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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, line 2, could read “… the plurality of ribs”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 25—30, 37 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 25, recites “ribs that re rigid or semi-rigid”, renders claim indefinite because such claimed subject matter does not have support in the instant disclosure. Such lack of support makes it very difficult to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claims 26-30, 37 are dependent of claim 25 and are likewise indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 25-32, 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (2019/0075868).
Regarding claim 25, Morgan discloses a textile article (fig.10/11) comprising: a panel comprised of a dynamic material (structure material of layer system 100, fig.1A), wherein the dynamic material is configured to transition from a first thickness (thickness of structure of layer 100, fig.1A) to a second thickness greater (thickness of structure layer 100, fig.1B) than the first thickness in response to an increase in length or width, wherein the transition is facilitated by a plurality of ribs (third layer of material 114 having a plurality of structures 118, par [0039]). But Morgan does not disclose the ribs are rigid or semi-rigid. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to experiment with different rigid or semi-rigid of the ribs in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of a rigid/semi-rigid of the ribs involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, Morgan further discloses wherein the increase in the thickness alters at least one of a fit, an insulation, or a ventilation, of the textile article (par [0053] When the third layer of material 214 optionally comprises a reflective deposit on its first surface 213; and causing the reflective first surface 213 to be in a generally planar relationship with a body surface of a wearer when the apparel layer system 200 is incorporated into a garment or apparel item, warming may be provided when the apparel layer system 200 is in the first state; and par [0054] states that the movement of the adjustment mechanism 216 may cause the apparel layer system 200 to transition to the second state shown in FIG. 1B; wherein the transition between the first state to a second state in order to provide air circulation within the panel of the garment structure article).
Regarding claims 26-27, 29-30, Morgan discloses the textile article of claim 25, wherein the dynamic material comprises a plurality of layers coupled by a plurality of ribs, each of the plurality of ribs being configured to fold (par [0058] The third layer of material 314 comprises a series of folds 322 with each fold 322 having a long axis 324. The long axes 324 of the folds 322 are arranged in parallel to each other. Further, each fold 322); wherein the ribs are linearly aligned (fig.1A); wherein at least one of the layers comprises an aperture to provide the ventilation in connection with the increase in the thickness; wherein the dynamic material comprises a plurality of angled slits such that the dynamic material is configured to behave as an auxetic structure (see the structure of fig.3).
Regarding claim 31, Morgan discloses a dynamic material for use in a panel of a textile article (fig.10-12), wherein the dynamic material is configured to experience a topographic transformation in a first plane (fig.1A, 1B, 1C); par [0031] The second state may be achieved by exerting a tension force 127 on the adjustment mechanism 116 in a direction opposite to the direction in which the second apex regions 122 extend. But Morgan does not disclose a functional limitation such as in response to a rotational torque being applied to the dynamic material in a second plane out of the first plane. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to experiment with different external rotational torque being applied to the layer of material in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, Morgan further discloses wherein the topographic transformation alters at least one of a fit, an insulation, or a ventilation, of the textile article (par [0053] When the third layer of material 214 optionally comprises a reflective deposit on its first surface 213; and causing the reflective first surface 213 to be in a generally planar relationship with a body surface of a wearer when the apparel layer system 200 is incorporated into a garment or apparel item, warming may be provided when the apparel layer system 200 is in the first state; and par [0054] states that the movement of the adjustment mechanism 216 may cause the apparel layer system 200 to transition to the second state shown in FIG. 1B; wherein the transition between the first state to a second state in order to provide air circulation within the panel of the garment structure article).
Regarding claim 32, Morgan discloses comprising a plurality of layers (layers 110, 112) coupled by the plurality of ribs (118), each of the plurality of ribs being configured to fold (par [0026]).
Regarding claims 35-36, Morgan discloses wherein at least one of the layers comprises an aperture (318) to provide the ventilation in connection with the topographic transformation; wherein the dynamic material comprises a plurality of angled slits configured to expand in the first plane as an auxetic structure (fig.1-3).
Regarding claim 37, Morgan does not disclose wherein each rib of the plurality of aligned ribs is rigid or semi-rigid. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to experiment with different rigid or semi-rigid of the ribs in order to achieve an optimal configuration, since discovering an optimum value of a rigid/semi-rigid of the ribs involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20, 23-24 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 25-32 and 34-37 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground rejection as discussed above.
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 TIMOTHY K TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-3495. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/Timothy K Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights