DETAILED ACTION
The supplemental reply filed on March 4, 2026 was not entered because supplemental replies are not entered as a matter of right except as provided in 37 CFR 1.111(a)(2)(ii). MPEP 714.03(a) states that the Office may enter a supplemental reply if the supplemental reply is clearly limited to: (A) cancellation of a claim; (B) adoption of the examiner's suggestions; (C) placement of the application in condition of allowance; (D) reply to an Office requirement made after the first reply was filed; (E) correction of informalities; or (F) simplification of issues for appeal. The supplemental reply filed on March 4, 2026 changes the scope of claim 10 and adds new claim 23, therefore the supplemental reply is not limited to scenarios (A)-(F) and thus is not entered.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on February 3, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1 and 10 are amended, claims 12-13 are cancelled, and claims 21-22 are new, resulting in claims 1-11 and 14-22 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 states "30 fig. 3" after the period. It is believed this is a typographical error and is recommended to delete any text following the period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to recite the limitation “wherein a surface coverage of the polyethylene is between 20 percent and 40 percent” in line 3. As will be described in a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below, it is unclear what surface the polyethylene is covering. The instant specification at paragraph [0037] provides support for 20-40% of the fabric being covered by polyethylene. However, claim 1 is directed to a yarn. Therefore, the instant specification does not provide support for the polyethylene covering 20-40% of anything other than a surface of a fabric.
Claims 2-9 and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) based on their dependency from claim 1, rejected above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein an infrared (IR) transmittance of the yarn at a wavelength of 9.5 microns is between 40 percent and 90 percent” in lines 6-7 (emphasis added). However, paragraph [0036] of the specification as filed states that the IR transmittance is a property of a fabric made of the cooling yarn. Therefore, the instant specification does not provide support for the yarn having the claimed IR transmittance.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation “the second yarn having a lower concentration of polyethylene compared to the first yarn, wherein the back layer has a higher relative coverage of the first yarn compared to the front layer” in lines 9-11. The instant specification is completely silent as to the second yarn having a lower concentration of polyethylene compared to the first yarn and as to the back layer having a higher relative coverage of the first yarn compared to the front layer.
Claims 11, 15-20, and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) based on their dependency from claim 10, rejected above.
Claims 21 and 22 each claim at least one shell fiber partially wrapped in a helical pattern around the at least one core fiber. There is no support in the instant specification for the shell fiber being partially wrapped.
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 1-11 and 14-22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a surface coverage of the polyethylene is between 20 percent and 40 percent” in line 3. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the polyethylene is covering. Paragraph [0030] of the instant specification discusses the polyethylene being a shell covering a core that does not cover the entire surface of the core portion. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the polyethylene covering a core.
It is noted that, as described in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above, the instant specification does not provide support for the polyethylene shell covering 20-40% of the core, it only provides support for the shell not covering the entire surface of the core.
Claims 1-9 and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency from claim 1, rejected above
Claim 10 recites the limitations “a second yarn blended with the first yarn” in line 8 and “wherein the back layer has a higher relative coverage of the first yarn compared to the front layer” in lines 10-11. The limitations are indefinite because the knit fabric as claimed only requires a first yarn and a second yarn. If the first and second yarn are blended it is unclear how the back layer can have a higher relative coverage of the first yarn compared to the front layer, because due to the first and second yarns being blended the second yarn would be located wherever the first yarn is. It is therefore unclear how both structure of the limitations can be simultaneously met, and/or whether a third yarn is implicitly required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the front layer” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11, 14-20, and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency from claim 10, rejected above.
Claims 21 and 22 both recited the limitation “wherein the at least one shell fiber is partially wrapped in a helical pattern around the at least one core fiber”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what structure constitutes the shell being “partially wrapped”.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee WO 2020/190070)1,2,3 in view of Bhatnagar (US 2020/0131675).
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches cut resistant polyethylene yarn (paragraph [0001]). The polyester yarn may include 40 to 500 filaments each having a fineness of 1 to 3 denier, and may have a total fineness of 100 to 1000 denier (paragraph [0018]).
As to the ranges recited in the claims, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case the claimed range and the range of Lee are sufficiently close that one skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, particularly in light of the instant specification at paragraph [0035] disclosing that deniers up to 300 are suitable for the invention, which overlaps with the range of Lee.
Lee is silent as to a surface coverage of the polyethylene being between 20 percent and 40 percent.
Bhatnagar teaches hybrid yarns formed by twisting together low denier ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin fiber with non-polyolefin fibers that are high quality, soft, and colored or colorable (paragraph [0010]). Bhatnagar further teaches that in order to attain the preferred high abrasion resistance in a suitable balance with other preferred properties such as soft feel, dyeability, and low weight, it is necessary for the one or more polyolefin fibers to account for at least 20% of the surface area of the hybrid yarn up to about 75% of the hybrid yarn, with the amount generally depending on the needs of the end use application (paragraph [0031]). In applications where abrasion resistance is more important than softness or dyeability, the yarns should include sufficient polyolefin fibers so that the occupy a greater amount of the surface are of the hybrid yarn (paragraph [0031]). In this regard, in applications where softness or dyeability is more important than the abrasion resistance, the yarns should include sufficient non-polyolefin fibers so that they occupy a greater amount of the surface area of the hybrid yarn (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene yarn of Lee to be a hybrid yarn where the polyethylene covers 20-75% of the hybrid yarn surface as described by Bhatnagar in order to provide a yarn that provides high abrasion resistance in suitable balance with other preferred properties such as soft feel, dyeability, and low weight.
The polyolefin coverage range of Bhatnagar substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Bhatnagar, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
In the alternative it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coverage of the polyethylene filaments to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a yarn with the desired abrasion resistance, soft feel, dyeability, and weight for the intended purpose. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
With respect to claim 2, Lee in view of Bhatnagar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Lee further teaches that the polyethylene has yarn has a weight average molecular weight of 80,000 to 180,000 g/mol, which is considered a high-density polyethylene (paragraphs [0006], [0014]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2020/190070)4,5,6 in view of Bhatnagar (US 2020/0131675) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hastie (US 5948529)3.
With respect to claim 3, Lee in view of Bhatnagar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee in view of Bhatnagar is silent as to the filaments comprising a fiber having a core and a coating comprising polyethylene coated on the core.
Hastie teaches a bicomponent fiber having a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) core and an ethylene polymer sheath (col. 1, lines 7-20). The ethylene polymer sheath can be low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, or high density polyethylene (col. 1, lines 7-20). The PET core provides strength and heat resistance to the fabric (col. 5, lines 6-8).
Since both Lee in view of Bhatnagar and Hastie teach high density polyethylene suitable for forming fibers to be used in fabrics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene fiber of Lee to include a polyethylene terephthalate core in order to provide strength and heat resistance to the fabric.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2020/190070)7,8,9 in view of Bhatnagar (US 2020/0131675) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukushima (US 2014/0000007)2,3.
With respect to claims 4 and 21, Lee in view of Bhatnagar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee in view of Bhatnagar is silent as to the filaments comprising a plurality of fibers having at least one core fiber and at least one shell fiber wrapping around the at least one core fiber, wherein the at least one shell fiber includes polyethylene.
Fukushima teaches polyethylene fibers that are excellent in dimensional stability, dye-ability, and cut-resistance (paragraph [0001]). Fukushima further teaches the polyethylene fiber may be used as the sheath yarn to cover an elastic core (paragraph [0100]). When the covered elastic yarn is used, the woven/knitted textile can provide enhanced wearing feeling and facilitate putting-on and taking-off (paragraph [0100]).
Since both Lee in view of Bhatnagar and Fukushima teach polyethylene fibers for use in textiles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene fibers of Lee to cover an elastic yarn in order to provide the final textile with elasticity while providing enhanced wearing feeling. As described above, Bhatnagar teaches partial surface coverage of the shell polyethylene yarn. As can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3 of Bhatnagar this is achieved through helical wrapping.
With respect to claims 5-6, Lee in view of Bhatnagar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee in view of Bhatnagar is silent as to the polyethylene fibers comprising a dyestuff additive.
Fukushima teaches polyethylene fibers that are excellent in dimensional stability, dye-ability, and cut-resistance (paragraph [0001]). Fukushima further teaches the inclusion of an organic substance in the polyethylene fibers to provide affinity to a disperse dye (paragraphs [0063], [0065]), as well as dyeing the fiber with a disperse dye (paragraph [0092]). This allows a color of the fiber to be freely selected (paragraph [0237]).
Since both Lee in view of Bhatnagar and Fukushima teach polyethylene fibers for use in textiles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene fibers of Lee to include an organic substance and disperse dye additive in order to dye the polyethylene fibers any desired color.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2020/190070)10,11,12 in view of Bhatnagar (US 2020/0131675) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (WO 2008/098420)3.
With respect to claims 5 and 7-9, Lee in view of Bhatnagar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Lee in view of Bhatnagar is silent as to the polyethylene fibers including ZnO or TiO2 as an ultraviolet blocking agent additive.
Li in view of Bhatnagar teaches a treatment for fibers and textiles (page 1) which includes treating the textile with at least one of TiO2, ZnO, Al2O3, and SiO2 (ceramics) in order to provide UV blocking properties (page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have treated the polyethylene fibers of Lee in view of Bhatnagar with nano functional material such as TiO2 and ZnO in order to provide the fibers with UV blocking properties.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2020/190070)13,14,15 in view of Habicht (US 2017/0175302)3 and Olivetto (WO 2020/157638).
With respect to claims 10-11, Lee teaches cut resistant polyethylene yarn (paragraph [0001]). The polyester yarn may include 40 to 500 filaments each having a fineness of 1 to 3 denier, and may have a total fineness of 100 to 1000 denier (paragraph [0018]). The yarn is used in the manufacture of fabrics (paragraph [0050]).
As to the ranges recited in the claims, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case the claimed range and the range of Lee are sufficiently close that one skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, particularly in light of the instant specification at paragraph [0035] disclosing that deniers up to 300 are suitable for the invention, which overlaps with the range of Lee.
Lee is silent as to the polyethylene yarn being blended with a second yarn that is different from the polyethylene yarn.
Habicht teaches flame resistant fabrics formed at least in part with cellulosic filament yarns (paragraph [0002]). The cellulosic filament yarns include rayon and cotton (paragraphs [0015], [0018]). Habicht also lists ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene as a useful FR yarn (paragraph [0018]) and suggests blends of the cellulose fibers with other FR fibers, especially when non-FR cellulosic filaments are used (paragraphs [0017], [0021]-[0028]). The cellulosic filament yarns, when used in woven or knitted fabrics, help impart the desired slickness, soft hand, comfort, inherent wicking and easy dyeability and hydrophilic characteristics to the fabric (paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene yarns of Lee to be blended with cellulosic fibers such as rayon and cotton in order to provide fabrics with the desired slickness, soft hand, comfort, inherent wicking and easy dyeability and hydrophilic characteristics.
Lee further teaches knitting the covered yarn (paragraph [0030]). Lee in view of Habicht is silent as to the knit being a double knit asymmetric fabric with a back layer having a higher concentration of polyethylene/the first yarn compared to the front layer.
Olivetto teaches an anti-cut fabric comprising ultra high molecular weight polyethylene yarns which provide the anti-cut quality (page 1, lines 9-13). The fabric further includes a thermal yarn of polyester which is flexible, light, has high mechanical resistance, and low heat transfer coefficient to retain body heat (page 3, lines 11-23). The knit is double-faced with polyethylene on one side and polyester on the other (page 3, lines 2-14).
Since both Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teach cut-resistant fabrics comprising polyethylene, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the knit of Lee in view of Habicht to include a face of polyethylene yarn in order to provide cut-resistance and a face of polyester in order to retain the body heat of the wearer.
Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach an infrared transmittance of the yarn at a wavelength of 9.5 microns being between 40 percent and 90 percent. It is reasonable to presume that the IR transmittance is inherent to Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto. Support for said presumption is found in that the knit of Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teaches the same structure and similar materials as claim 10 as described above, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 14, Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above. Lee further teaches that the polyethylene has yarn has a weight average molecular weight of 80,000 to 180,000 g/mol, which is considered a high-density polyethylene (paragraphs [0006], [0014]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2020/190070)16,17,18 in view of Habicht (US 2017/0175302)3 and Olivetto (WO 2020/157638) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hastie (US 5948529)3.
With respect to claim 15, Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto is silent as to the filaments comprising a fiber having a core and a coating comprising polyethylene coated on the core.
Hastie teaches a bicomponent fiber having a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) core and an ethylene polymer sheath (col. 1, lines 7-20). The ethylene polymer sheath can be low density polyethylene, linear low density polyethylene, or high density polyethylene (col. 1, lines 7-20). The PET core provides strength and heat resistance to the fabric (col. 5, lines 6-8).
Since both Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto and Hastie teach high density polyethylene suitable for forming fibers to be used in fabrics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene fiber of Lee to include a polyethylene terephthalate core in order to provide strength and heat resistance to the fabric.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2020/190070)19,20,21 in view of Habicht (US 2017/0175302)3 and Olivetto (WO 2020/157638) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fukushima (US 2014/0000007)2,3.
With respect to claim 16, Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto is silent as to the filaments comprising a plurality of fibers having at least one core fiber and at least one shell fiber wrapping around the at least one core fiber, wherein the at least one shell fiber includes polyethylene.
Fukushima teaches polyethylene fibers that are excellent in dimensional stability, dye-ability, and cut-resistance (paragraph [0001]). Fukushima further teaches the polyethylene fiber may be used as the sheath yarn to cover an elastic core (paragraph [0100]). When the covered elastic yarn is used, the woven/knitted textile can provide enhanced wearing feeling and facilitate putting-on and taking-off (paragraph [0100]).
Since both Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto and Fukushima teach polyethylene fibers for use in textiles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene fibers of Lee to cover an elastic yarn in order to provide the final textile with elasticity while providing enhanced wearing feeling.
With respect to claims 17-18, Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto is silent as to the polyethylene fibers comprising a dyestuff additive.
Fukushima teaches polyethylene fibers that are excellent in dimensional stability, dye-ability, and cut-resistance (paragraph [0001]). Fukushima further teaches the inclusion of an organic substance in the polyethylene fibers to provide affinity to a disperse dye (paragraphs [0063], [0065]), as well as dyeing the fiber with a disperse dye (paragraph [0092]). This allows a color of the fiber to be freely selected (paragraph [0237]).
Since both Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto and Fukushima teach polyethylene fibers for use in textiles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene fibers of Lee to include an organic substance and disperse dye additive in order to dye the polyethylene fibers any desired color.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2020/190070)22,23,24 in view of Habicht (US 2017/0175302)3 and Olivetto (WO 2020/157638) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Li (WO 2008/098420)3.
With respect to claims 17 and 19-20, Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teaches all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto is silent as to the polyethylene fibers including ZnO or TiO2 as an ultraviolet blocking agent additive.
Li teaches a treatment for fibers and textiles (page 1) which includes treating the textile with at least one of TiO2, ZnO, Al2O3, and SiO2 in order to provide UV blocking properties (page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have treated the polyethylene fibers of Lee with nano functional material such as TiO2 and ZnO in order to provide the fibers with UV blocking properties.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2020/190070)25,26,27 in view of Habicht (US 2017/0175302)3, Olivetto (WO 2020/157638) and Fukushima (US 2014/0000007)2,3 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bhatnagar (US 2020/0131675).
With respect to claim 16, Lee in view of Habicht, Olivetto, and Fukushima teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above.
Lee in view of Habicht, Olivetto, and Fukushima is silent as to the at least one shell fiber being partially wrapped in a helical pattern around the at least one core fiber, the at least one shell fiber covers only a portion of the at least one core fiber.
Fukushima teaches polyethylene fibers that are excellent in dimensional stability, dye-ability, and cut-resistance (paragraph [0001]). Fukushima further teaches the polyethylene fiber may be used as the sheath yarn to cover an elastic core (paragraph [0100]). When the covered elastic yarn is used, the woven/knitted textile can provide enhanced wearing feeling and facilitate putting-on and taking-off (paragraph [0100]).
Since both Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto and Fukushima teach polyethylene fibers for use in textiles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene fibers of Lee to cover an elastic yarn in order to provide the final textile with elasticity while providing enhanced wearing feeling.
Bhatnagar teaches hybrid yarns formed by twisting together low denier ultra-high molecular weight polyolefin fiber with non-polyolefin fibers that are high quality, soft, and colored or colorable (paragraph [0010]). Bhatnagar further teaches that in order to attain the preferred high abrasion resistance in a suitable balance with other preferred properties such as soft feel, dyeability, and low weight, it is necessary for the one or more polyolefin fibers to account for at least 20% of the surface area of the hybrid yarn up to about 75% of the hybrid yarn, with the amount generally depending on the needs of the end use application (paragraph [0031]). In applications where abrasion resistance is more important than softness or dyeability, the yarns should include sufficient polyolefin fibers so that the occupy a greater amount of the surface are of the hybrid yarn (paragraph [0031]). In this regard, in applications where softness or dyeability is more important than the abrasion resistance, the yarns should include sufficient non-polyolefin fibers so that they occupy a greater amount of the surface area of the hybrid yarn (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyethylene yarn of Lee to be a hybrid yarn where the polyethylene covers 20-75% of the hybrid yarn surface as described by Bhatnagar in order to provide a yarn that provides high abrasion resistance in suitable balance with other preferred properties such as soft feel, dyeability, and low weight. As can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3 of Bhatnagar this is achieved through helical wrapping.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on February 3, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the response Applicant submits that neither the cooling benefit nor the size range is disclosed or suggested by Lee, as Lee describes a fineness of polyester yarn of 100-1000D which is outside the claimed range.
These arguments are not persuasive. As explained in the rejection of claims 1 and 10 above, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case the claimed range and the range of Lee are sufficiently close that one skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, particularly in light of the instant specification at paragraph [0035] disclosing that deniers up to 300 are suitable for the invention, which overlaps with the range of Lee.
With respect to the cooling property, as explained in the rejection of claim 10 above, Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach an infrared transmittance of the yarn at a wavelength of 9.5 microns being between 40 percent and 90 percent. It is reasonable to presume that the IR transmittance is inherent to Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto. Support for said presumption is found in that the knit of Lee in view of Habicht and Olivetto teaches the same structure and similar materials as claim 10 as described above, and therefore is expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
On page 5 of the response Applicant submits that neither Lee nor any of the other references describe the benefits of having a cooling layer on a back layer which specifically contacts human skin, while having other beneficial properties of texture, feel, toughness, and strength on the opposite face layer.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not recognize the benefits of the claimed invention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 US 2022/0049378 used as English reference
2 Cited in IDS
3 Previously presented
4 US 2022/0049378 used as English reference
5 Cited in IDS
6 Previously presented
7 US 2022/0049378 used as English reference
8 Cited in IDS
9 Previously presented
10 US 2022/0049378 used as English reference
11 Cited in IDS
12 Previously presented
13 US 2022/0049378 used as English reference
14 Cited in IDS
15 Previously presented
16 US 2022/0049378 used as English reference
17 Cited in IDS
18 Previously presented
19 US 2022/0049378 used as English reference
20 Cited in IDS
21 Previously presented
22 US 2022/0049378 used as English reference
23 Cited in IDS
24 Previously presented
25 US 2022/0049378 used as English reference
26 Cited in IDS
27 Previously presented