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 filed on May 16, 2025, has been entered. Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 have been amended and claims 10 – 20 have been added.
Definition of Terms
Ther term “ light-absorbing and heat generating yarn” is interpreted as a yarn produced by adding a light-absorbing substance including an infrared light-absorbing substance or a full-spectrum heat absorbing material that have the effect of heating up and keeping warm (specification, paragraphs 15 and 18).
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 – 20 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 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. It is not known in the art how to make a knitted fabric by weaving. A knitted fabric is produced by interloping yarns together while a woven fabric is made by interlacing yarns together. These process are completely distinct and separate. And while woven and knitted fabrics can be joined together in a final structure by bonding separate layers together a single fabric cannot be both knit and woven. The claims further describe the fabric structure as a weft-knitted plain weave (claim 3) and a basic double-sided structure (claim 4), without explaining or describing the structure of a woven and knit fabric. It is unclear how a weft knit structure can also qualify as a plain weave structure. How is it both knit and woven in the same structure? While the examples in the disclosure teach that the fabric is made from yarns having a specific structure, but the features of the fabric such as yarn spacing or yarn intervals or even the specific patterns of each yarn are not specified in the examples. In fact, the exact fabric structure of the tested samples is not disclosed in the examples anywhere. Thus, the disclosure fails to provide any exact teaching for how to construct the structure of a weft knit woven plain fabric or a knitted fabric made by weaving. Further, while the figures show knit patterns, the figures are described as knitting figures. The disclosure does not indicate how these figures related to the claimed woven knit fabric. Therefore, it is unclear how to make the fabric structure. Claims 2 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 – 20 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 fabric structure in claim 1 is indefinite. It is unclear the exact structure of the fabric set forth in the claims. The claims recite that the material is a “functional knitted fabric” that is “woven into a thermal comfort function”. First, a knitted fabric is produced by interloping yarns together while a woven fabric is made by interlacing yarns together. These process are completely distinct and separate. The two processes cannot be done together in a single fabric. Thus, it is unclear how the claimed fabric is both a woven and knit fabric. Second, the claim states that the yarns are woven into a “thermal comfort function”. Does this term require a specific weave pattern to create the thermal comfort function? Or is it the combination of the yarns together in a single fabric that creates the thermal comfort function? Claims 2 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Additionally, yarn structure of claim 1 is indefinite. The claim recites that the fabric includes two yarns, a first yarn, and a second yarn described as a spun yarn and roving yarn. The claim further recites that the yarns have a denier and a filament number. In the textile art the terms “roving” and “spun” are terms that describe different parts of a staple spinning process. The staple fibers, i.e., shorter natural fibers or cut fibers, are processed through a combing step and formed into loose bundle of fibers. The roving yarns are then stretched and twisted together to create more dense spun yarns. Thus, roving yarns are intermediate products found in the creation of staple fibers to spun yarns. Roving yarns are not directly used to make fabrics. These structures are not made from filaments and are usually measured with a count system and not by denier. Therefore, it is unclear if the applicant intends these yarns to be multi-filament yarns structures or staple yarn structures. It is noted that the examples disclose that the yarns have a size of 75D/30F. This nomenclature is commonly used to describe multi-filament yarns wherein 75D describes the total denier of the yarn and it is made with 30 filaments. If the first and second yarns are intended to be multi-filament yarns as suggested by the nomenclature in the examples, then describing the yarns as “roving” and “spun” yarns is repugnant to the understood textile meaning of the terms “roving” and “spun”. Or if these yarns are intended to be spun yarns, then reference to yarn having filaments is repugnant to type of fibers found in a spun yarn. What type of fibers are being used to make the yarns, staple or filament fibers? Claims 2 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The terms “skin surface” and “clothing surface” in claim 1 are indefinite. It is unclear what is different between the ski surface and the clothing surface. Do the surfaces have different structural features or properties that distinguish one from the other? Do the terms just describe external features in contact with or adjacent to the surfaces? Claims 2 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The term “inconsistent” in claim 1 is indefinite. The term “inconsistent” means not staying the same throughout. Implying that the denier value changes throughout the length of the yarn. Is the denier of the yarns changing along the length of the yarns or is the claim only requiring that the two yarns have different deniers from each other, but each yarn has a consistent denier throughout the length of the yarns. Claims 2 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The phrase “it is divided into roving yarn and spun yarn” in claim 1 is indefinite. The term “it’ is unclear since the claim does not clearly identify what “it” references. Further, how is “it divided”? Are the yarns physically split? Claims 2 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The phrase “in a unit cycle organization are arranged at intervals of the ratio of 2.0 ≥ mthick:nfine ≥ 0.3, and mthick ≤ 2.0, nfine ≤6.0 mthick is a yarn with a thick denier and nfine is a yarn with a finer denier” in claim 1 is indefinite. The term “unit cycle organization” is not a known textile term/ Nor has the disclosure set forth what a unit cycle organization would be in a knit or woven fabric. Also, it is unclear what the equations are describing because it is not clear what mthick and nfine represent. The phrase suggests that these terms are an interval. Does that mean it is in the spacing between the thick or fine yarns? Or is it the number of thick or fine yarns per a set spacing? None of the numbers have units. In woven and knit fabrics the intervals describing the spacing of yarns have units. What is an interval of 6.0 or an interval of 2.0? The statement that mthick is a yarn with a thick denier does not make clear how 2.0 relates to an interval measurement. Nor does the statement nfine is a yarn with a fine denier. Thus, it is unclear how the equations recited for the interval relate to the final structure of the fabric. Claims 2 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The property “one way transfer capacity on both sides of the liquid water fabric (OWTC) ≥ 100%” in claim 1 is indefinite. While it is clear from the disclosure that the OWTC is the one-way transport capability property defined in AATCC 195, a review of the AATCC 195 standard indicates that the property is reported in units of distance, i.e., mm. Thus, it is unclear how the property claimed by the applicant is calculated to be in percentage. Should the applicant argue that the testing procedure discloses the having a result in percentage, then the applicant must provide a copy of the test method. Claim 9 is similarly rejected. Claims 2 – 20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The term “water-conducting capacity” in claim 2 is indefinite. It is unclear how the water-conducting capacity is calculated. The claim fails to define how the values are calculated. Thus, the scope of the property is indefinite. Claims 10, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 2.
The term “weft-knitted plain weave” is indefinite in claim 3. As set forth above, knit fabrics and woven fabrics are distinct products that cannot be formed into a single product. It is unclear what the structure of a “weft-knitted plain weave” fabric would comprise. Claims 13 and 16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 3.
The term “basic double-sided structure” in claim 4 is indefinite. Does a double-sided fabric have to have two opposite surfaces, or is it required to have two separate layers joined together? Claims 14 and 17 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 4.
The measurement of the liquid evaporation rate in claim 9 is indefinite. A review of the AATCC 201 test method indicates that the liquid evaporation rate is reported in units of ºC/s, not units of mL/hr. Thus, it is unclear if the applicant has modified the test method described by AATCC 201. Should the applicant argue that the testing procedure discloses the having a result in mL/hr, or volume/time instead of temperature/time, then the applicant must provide a copy of the test method.
The term “bristles, brushing, and fuzzing” in claim 8 is indefinite. The claim recites that the fabric is treated with “bristles, brushing, and fuzzing”. First, while the terms brushing and fuzzing are understood terms of art it is unclear what constitutes a treatment of “bristles”. Further, is the claim suggesting that all three treatments are performed on a single fabric? It is not clear why all three would need to be preformed since fuzzing and brushing are both processes that create a velvety surface with raised fibers. Would surface which is brushed have a different structure than a surface that is treated with “bristles, brushing, and fuzzing”? Claim 20 is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. While the structure of the claimed fabric is unclear for the reasons set forth above, Rock (5,547,733) describes a knit structure made from two sets of yarns with different thicknesses to improve moisture transport.
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
September 18, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights