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 § 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 11-20 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.
Regarding claims 11-20, claim 11 recites a single circular knitted fabric layer with a “jersey knit texture.” It is unclear if the claim requires a jersey knit or if the claim is merely requiring a texture similar to a jersey knit.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites a filament raw silk “(straight yarn)”. It is unclear what the purpose of the limitation within the parentheses necessarily entails, including whether it is merely descriptive, defining, or exemplary, or some other interpretation.
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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-161924 to Mitsukawa in view of US Pub. No. 2006/0223400 to Yasui.
Regarding claims 11-20, Mitsukawa teaches a laminate cloth formed of at least two layers, a resin film and a single circular knitted fabric, which is made of synthetic fiber multifilament yarn having total fineness of 20 to 60 decitex, a monofilament fineness of 0.2 to 10 decitex, and a number of stitches of 6,000 to 13,000 per 6.45 cm (Mitsukawa, Abstract). Mitsukawa teaches that the knitting structure is not particularly limited, wherein a jersey knit is preferred (Id., paragraph 0028).
Mitsukawa teaches that the laminate cloth is suitable for various kinds of clothing including rain wear, mountaineering wear, sportswear and working wear (Mitsukawa, Abstract). Mitsukawa teaches that the number of courses per cm may be 102, 103, or 111 courses/cm (Id., Examples 1-4). Mitsukawa teaches a number of stitches of 6,000 to 13,000 per 6.45 cm, wherein the number of stitches is calculated by multiplying the number of courses per 2.54 cm by the number of wales (Id., paragraph 0056). Mitsukawa does not appear to teach the claimed Vh value and number of wells. However, Yasui teaches a similar knitted fabric for use in clothing such as shirts and sportswear, comprising a circular knitted structure (Yasui, Abstract, paragraphs 0055, 0131). Yasui teaches that the knitted fabric structure has a yarn density satisfying the following equation:
Co x We ≥ 2,000
Wherein Co represents the number of courses per 2.54 cm and We represents the number of wales per 2.54 cm (Id., paragraph 0024). Yasui teaches that the value of Co is preferably 50 or more, more preferably in a range from 60 to 120 (Id., paragraph 0123). Yasui teaches exemplary densities of 105 courses/2.54 cm and 58 wales/2.54 cm or 106 courses/2.54 cm and 60 wales/2.54 cm (Id., paragraphs 0170-0175). Yasui teaches that the fabric exhibit excellent wind-shielding property in the dry state and high air-permeability in the wet state (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the laminate cloth of Mitsukawa, and adjusting and varying the number of wells and resulting Vh value, such as within the claimed values, as taught by Yasui, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate cloth comprising a circular knit structure known in the art as being predictably suitable for sportswear, based on the desired properties.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art combination teaches that the single circular knitted fabric has a weight of 30 to 100 g/m2 (Mitsukawa, paragraph 0012).
Additionally, regarding the claimed fiber fineness and basis weight, note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicants to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the laminate cloth of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the fiber fineness and basis weight, such as within the claimed ranges, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate cloth having the desired properties based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art combination.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches forming a three-layer laminate fabric by bonding a knit fabric to the film surface (Mitsukawa, paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 15, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. The prior art combination teaches that the yarns can be false-twisted, which would appear to result in a straight yarn (Mitsukawa, paragraph 0022).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the prior art combination teaches that the surface on which the resin film is laminated may be either the front surface or the back surface (sinker loop surface) (Mitsukawa, paragraph 0041). Since the prior art combination renders obvious the claimed structure, including the number of courses and wales, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the length of the knitting yarn appearing on a knit stitch is within the claimed range. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art combination teaches a circular knit fabric in combination with the laminate cloth (Mitsukawa, paragraphs 0066, 0076).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsukawa in view of Yasui, as applied to claims 11-20 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2003/0056553 to Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 15, Mitsukawa teaches that the materials constituting the fabric may be synthetic fibers and natural fibers (Mitsukawa, paragraph 0048). In the event that silk fibers are required, Yamazaki teaches a similar circular knit fabric suitable for use as a garment (Yamazaki, Abstract, paragraph 0088). Yamazaki teaches that the fabric comprises false-twisted yarns and fibers including cellulose-based fibers, silk fibers and, and synthetic fibers (Id., paragraphs 0066-0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the laminate cloth of the prior art combination, wherein the fibers comprise silk fibers, as taught by Yamazaki, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate cloth comprising fibers known in the art as being predictably suitable for circular knit fabrics used in clothing, based on the desired properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786