, warp-faced satin, and weft-faced satin. And while the warp yarn is mostly on the warp-faced surface, it also is on the opposite surface in a small amount to interconnect the warp and weft yarns together to create the woven fabric. Additionally, the structure can be made as a double weave woven fabric. But even in these fabric structures it is known that yarns from at least one surface must be interwoven with the opposite surface to connect the two layers together. Thus, at least one surface would include a small minority of yarns from the opposite layer to interconnect the layers. The disclosure has not discussed any special methods of interlacing yarns together to create a double sided fabric where the only connections between the two layers are formed by interlacing between the two layers and are not interlacing on at least one opposite surface between the yarns of the two layers. Claims 2 – 9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claim is drawn to an interwoven fabric with a “plaiting stitch structure”. Interwoven fabrics, as acknowledge by the applicant (Specification, pages 7 – 8), are made by interlacing two yarns together. This is distinct from knitting where fabrics are formed by interlooping yarns together, and each loop is called a stitch. Thus, woven fabrics do not have loops and therefore do not have stitches. As shown in the first drawing below:
PNG
media_image1.png
291
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
365
417
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Applicant’s response, the Applicant (Response, pages 9 – 10) discusses the drawing shown in Figure 1. However, the structure shown in Figure 1 is a knitted fabric made with a plaited structure. Woven fabrics are formed by interlacing yarns and not interlooping yarns. Thus, it is unclear how a fabric made by interlacing yarns together can also include stitches, particularly plaited stitches. The disclosure has not taught one of ordinary skill in the art can use stitches (used to make knit fabrics) in a woven structure, created by interlacing yarns. The manner of combining the yarns together in knitting and weaving rely on two separate, distinct processes. There is no teaching in the art of how to create stitches in a woven fabric and the applicant has not taught how to combine the two distinct structures. Thus, the application fails to teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to add plaited stitches to an interwoven structure.
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.
Claim 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 “interlacing points” in claim 1 is indefinite. The applicant has amended the term “knotting spots” to be “interlacing points” as discussed in the response (Response, pages 7 – 9). While the original disclosure states that “knotting spots” are “places between two fabrics where the threads of one fabric are interwoven with the threads of the other fabric in order to connect the two fabrics along their surfaces”, the disclosure does not specifically define the term “interlacing points”. Therefore, the term interlacing points is not clearly limited to a specific weave structure or pattern that is used to connect layers together and is not limited to only connections between the two layers as showed in Figure 2. For purposes of examination, any interlacing structure that connects two woven layers together would read on the term “interlacing points”.
The term “plaiting stitch structure” is indefinite. It is unclear how a stitch structure can be added to a woven fabric. Woven fabrics are formed by interlacing yarns and not interlooping yarns. Thus, the structure has no loops. Stitches are the individual loops in a knit fabric. How can a woven fabric have stitches when it has no loops? It is unclear what structure is required in the interwoven fabric.
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 § 102
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) 1, 2 and 8 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (2003/0181118).
Ko et al. discloses a quick drying fabric including a back layer and a surface layer (abstract). The invention is woven or knitted with a back layer and surface and the back layer is designed to be adjacent to the skin of the wearer (paragraph 21). The invention includes a second embodiment comprising a moisture absorbing, hydrophilic yarn in the surface layer and a hydrophobic yarn in the back layer (paragraphs 27 – 28). The hydrophobic yarn is made of polyolefin, polyester, or polyamide, with a water relent finish and has a moisture regain of less than 1% (paragraph 28). Further, Ko et al. teaches that the layers can be joined together by weaving machines that produce a woven fabric with one yarn supplied to the back layer and the other yarn supplied to the surface layer. Thus, the structure results in two interwoven layers the first layer, being the outer layer, comprising the hydrophilic yarn and the second layer, being adjacent to the skin, comprising a hydrophobic yarn. Further, as set forth above, the Applicant teaches that cotton and rayon materials are examples of hygroscopic materials. Thus, the cotton and rayon materials taught by Ko et al. are considered to be equivalent to the claimed hygroscopic fibers. Further, polyester and polyamide fibers are listed as examples of thermally conductive materials. And Table 1, in the applicant’s specification disclose that the coefficient of thermal conductivity for polyamide is 0.244 - 0.337 W/(m·K) and for polyester is 0.084 W/(m·K). Thus, the polyester and polyamide yarns taught by Ko et al. are considered to be equivalent to the thermally conductive fibers as defined by the applicant. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 9 are anticipated by Ko et al.
Ko et al. discloses that the interwoven invention produces a fabric with a first yarn on one surface and the other yarn on the opposite surface, producing a layered structure which is considered equivalent to a plaited knit fabric. Thus, claim 2 is anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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) 3 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ko et al.
The features of Ko et al. have been set forth above. Ko et al. teaches that the moisture absorbing layer is made from a hydrophilic yarn having a moisture regains of greater than about 8%, chosen from cotton, rayon, or wool (paragraph 27). Greater than 8% would include values of 11% to 13%. Further, as disclosed by the applicant (Specification, Table 1), conventional moisture regain for cotton is 8.5% and viscose rayon is 13%. Thus, the fabric made with rayon fibers would have a moisture regains of 11% to 13%. Further, the hydrophobic layer is made from polyester and polyamide fibers. As disclosed by the applicant (Specification, Table 1), conventional moisture regain for polyester is 0.4% and for polyamide is 4.5%. The applicant teaches these values as conventional and not values resultant from special treatments applied to the fibers. Therefore, the combination of polyamide fibers and rayon fiber would have a moisture regain difference of 8.5%. Based on the conventional values, the materials taught by Ko et al. would have the claimed moisture regain and the claimed moisture regain difference. Thus, claims 3 and 4 are anticipated.
In the alternative, although the limitations of moisture regain are not explicitly taught by Ko et al., 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. cotton, rayon, polyester, and polyamide fibers with specified moisture regain of greater than 8% for the hydrophilic fibers) and in the similar production steps (i.e. weaving a two layer fabric so that the fibers are mostly on separate surfaces) used to produce the comfortable fabric. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to choose from known fibers with higher moisture regain, since Ko et al. teaches that the moisture regain should be greater than 8%. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection under 35 USC 103 in addition to the rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Thus, claims 3 and 4 are rejected.
Further, with regards to the thermal conductivity, the disclosure teaches that polyamide fibers have a thermal conductivity of 0.244 - 0.337 W/(m·K). Thus, the polyamide, would be inherent to using polyamide fibers. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to choose standard polyamide fibers with convention thermal conductivity properties. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection under 35 USC 103 in addition to the rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Thus, claim 5 is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al.
The features of Ko et al. have been set forth above. 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 Ko et al., discloses using similar materials for the yarns. Cotton is inherently a staple fiber, which must be spun to form a yarn. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a spun yarn as the hydrophilic yarns in the final fabric. The staple yarn would have similar a spun yarn structure to the yarn produced by the spiro spinning process. Thus, claim 6 is rejected. Further, synthetic fibers are inherently a continuous filament which are either formed into a yarn as continuous filaments or cut into staple length to form a yarn. It would have been obvious to make yarns from the continuous polyester or polyamide filaments to go directly from spun filament to yarn production. This yarn structure would be a similar structure to the one produced in claim 7. Thus, claim 7 is rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
August 21, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights