DETAILED ACTION
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 January 30, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1 and 13 are amended and claims 5-8 and 12 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-4, 9-11, and 13-16 pending for examination.
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 13-16 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 13 recites the limitation “wherein the linear density of the polyester filament yarn is 900 to 1000 denier”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the polyester filament yarn” limits the polyester yarn in the first fabric yarn, the second fabric yarn, or both the first and second fabric yarns.
Claims 14-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency from claim 13, rejected above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and states “wherein the second fabric yarn is a twisted composite yarn”. Claim 1 at line 8 states that the second fabric yarn is an untwisted composite yarn. Since the second fabric yarn in claim 9 being twisted would necessarily result in the second fabric yarn being not untwisted, claim 9 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 10-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) based on their dependency from claim 8, rejected above.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei (CN 218059394)1,2 in view of Henssen (US 2021/0079567)2 and Tam (US 2011/0039058)2.
With respect to claims 1 and 3-4, Fei teaches a high-strength tear-resistant and cat-scratch-resistant fabric comprising a fabric body, the fabric body being interwoven with warp yarns and weft yarns comprising high-strength core-spun yarns where the core is polyester and the wrapping yarn is ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (paragraph [n0005]).
Fei is silent as to the mass percentage of the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene filament yarn in the fabric being not less than 15% and not greater than 50%.
Henssen teaches a woven fabric comprising UHMWPE fibers and natural fibers (paragraph [0001]). The amount of UHMWPE is between 10 and 50 wt% of the warp yarns B (paragraph [0017]). It was observed that increasing levels of UHMWPE fibers does not necessarily further improve the abrasion resistance of the fabric, while comfort, particularly after prolonged wear, gets worse (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in the fabric to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a fabric that has the desired abrasion resistance and comfort for its intended use. 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 MPAP 2144.05(II).
Fei is silent as to the mass percentage of the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene filament yarn in the composite yarn being 40% to 57%.
Henssen teaches a woven fabric comprising UHMWPE fibers and natural fibers (paragraph [0001]). The amount of UHMWPE is between 10 and 50 wt% of the warp yarns B (paragraph [0017]). It was observed that increasing levels of UHMWPE fibers does not necessarily further improve the abrasion resistance of the fabric, while comfort, particularly after prolonged wear, gets worse (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a fabric that has the desired abrasion resistance and comfort for its intended use. 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 MPAP 2144.05(II).
Fei further teaches the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers are spirally wound on the polyester (paragraph [n0018]).
Fei in view of Henssen is silent as to the yarn being untwisted.
Tam teaches high strength ultra-high molecular weight multi-filament yarns and the tape articles, fabrics, laminates, and impact resistant materials made therefrom (paragraph [0002]). Tam further teaches the UHMW PE yarn may be twisted or untwisted (paragraph [0059]).
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 composite yarn of Fei in view of Henssen to be untwisted because it is known in the art that UHMW PE yarns may be twisted or untwisted when used in high strength articles, resulting in the predictable result of a product that is tear and puncture resistant. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
With respect to claim 13, Fei in view of Henssen and Tam teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above. Fei further teaches the fineness of the polyester is 1000D and the fineness of the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber is 400D (paragraphs [n0007]-[n0008]).
With respect to claim 14, Fei in view of Henssen teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above.
Fei is silent as to the mass percentage of the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene filament yarn in the fabric being 20% to 25%.
Henssen teaches a woven fabric comprising UHMWPE fibers and natural fibers (paragraph [0001]). The amount of UHMWPE is between 10 and 50 wt% of the warp yarns B (paragraph [0017]). It was observed that increasing levels of UHMWPE fibers does not necessarily further improve the abrasion resistance of the fabric, while comfort, particularly after prolonged wear, gets worse (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in the fabric to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a fabric that has the desired abrasion resistance and comfort for its intended use. 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).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei (CN 218059394)3,4 in view of Henssen (US 2021/0079567)2 and Tam (US 2011/0039058)2 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Dunbar (US 5119512)2.
With respect to claim 2, Fei in view of Henssen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fei in view of Henssen and Tam is silent as to the elongation of the fabric being 1% to 10%.
Dunbar teaches a cut resistant article comprising a cut resistant jacket surrounding a less cut resistant member (col. 2, lines 45-52). Suitable yarns for the jacket include ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene, such as those commercially available as Spectra 1000 which have an elongation of 2.7 percent (col. 4, lines 50-64).
Since both Fei in view of Henssen and Tam and Dunbar teach cut resistant fabrics comprising cored yarns comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene sheaths, 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 ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene of Fei in view of Henssen and Tam to have an elongation of 2.7% because it is known in the art as a suitable ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene for cut-resistant fabrics and would yield the predictable result of a cut-resistant fabric. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, both warp and weft yarns in Fei comprise the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene and polyester. Dunbar also discusses the use of polyester which has an elongation of 14% (col. 4, lines 50-64). Since both the warp and the weft yarns of Fei in view of Henssen and Tan and Dunbar are the same, it is reasonable to presume that the elongation of the fabric will be ruled by the yarn with the lowest elongation. Therefore it is expected that the fabric of Fei in view of Henssen and Dunbar and Tam would have an elongation around 2.7%.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fei (CN 218059394)5,6 in view of Henssen (US 2021/0079567)2 and Tam (US 2011/0039058)2 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ramirez (US 2014/0305384)2.
With respect to claims 15-16, Fei in view of Henssen and Tam teaches all the limitations of claim 14 above.
Fei in view of Henssen and Tam is silent as to the fabric being a woven webbing or a knitted webbing.
Ramirez teaches pet restraint systems for use in vehicles, particularly a dog seatbelt (paragraph [0001]). The belt comprises a webbing which can be made from any strong fabric woven as a flat strip or tube with fibers including Dyneema (paragraphs [0042]-[0043]).
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 fabric of Fei in view of Henssen and Tam to be a woven webbing in order to be utilized as a pet restrain system, as it is known in the art as a suitable use for yarns containing ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fibers.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 12-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed January 30, 2026.
The rejections of claims 8 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed January 30, 2026.
In light of the amendments to the claims new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been applied above.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on January 30, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the response Applicant submits that the combination of Fei and Henssen cannot yield a precise structure-ratio synergy as the claimed invention as Fei does not consider cost balance and Henssen targets human comfort rather than pet tear resistance.
In response to applicant's argument that Fei does not consider cost balance and Henssen does not consider pet tear resistance, 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).
On page 7 of the response Applicant submits that none of the references disclose linear density matching of claim 13, which is the result of optimization to ensure the composite yarn has sufficient tear resistance without being too stiff for weaving, which cannot be derived from the prior art.
These arguments are not persuasive. As described in the rejection of claim 13 above, Fei teaches a fineness of the polyester is 1000D and the fineness of the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fiber is 400D (paragraphs [n0007]-[n0008]). These values are within the claimed ranges of claim 13.
In response to applicant's argument that the references do not disclose that the linear density matching ensures the composite yarn as sufficient tear resistance without being too stiff for weaving, 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).
On page 7 of the response Applicant submits that Tam only mentions untwisted UHMWPE yarns for tapes, not composite yarns. Applicant further submits that Fei does not involve twisted composite yarns, therefore the combination of references cannot teach providing dual composite yarn options tailored to pet tear resistance.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the presence of both twisted and untwisted yarns) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of references cannot teach providing dual composite yarn options tailored to pet resistance, 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).
It is noted that claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) above for failing to include all the limitations of claim 1, from which it depends.
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that Henssen’s 10-50 wt% UHMWPE is for clothing comfort, not cost-performance balance for pets. Applicant further submits that the range in claim 14 has the same tear resistance as 100% UHMWPE but 30% lowered cost which is not disclosed or suggested by any reference.
In response to applicant's argument that Henssen does not disclose that the UHMWPE ranges are for cost-performance balance for pets, 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).
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that none of the references target pet bite resistance.
In response to applicant's argument that none of the references target pet bite resistance, 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).
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that the references address distinct technical problems in unrelated applications, and a person of ordinary skill in the art has no reason to combine their technical features to achieve the “low UHMWPE content and high pet tear resistance and low cost” effect off the present application.
A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). When determining whether the “relevant field of endeavor” test is met, the examiner should consider explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is directed to a high-strength and tear-resistant fabric comprising polyester filament yarn and polyethylene/polyester composite yarn. Similarly, Fei teaches a high-strength tear-resistant fabric (paragraph [n0005]). Henssen teaches improving the abrasion resistance of a fabric that includes UHMWPE (paragraphs [0001], [0017]), which is necessary for a high-strength fabric. Dunbar teaches cut resistant articles (col. 2, lines 45-52) which are high-strength fabrics using UHMWPE. Tam teaches articles which use high strength UHMWPE (paragraph [0002]). Ramirez teaches the use of strong fabric made from UHMWPE as a pet restraint system (paragraphs [0001], [0042]-[0043]). Therefore, each of the prior art references are in the relevant field of endeavor as the claimed invention because they relate to high strength fabrics with similar structure and/or materials as the claimed invention.
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that no reference teaches that linear density matching between polyester and polyethylene (claim 13) is necessary for tear resistance.
In response to applicant's argument that none of the references teach that the linear density matching in claim 13 is necessary for tear resistance, 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).
On page 8 of the response Applicant submits that no reference indicates that dual composite yarn options (untwisted/twisted) are beneficial for pet resistant fabrics.
In response to applicant's argument that no reference indicates that dual composite yarn options are beneficial for pet resistance fabrics, 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).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the presence of both twisted and untwisted yarns) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 9 of the response Applicant submits that even if the references were combined the resulting fabric would not achieve the present application’s technical effects because combining Fei’s core-spun yarn with Henssen’s UHMWPE ratio would produce a fabric with either insufficient tear resistance or high cost, and combining Tam’s untwisted yarn with Fei’s polyester core would not yield the composite yarn structure or linear density matching required for pet tear resistance.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination would not realize the present application’s technical effects, 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).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the presence of both twisted and untwisted yarns and a specific tear resistance) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 9 of the response Applicant submits that the present application’s technical effects are unpredictable from the prior art as evidenced by the comparative examples in the specification.
These arguments are not persuasive. Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
With respect to (i), the results are not fairly compared with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. With respect to (ii), the claims are not commensurate in scope. For example, the subject matter of claim 14 is not present in claim 1. Paragraph [0083] also specifies specific fineness of the fibers used. With respect to claim (iii), Applicant has not established why the results are unexpected. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. See MPEP 716.02. In the instant case Applicant has identified that the results are different, but has not explained why they are unexpected.
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 Machine translation used as reference
2 Previously presented
3 Machine translation used as reference
4 Previously presented
5 Machine translation used as reference
6 Previously presented