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 June 12, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12 have been amended and no claims have been added. Therefore, the pending claims are 1 – 20. Claims 18 – 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The amendment to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection to claim due to the amendment to claim 1.
The amendment to claim 2 is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. However, it is noted that claim 2 is required as having a woven structure made from yarns which do not react when exposed to a solvent that can dissolve other fibers materials. Further, claim 2 is drawn to the final product, the woven fabric which includes regions where the spacing between the yarns changes to be wider at regular intervals. The patentability is based on the final structure and not the method of making the pattern. Thus, a woven fabric having the same final structure would read on the claimed invention even if the method to make the product does not involve dissolving a yarn. The solvent and the dissolvable yarns are not present in the final product.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 “a first diameter” and “a second diameter” in claim 9 are indefinite. It is unclear what diameter is being measured. Is the diameter the size of a yarn that is present in the aperture, the size of the yarn removed from the aperture or not related to the yarn diameter at all? Is the diameter of the aperture indicating the aperture is a circle and it is the size of the aperture itself? The apertures produced by the removal of yarns are shown to be rectangular in shape. A rectangular shape would not be defined by a diameter. Thus, it is unclear how the applicant is defining the claimed diameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blakely ‘067 (US 2015/0196067) in view of Harber (US 2006/0179539) and Blakely ‘737 (US 2015/0218737).
Blakely ‘067 discloses an article of apparel with grasp resistant panels (abstract). The laminate includes a first fabric layer with a first elongation value and a second fabric layer with a second elongation value, wherein the second elongation is less than the first elongation value (abstract). Further, the second layer is formed from discontinuous panels spaced apart on the surface of the first fabric layer (abstract). The first fabric layer is a knit fabric with an elongation of 5 – 30% or up to 100% (paragraph 18 – 20). The second fabric layer is a woven layer with a second elongation of less than 10%, preferably 5% or 0% (paragraph 24 – 25). The layers are joined together by a bonding layer (paragraph 38). The fabric can be used as a sporting garment (paragraph 46) such as a sporting jersey, shirt, or tank top (paragraph 56). Thus, it would be worn on a torso.
While Blakely ‘067 discloses a garment for a sporting jersey with two layers, Blakely ‘067 fails to teach that the second panel includes gaps or openings in the warp and weft directions. Harber is drawn to sporting garments (abstract). Harber teaches that failure to release and move heat away from the body during exercise can cause a rise in a person’s body temperature putting them at risk for heat exhaustion or heat stroke (paragraphs 2 - 5). Athletes need fabrics which can help cool during use (paragraph 7). Further, Harber teaches that venting zones assist in effectively cooling the wearer (paragraph 10). The thermal profile characteristic of a body can be used to create a pattern of opening of different sizes and in different areas to help cool a wearer (paragraph 10). The openings or venting zones can be provided into a garment by any desired manner known in the art (paragraph 64).
Additionally, Blakely ‘737 discloses a woven fabric structure made with engineered apertures (abstract). The textile is a woven textile wherein the apertures are formed by removing warp and/or weft yarns from the textile structure (paragraph 4). The textile fabric can be incorporated into sport jerseys or other articles of apparel (paragraph 4). The article would have improved breathability and air permeability (paragraph 4). The fabric is formed by combining dissolvable and non-dissolvable yarns together in the warp and weft direction of a woven fabric and then removing the dissolvable yarns with a dissolving agent (paragraph 23 – 29). Blakely ‘737 discloses that the textile can include apertures that include small and large apertures (paragraph 32). Further, the apertures can range in size from 100 microns or less or 200 to 5000 microns.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add vents or openings of different sizes to the fabric of Blakely ‘067 to the panels to create multiple venting zones in the composite fabric to help efficiently cool the wearer during athletic activity. Further, it would have been obvious to use known techniques such as those taught by Blakely ‘737 to create openings in the woven fabric layer of Blakely ‘067 to producing a venting zones in a desired pattern, to help sufficiently cool a wearer. Therefore, claims 1 – 17 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the proposed combination is improper because Blakely ‘067 teaches a grasp resistant product designed to prevent tears and the combination of adding channels would make the fabric easier to tear and grasp (response, pages 7 – 8). While it is true that Blakely ‘067 discusses an embodiment wherein reinforcing ribs 310A and 310B are added to the woven fabric to create a square pattern that prevents the propagation of tears (paragraphs 25-28). The use of a yarn which can be dissolved to create vents would be done by adding filaments separate from the reinforcing ribs. Thus, any vents created by dissolving warp or weft fibers would not have an impact on the reinforcing ribs. The ribs would still be included in a pattern of small squares which function by stopping tears from moving outside of the original area where the tear began. The reinforcing ribs are stranger and won’t rip and the tear doesn’t spread. This function would still occur even if some of the regions include vents formed by dissolving some yarns within the squares. Thus, the addition of vents does not change the function of the reinforcing ribs and would not result in the fabric being significantly easier to tear. Further, the ribs are made using different yarns that would also create some degree of texture on the surface. Therefore, it is not clear from the teachings of Blakely ‘067 that for the fabric to grasp resistant and tear resistant it cannot have a different pattern in the woven fabric. Additionally, Blakely ‘’067 teaches that this is one embodiment. The reinforcing ribs are not required in every embodiment. And Blakely suggests adding ventilation is desired (column 7, lines 60 – column 8, line 5).
The applicant argues that the fabric would be easier to grasp. However, Blakely’067 discloses that the second layer is made up of discontinuous, spaced apart panels (abstract). Thus, the fabric of Blakely ‘067 already gaps. The fabric is resistant to grasping because the fact that the first layer and the second layer have different elongation values and the fabric is worn in a stretched configuration so that the garment conforms closely to the wearer which impairs the ability of an opponent to grasp and hold the garment (paragraph 5). Hence, the grasp resistance is not related to the lack of gaps or due to using a completely smooth fabric, but it is due to the elongation difference between the two layers and having the wearer use a tight fitting garment to prevent grasping. The applicant has not provided a clear argument how adding vents would impact the elongation of the second fabric or make the material less form fitting. Therefore, the applicant has not shown that adding some additional gaps or spaces in the fabric would in any way significantly impact the ability for the fabric to be grasped as compared to the original invention of Blakely ‘067. Thus, Blakely ‘067 is not considered to teach away from adding vents as taught by Blakely ‘737. Hence, the rejection is maintained.
Additionally, the applicant argues that the combination of Blakely ‘067 with Blakely ‘737 and Harber is improper because it relies on hindsight and there is no rationale to combine (response, page 10). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The teachings of Harber and Blakely ‘737 both provide motivation to include the vents in various athletic fabrics. Harber discloses that it is known in the art that failure to release and move heat away from the body during exercise can cause a rise in a person’s body temperature putting them at risk for heat exhaustion or heat stroke (paragraphs 2 - 5). Thus, all clothing worn by athletes who can suffer from heat problems are of concern to these teachings and could benefit to include ventilation into the materials. Further, Harber teaches that venting zones assist in effectively cooling the wearer (paragraph 10). Additionally, Blakely ‘737 teaches that the vents can be added to a woven fabric by removing warp and/or weft yarns from the textile structure (paragraph 4). And Blakely suggests adding ventilation is desired (column 7, lines 60 – column 8, line 5). Thus, the motivation for the combination is found in the prior art teachings and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Further, the applicant argues that there is no reason to use the dissolution process taught by Blakely ‘737 instead of the perforation method of Blakely ‘067 (response, pages 11 – 12). However, it is noted that while Blakely ‘067 discloses that adding ventilation is desired, Blakely ‘067 also teaches that the perforated holes need additionally processing to minimize fraying or runs. Using the methods taught by Blakely ‘737 would not require treatment to stabilize the holes because there are not cuts or breaks in the remaining yarns that need to be stabilized. Further, by adding channels along the entire width or length of the woven fabric the ventilation apertures can be spaced throughout the fabric maximizing ventilation areas without causing excessive damage to the fabric. Further, it is within the level of skill in the art to substitute a different method of adding ventilation to a fabric, for the method disclosed by Blakely ‘067, with the expectation that the combination would have yielded predictable results. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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 22, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights