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 1 and dependent claims 2-5 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. Applicant claims the property of “fabric breakdown thread tenacity”. It is not clear if this is a fabric tenacity or it is the thread tenacity. For purposes of examination, the property is equated with the thread tenacity and not an overall fabric tenacity or strength.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi (JP 2005139575) in view of Fukunishi et al (WO 2005010256 cited as US20060183390).
Deguchi is directed to a woven fabric for bedding that is lighter and thinner than conventional ones. Deguchi teaches the woven fabric has a cover factor of 1500-2000 (page 2, last paragraph) which overlaps the claimed range. Deguchi teaches the multifilament 15 to 35 dtex (page 2) and the single yarn fineness is small and 0.5 to 1.5 dtex (page 4, 1st para). Deguchi teaches the yarns can be made from nylon 6, 66, 610, 612 or polyamide (page 3).
Deguchi differs and does not measure the fabric breakdown thread tenacity of 4.5 cN/dtex or more. It is reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to Deguchi as Deguchi teaches the same materials and structure as claimed. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
Evidence that the breakdown tenacity is greater than 4.5 cN/dtex is found in Fukunishi. Fukunishi is directed to a woven fabric with a tear strength in the warp direction and in the weft direction made from polyamide. Fukunishi teaches the cover factor is 1600-2000, the multifilament is less than 30 dtex and the single yarn fineness is less that 1.2 dtex. Fukunishi teaches the fiber breaks at 4.5 cN/dtex or more [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a nylon woven with a breaking tenacity of 4.5 cN/dtex motivated to produce a fabric with high strength.
As to claim 2, Deguchi teaches the tear strength is 6N to 15N (page 2). Deguchi is not specific with regard to both warp and weft directions. Fukunishi teaches the tear strength in the warp cutting direction is 10 to 50 N and the weft direction [0013].
As to claim 3, Deguchi teaches the air permeability is 0.3 to 1.5 cc (page 4). Deguchi does not measure the air permeability after laundry. It is reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to Deguchi as Deguchi teaches the same materials and structure as claimed. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 4, Deguchi teaches the bending rigidity is 0.0001 to 0.0010 gf which is less than 0.008 gf*cm/cm or less (page 4).
As to claim 5, Deguchi does not teach a garment. Deguchi teaches bedding. Fukunishi teaches the woven fabric is used for garments such as downwear for the lightness and tear strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a garment from the woven fabric motivated to produce a garment with light weight and high tear strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights