DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/3/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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
Claim 21 is 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 term “certain” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what quantity or degree is a “certain” elasticity?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 7, 14-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasundara et al. (WO 2017/091154) in view of Bauer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0374943) and further Mark (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0009472) and/or Cohen et al. (U.S. Patent 10,254,499).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Jayasundara discloses a method wherein elastomer (insulating coating material 130 of thermoplastic elastomer, Page 3, lines 13-14) with a cable (intermittently-insulated electrically conductive yarn 125, Page 7, lines 15-21 and Page 11, lines 1-2 and regarding claim 7 wherein the cable is electrically conductive) embedded in the elastomer is applied onto a fabric layer (substrate 320 is fabric, Page 4, lines 8-9) at least of a garment including the following step: -- the elastomer is applied to the fabric layer, -- the cable is applied to the fabric layer in phases at the same time together with the elastomer or without the elastomer in such a way that, in one phase (such as second insulated section 335), the elastomer surrounds the cable at least partially, -- in another phase (such as uninsulated section 135) only the cable but no elastomer is applied to the fabric layer.
As to the limitations in claim 1 of the elastomer is applied to the fabric layer “in a flowable state… …with the elastomer penetrating into the fabric layer (6) and generating an elastomer path on the fabric layer (6)… …and after hardening of the flowable elastomer (4) the cable (5) is secured to the fabric layer (6)”, Jayasundara teaches the elastomer supplies a bonding / gluing effect to attach the cable to the fabric layer without using an extra bonding layer (Page 6, lines 27-28) without expressly detailing the bonding / gluing effect. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of an elastomer with a reinforcement element (metal, plastic, etc.) embedded in the elastomer is applied onto a fabric layer including the elastomer supplies a bonding / gluing effect to attach the element to the fabric layer without using an extra bonding layer by the elastomer is applied to the fabric layer in a flowable state with the elastomer penetrating into the fabric layer and generating an elastomer path on the fabric layer and after hardening of the flowable elastomer the element is secured to the fabric layer as taught by Bauer (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0008, 0009, 0020, 0031, and 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the elastomer supplies a bonding / gluing effect to attach the cable to the fabric layer without using an extra bonding layer as taught by Jayasundara by the elastomer is applied to the fabric layer in a flowable state with the elastomer penetrating into the fabric layer and generating an elastomer path on the fabric layer and after hardening of the flowable elastomer the cable is secured to the fabric layer as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for the elastomer to supply the bonding / gluing effect to attach the cable to the fabric layer without using an extra bonding layer as taught by Bauer.
As to the limitations in claim 1 of the elastomer is applied to the fabric layer “via a moving nozzle (1)” and the cable is applied to the fabric layer “via the nozzle (1)” in phases at the same time together with the elastomer or without the elastomer, Jayasundara is not limited to any particular device for applying the elastomer and the cable suggesting intermittent coating achieved by one or more of a group including pass-through coating the elastomer (Page 3, line 24) and applying the elastomer and cable for yarn attachment via one or more of a group including a laying mechanism (Page 4, line 15) without expressly detailing the pass-through coating and laying mechanism. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of applying a (flowable) polymer (polymer matrix/binding resin 1504, polymer support 1506 as taught by Mark and polymer such as elastomer as taught by Cohen) and a cable (wire 1502 of Mark and wire of Cohen) to a substrate (16 of Mark and platform/substrate taught by Cohen) wherein the polymer is intermittently pass-through coated on the cable to apply and attach the polymer and cable in phases including in one phase the polymer surrounds the cable at least partially (1510, 1514 of Mark and Figure 7a of Cohen) and in another phase only the cable but no polymer is applied (1512 of Mark and switch from polymer with wire to bare wire as taught by Cohen) using a moving nozzle as a pass-through coating and laying mechanism as taught by Mark (Figures 2E and 2H and Paragraphs 0115 and 0123) and/or Cohen (Figures 2, 7a, 7b, 9, and 105h and Column 25, line 8 to Column 26, line 15 and Column 30, lines 15-39 and Column 33, lines 18-48 and Column 93, lines 1-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Jayasundara as modified by Bauer includes the elastomer is applied to the fabric layer via a moving nozzle and the cable is applied to the fabric layer via the nozzle not only as a simple substitution of one known device (including a pass-through coating and a laying mechanism) to yield predictable results (of applying the elastomer and fabric) but to use a single device for both the coating and applying (including intermittently so that in the another phase only the cable but no elastomer is applied via the nozzle) as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Mark and/or Cohen.
Regarding claim 2, Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark (see Figure 2H) and/or Cohen (see Figure 7a) teach the elastomer and the cable exit the nozzle via a same nozzle opening.
Regarding claim 3, the other phase as taught by Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark and/or Cohen, in which only the cable but no elastomer is applied via the nozzle to the fabric layer is at a beginning (and an end) of a method step in which the cable exits the nozzle (see Figure 3 of Jayasundara).
Regarding claim 4, the cable as taught by Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark and/or Cohen is moved by a drive arrangement and as taught by Mark (driven roller set 42, 40 see Figure 1B and Paragraphs 0101 and 0103) at a speed which is monitored or controlled relative to the speed between the nozzle and the substrate to maintain for example compression and neutral tension and as taught by Cohen (wire feed roller see Figure 9 and Column 53, lines 1-4) at precisely the same speed that the nozzle traverses the platform/substrate and considered in each case a speed which corresponds to a relative speed between the nozzle and the fabric layer (i.e. substrate).
Regarding claim 14, Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark and/or Cohen further teaches a step of wherein an end of the cable that has already exited the nozzle is fixed to the fabric layer (such as at first insulated section 336 of Jayasundara), and the fixing of the end of the cable which has exited the nozzle occurs before the method step in which the elastomer and the cable are applied at least in the one phase (such as second insulated section 335 of Jayasundara) at the same time.
Regarding claim 15, Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark (Paragraph 0123) and/or Cohen (Column 26, lines 8-13 and Column 33, lines 18-48) teach the flowable elastomer is heated by the nozzle and/or by the cable is heated and/or by the fabric layer is heated.
Regarding claims 16 and 21, Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark and/or Cohen teaches the flowable elastomer is a thermoplastic elastomer (Page 3, line 14 of Jayasundara) so that the flowable elastomer upon cooling hardens (as thermoplastic hardens upon cooling) but maintains a certain elasticity (that of cold elastomer the limitation rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) in a cold state.
Regarding claim 17, Jayasundara does not expressly further teach a flocking step. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art a flocking material is applied to the flowable elastomer after the flowable elastomer has been applied to the fabric layer and before the flowable elastomer hardens to improve the comfort of the wearer by firmly attaching the flocking material without needing cement as taught by Bauer (Paragraph 0015). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark and/or Cohen further comprises a step wherein a flocking material is applied to the flowable elastomer after the flowable elastomer has been applied to the fabric layer and before the flowable elastomer hardens to improve the comfort of the wearer by firmly attaching the flocking material without needing cement as taught by Bauer.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark (Figure 2H and Paragraphs 0115 and 0123) and/or Cohen (Figures 2 and 7a and Column 25, line 52 to Column 26, line 26 and Column 31, lines 44-65) teach the nozzle (multi-element printer head 1500 see Figure 2H of Mark and see Figure 7a of Cohen) includes a nozzle body having a first supply opening (for matrix 1504 and/or support 1506 as taught by Mark and at the top for polymer as taught by Cohen) for the admission of elastomer and a second supply opening (for core 1502 as taught by Mark and at the top for wire as taught by Cohen) for the admission of the cable, wherein the first and the second supply openings lead to an interior of the nozzle body (as shown in Figure 2H of Mark and as shown in Figure 7a of Cohen) which is provided with an exit opening (at the bottom of the head see Figure 2H of Mark and orifice at the bottom as taught by Cohen) for the elastomer and the cable and wherein a tubular guide member (see the tube in the interior of head 1500 guiding core 1502 in Figure 2H as taught by Mark and the capillary taught by Cohen) is integrated into the nozzle body of the nozzle for guiding the cable.
Regarding claim 22, Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark and/or Cohen teach at least one of the ends of the cable is free of elastomer and a cable section between the ends of the cable is covered by elastomer (see Figure 3 of Jayasundara).
Claims 5, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasundara and Bauer and further Mark and/or Cohen as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 14-19, 21, and 22 above, and further in view of Matushita et al. (WO 2021/025042 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, 6, and 20, Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark and/or Cohen above teach all of the limitations in claims 5, 6, and 20 except for expressly teaching the elasticity of the cable and the cable used includes a rubber core. Jayasundara is not limited to any particular cable materials suggesting the cable used is elastic consisting of an elastic (e.g. spandex) core and a surrounding metal net (metal wire/yarn wound around the core) (Page 3, lines 1-12 and Page 7, line 23). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the elastic cable is expandable by a value of for example about 1.4 times to prevent stretching of the garment from being hindered including wherein the elastic cable used has a rubber core (of a plurality of rubber yarns) and a surrounding metal net (of wound wires and interwoven fixing thread and considered a wire plait form) as taught by Matsushita (Page 4, second full paragraph and Page 16, second full paragraph and Page 17, first full paragraph of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the cable is elastic as taught by Jayasundara as modified by Bauer and further Mark and/or Cohen with an elasticity with which the cable is expandable by a value of at least 1.6 times as is the known value in the art to prevent stretching of the garment from being hindered as evidenced by Matsushita (it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close see MPEP 2144.05) and including the elastic cable used consists of a rubber core and the surrounding metal net is a wire plait form as a simple substitution of one known elastic core and surrounding metal net to yield predictable results as also evidenced by Matsushita.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/3/2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed on 5/3/2026 the objections and rejections set forth in the Office action mailed on 12/10/2025 are withdrawn. The claims as amended are fully addressed above.
Applicant argues, “As can be seen from this, Jayasundara teaches away from using a nozzle, but instead teaches the use of an insulating coating device (110) for applying an insulating coating material (130) to the conductive yarn, and a yarn attachment device (310) for attaching the yarn to the substrate (320). Furthermore, Jayasundra not only teaches away from using a nozzle for applying the coating, but furthermore teaches away from using the same nozzle for applying insulating coating material (130) to uninsulated conductive yarn at the same time via a nozzle, in phases as desired, before both of said components, i.e., insulating coating material (130) and uninsulated conductive yarn leave the nozzle, in the manner as claimed in currently amended claim 1. The cited Jayasundara furthermore teaches away from applicant’s currently amended claim 1, by teaching a yarn attachment device (310) is used for attaching the yarn to the substrate material (320). Clearly, as can be seen from applicant’s currently amended claim 1, with the present invention elastomer is applied, when desired, in a flowable state to the fabric layer (6) via a moving nozzle (1) with the elastomer penetrating into the fabric layer (6) and generating an elastomer path on the fabric layer (6). It is submitted, as can be seen from this, Jayasundra clearly teaches away from using a nozzle, but instead teaches the use of an insulating coating device (110) for applying an insulating coating material (130) to the conductive yarn, and a yarn attachment device (310) for attaching the yarn to the substrate material (320).”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Jayasundara does not teach away from using a nozzle. Jayasundara does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage using a nozzle. Jayasundara does not teach away from using a single device for insulating coating and yarn attachment. Jayasundara is not limited to any particular device for applying the elastomer and the cable suggesting intermittent coating achieved by one or more of a group including pass-through coating the elastomer (Page 3, line 24) and applying the elastomer and cable for yarn attachment via one or more of a group including a laying mechanism (Page 4, line 15) without expressly detailing a pass-through coating and laying mechanism wherein Mark and/or Cohen evidence a single device of a nozzle for both pass-through coating and laying mechanism as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further argues, “Contrary, to the Jayasundara reference, using a nozzle according to the present invention as claimed in currently amended claim 1 has been found significantly advantageous as the cable (5) can be precisely positioned on the fabric layer (6). The cable (6) can be applied to the fabric layer in any trajectory including both straight and curved lines. In the method according to Jayasundara it is not clear how curved lines would be accomplished.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Jayasundara teaches the insulating coating and yarn attachment device(s) apply the cable to the fabric layer in a trajectory including both straight and curved lines (see Figure 3). Further, there is no evidence of record a nozzle is advantageous to another device for applying the cable in curved lines, and the claims are not commensurate in scope with an argument regarding a trajectory including both straight and curved lines as none of the claims recite a limitation the cable is applied to the fabric layer in a trajectory including both straight and curved lines. The instant specification does not appear to describe the cable can be applied to the fabric layer in any trajectory including both straight and curved lines.
Applicant further argues, “Furthermore, according to the applicant's invention as claimed in currently amended claim 1, as mentioned above, it has been found advantageous that the still soft flowable elastomer (4) is applied to the fabric layer (6) and that the elastomer (4) penetrates the fabric layer (6) for firmly fixing the cable (5) to the fabric layer (6). If the trajectory is a curve, the elasticity of the cable itself tends to straighten out the cable, however, this can be prevented by the flowable elastomer applied to the fabric layer.”.
This argument is not persuasive including as the claims are not commensurate in scope with the argument as none of the claims recite a limitation the trajectory is a curve, the elasticity of the cable itself tends to straighten out the cable, however, this can be prevented by the flowable elastomer applied to the fabric layer. Further, the amendment directed to the limitation(s) the elastomer is applied in a flowable state and after hardening of the elastomer the cable is secured to the fabric layer is addressed by Bauer as applied above.
Applicants further argue, “Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider for example a nozzle disclosed in the cited Mark (Fig. 2H) and/or the cited Cohen (Figs. 2, 7a, 7b, 9, and 105h) it is unclear how the design according to the cited Jayasundara in combination with the nozzle according to the cited Mark and/or Cohen would lead to the invention as claimed in currently amended claim 1. The insulating coating device (110) of the cited Jayasundara would have to be replaced by a nozzle, which by the way is not suggested by Jayasundara.”.
As set forth in the rejection above the nozzle taught by Mark and/or Cohen is included in Jayasundara wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Jayasundara includes the elastomer is applied to the fabric layer via a moving nozzle and the cable is applied to the fabric layer via the nozzle not only as a simple substitution of one known device (including a pass-through coating and a laying mechanism) to yield predictable results but to use a single device for both the coating and applying (including intermittently so that in the another phase only the cable but no elastomer is applied via the nozzle) as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Mark and/or Cohen.
Applicant further argues, “In the claimed method of the present invention, as put forth in currently amended claim 1, the flowable elastomer (4) penetrates the into the fabric layer (6), and after hardening, the elastomer (4) is firmly joined with the fabric layer (6) in a straight or curved trajectory as desired. This is essential for applying cables on the fabric layer in a curved trajectory.”.
This argument is not persuasive including as the claims are not commensurate in scope with the argument as none of the claims recite a limitation after hardening, the elastomer is firmly joined with the fabric layer in a straight or curved trajectory as desired as this is essential for applying cables on the fabric layer in a curved trajectory. Further, the amendment directed to the limitation(s) after hardening of the elastomer the cable is secured to the fabric layer is addressed by Bauer as applied 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 JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights