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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0343202 (hereinafter “Ryden”).Regarding claim 1 Ryden teaches an insulating material comprising different components, such as nonwoven materials, polymer laminate material, etc. (abstract), which corresponds to an insulating composite material. Ryden teaches the insulating (composite) material comprises a third sheet (outer layer) 6 of primary material, where the primary material comprises a fabric/textile (paragraphs [0009], [0032], [0033] and [0035]; and Figures 1-4). Ryden teaches strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 are applied to the third sheet (outer layer of fabric/textile) 6, where the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 are formed in a parallel linear pattern (geometric pattern) (paragraph [0035]; and Figures 1-4). Ryden teaches a plurality of parallel elastic filaments 14 (elastic inner layer of fabric/textile) attached to a continuous second sheet 4, which is adhered under tension (in a stretched state), to the third sheet (outer layer) 6 via the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 (paragraphs [0032] – [0038]; and Figures 1-4), where the combination of the plurality of parallel elastic filaments 14 and the second sheet 4 corresponds to an elastic inner layer 4, 14 of fabric/textile comprising a continuous sheet of stretch fabric/textile. Ryden also teaches the elastic elements may be formed by a sheet of elastic material (paragraph [0041]). Ryden teaches when the tension of the plurality of parallel elastic filaments 14 is released (in a relaxed state), the adhered third sheet (outer layer) 6 becomes bowed (vaulted/bubbled) forming raised cavities 18 according to the pattern of the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 (paragraph [0038]; and Figure 4). Ryden teaches the insulating (composite) material can stretch between the relaxed state of the elastic filaments 14 and second sheet 4 (elastic inner layer 4, 14) and the stretched state of the elastic filaments 14 and second sheet 4 (elastic inner layer 4, 14) that is adhered to the third sheet (outer layer) 6 via the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 (abstract; paragraphs [0022], [0030] and [0038]; and Figures 3-4).Regarding claim 2 In addition, Ryden teaches the third sheet (outer layer) 6 comprises the primary material, where the primary material can be waterproof (water repellant) and water vapor permeable (paragraphs [0027], [0028] and [0032]).Regarding claim 3 In addition, Ryden teaches the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 are applied in a regular pattern or array and includes intersecting lines (triangles, polygons and/or quadrilaterals) (paragraph [0041]).Regarding claim 4 The use of product-by-process limitations has been noted in claim 4, for example, "the geometric pattern is laser cut or masked from an adhesive sheet". "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, "although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product", In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP § 2113. Regarding claim 5 The use of product-by-process limitations has been noted in claim 5, for example, "the adhesive layer is extruded or printed in the geometric pattern". "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, "although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product", In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP § 2113.Regarding claim 6 In addition, Ryden teaches the linear strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) may be replaced by other adhesive patterns, for example spots of adhesive (adhesive dots) in a regular pattern (geometric pattern) (paragraph [0041]).Regarding claims 8 In addition, Ryden teaches the elastic elements are not restricted to being essentially one-dimensional filaments running parallel to one another, but other more complex shapes may be used such as an intersecting square or triangular grid of filaments (paragraph [0041]), which corresponds to an embodiment where stretching is performed in 2 directions.Regarding claim 9 In addition, Ryden teaches the elastic elements are not restricted to being essentially one-dimensional filaments running parallel to one another, but other more complex shapes may be used such as an intersecting square or triangular grid of filaments, or other shapes which may involve the deposition of individual filaments into the material or may be formed by punching holes out of a sheet of elastic material (paragraph [0041]), which corresponds to an embodiment where stretching is performed in 4 directions.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0125389 (hereinafter “Rogers”).Regarding claim 4 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Ryden does not explicitly teach the (geometric) pattern of the adhesive layer is laser cut or masked from an adhesive sheet. Rogers teaches it is well known to use a laser structuring process (pattern being laser cut) for tailoring the dimensions of an adhesive material for a conformable device (abstract; and paragraphs [0130] and [0226]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the adhesive (geometric) pattern of Ryder using the laser structuring process of Rogers motivated by the desire to form a patterned adhesive layer using a conventional process.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0322497 (hereinafter “Kelsey”).Regarding claim 5 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Ryden does not explicitly teach the adhesive layer is extruded or printed in the geometric pattern. Kelsey teaches a multi-layered article comprising a first textile and an adhesive layer having an adhesive pattern that includes regions free or substantially free of adhesive (abstract). Kelsey teaches a discontinuous pattern of adhesive may be applied by any conventional manner, such as, but not limited to, gravure printing, screen printing, and transfer printing (paragraph [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the adhesive (geometric) pattern of Ryder using the printing process of Kelsey motivated by the desire to form a patterned adhesive layer using a conventional process.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0193687 (hereinafter “Petrakis”).Regarding claim 7 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Ryden teaches the insulating material is preferably air and/or water vapor permeable to avoid build-up of moisture (paragraph [0027]). Ryden does not explicitly teach the plurality of parallel elastic filaments 14 (elastic inner layer of fabric/textile) comprises a moisture-wicking stretch fabric/textile. Petrakis teaches an insulating material comprising a textile layer comprising a material that enhances wicking action (removing moisture from the skin) and allows moisture and air to pass through the layer (paragraph [0102]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the hydrophobic properties of the elastic filaments 14 (elastic inner layer of fabric/textile) of Ryden with the moisture wicking action of Petrakis to further improve the removal of moisture away from the user, as desired by both Ryden and Petrakis.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden, and further in view of Petrakis.Regarding claim 10 Ryden teaches an insulating material comprising different components, such as nonwoven materials, polymer laminate material, etc. (abstract). Ryden teaches the material may be employed in the construction of garments (paragraph [0050]), which corresponds to a garment formed of a composite material having active insulation. Ryden teaches the insulating material (garment) comprises a third sheet (outer layer) 6 of primary material, where the primary material comprises a fabric (paragraphs [0009], [0032], [0033] and [0035]; and Figures 1-4). Ryden teaches strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 are applied to the third sheet (outer layer of fabric) 6, where the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 are formed in a parallel linear pattern (geometric pattern) (paragraph [0035]; and Figures 1-4). Ryden teaches a plurality of parallel elastic filaments 14 (elastic inner layer of fabric/textile) attached to a continuous second sheet 4, which is adhered under tension (in a stretched state), to the third sheet (outer layer) 6 via the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 (paragraphs [0032] – [0038]; and Figures 1-4), where the combination of the plurality of parallel elastic filaments 14 and the second sheet 4 corresponds to an elastic inner layer 4, 14 of fabric comprising a continuous sheet of stretch fabric. Ryden also teaches the elastic elements may be formed by a sheet of elastic material (paragraph [0041]). Ryden teaches when the tension of the plurality of parallel elastic filaments 14 is released (in a relaxed state), the adhered third sheet (outer layer) 6 becomes bowed (vaulted/bubbled) forming raised cavities 18 according to the pattern of the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 (paragraph [0038]; and Figure 4). Ryden teaches the insulating (composite) material can stretch between the relaxed state of the elastic filaments 14 and second sheet 4 (elastic inner layer 4, 14) and the stretched state of the elastic filaments 14 and second sheet 4 (elastic inner layer 4, 14) that is adhered to the third sheet (outer layer) 6 via the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 (abstract; paragraphs [0022], [0030] and [0038]; and Figures 3-4). Ryden does not explicitly teach the garment is sized and configured as form-fitting to a wearer of the garment when the inner layer is in the relaxed state and the garment expands in portions to the stretched state of the inner layers adhered to the outer layer via the adhesive layer to accommodate force applied by the wearer as the wearer moves thereby reducing hindrance on wearer mobility. Petrakis teaches a physical conditioning garment (title and paragraph [0001]). Petrakis teaches the garment is configured to fit on the torso of a wearer, where the garment does not excessively restrict a wearer’s freedom of movement (abstract), where the garment comprises a power stretch fleece with great elasticity (paragraphs [0087], [0099] and [0105]), which corresponds to the garment being sized and configured as form-fitting to a wearer of the garment when the inner layer is in the relaxed state and the garment expands in portions to the stretched state of the inner layers adhered to the outer layer via the adhesive layer to accommodate force applied by the wearer as the wearer moves thereby reducing hindrance on wearer mobility. Ryden and Petrakis are analogous inventions in the field of garments. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the insulated garment of Ryden with the fit and sizing of Petrakis to enable the garment of Ryden to be useful as a physical conditioning garment.Regarding claim 11 In addition, Ryden teaches the third sheet (outer layer) 6 comprises the primary material, where the primary material can be waterproof (water repellant) and water vapor permeable (paragraphs [0027], [0028] and [0032]).Regarding claims 12 and 13 In addition, Petrakis teaches the garment further comprises zippered vents (paragraph [0083]).Regarding claim 14 In addition, Ryden teaches the strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) 10 are applied in a regular pattern or array and includes intersecting lines (triangles, polygons and/or quadrilaterals) (paragraph [0041]).Regarding claim 15 The use of product-by-process limitations has been noted in claim 15, for example, "the geometric pattern is laser cut from an adhesive sheet". "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, "although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product", In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP § 2113. Regarding claim 16 In addition, Ryden teaches the linear strips of adhesive (adhesive layer) may be replaced by other adhesive patterns, for example spots of adhesive (adhesive dots) in a regular pattern (geometric pattern) (paragraph [0041]).Regarding claim 17 The limitations for claim 10 have been set forth above. In addition, Ryden teaches the insulating material is preferably air and/or water vapor permeable to avoid build-up of moisture (paragraph [0027]). Ryden does not explicitly teach the plurality of parallel elastic filaments 14 and the second sheet 4 (elastic inner layer of fabric 4, 14) comprises a moisture-wicking stretch fabric. Petrakis teaches an insulating material comprising a textile layer comprising a material that enhancing wicking action (removing moisture from the skin) and allows moisture and air to pass through the layer (paragraph [0102]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the hydrophobic properties of the elastic filaments 14 and the second sheet 4 (elastic inner layer of fabric) of Ryden with the moisture wicking action of Petrakis to further improve the removal of moisture away from the user, as desired by both Ryden and Petrakis.Regarding claims 18 In addition, Ryden teaches the elastic elements are not restricted to being essentially one-dimensional filaments running parallel to one another, but other more complex shapes may be used such as an intersecting square or triangular grid of filaments (paragraph [0041]), which corresponds to an embodiment where stretching is performed in 2 directions.Regarding claim 19 In addition, Ryden teaches the elastic elements are not restricted to being essentially one-dimensional filaments running parallel to one another, but other more complex shapes may be used such as an intersecting square or triangular grid of filaments, or other shapes which may involve the deposition of individual filaments into the material or may be formed by punching holes out of a sheet of elastic material (paragraph [0041]), which corresponds to an embodiment where stretching is performed in 4 directions.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryden and Petrakis as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rogers.Regarding claim 15 The limitations for claim 10 have been set forth above. In addition, Ryden does not explicitly teach the (geometric) pattern of the adhesive layer is laser cut from an adhesive sheet. Rogers teaches it is well known to use a laser structuring process (pattern being laser cut) for tailoring the dimensions of an adhesive material for a conformable device (abstract; and paragraphs [0130] and [0226]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the adhesive (geometric) pattern of Ryder using the laser structuring process of Rogers motivated by the desire to form a patterned adhesive layer using a conventional process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 5 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued Ryden does not teach or suggest an elastic inner layer comprising a continuous sheet of stretch fabric/textile. The examiner respectfully submits this argument is no longer commensurate in scope with the rejection of record because the updated rejection of record relies on a combination of filaments 14 and the second sheet 4 as corresponding to the claimed elastic inner layer comprising a continuous sheet of stretch fabric/textile.
The applicant argued the adhesive layer in the claimed invention is not the outline of the geometric shapes, but actually the geometric shapes themselves. Thus, the outer and inner layer are adhered together across the geometric shapes, not at the outline of the geometric shapes, and the formation of cavities occurs differently in the instant application when compared to Ryden. The examiner respectfully submits this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims do not provide a distinction between the two different elements highlighted by the applicant. As representative of the claims as a whole, independent claim 1 requires an adhesive layer applied to the outer layer in a geometric pattern, where the adhered outer layer forms raised cavities according to the geometric pattern of the adhesive layer. This feature is explicitly taught by Ryden, as detailed in the rejection of record.
The applicant has provided substantially the same arguments with regards to independent claim 10. Therefore, the examiner respectfully submits that independent claim 10 is unpatentable over the prior art for at least the same reasons 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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights