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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/794,527 (also known as US20260034775-A1) in view of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/753,132 (also known as US20250387997-A1). Where claim 1 and 10 from 18/794,527 is unpatentable in combination with claim 1 from 18/753,132 to claim 1 in instant application, claims 2, 3, 4, 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 from 18/794,527 makes claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 respectively unpatentable in the instant application, and claim 1, 4, 5, 6, and 10 from 18/794,527 makes claim 10 unpatentable in the instant application. These applications are analogous art since they are describing the same invention, complete with near identical pictures
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, application 18/794,527 teaches a textile fabric, including: a main body, including two surfaces opposite to each other; a film layer, coveringly disposed on one of the two surfaces and a covering layer, coveringly disposed on the other of the two surfaces (see e.g. main body (two surfaces), film layer, and covering layer each coveringly disposed on one of the two surfaces in claim 1 and surfaces having concave and convex surface texture with the film layer conforming to the convex and concave surface in claim 10). Application 18/794,527 does not teach of each of the two surfaces having a surface texture being concave and convex within claim 1 so not all dependent claims have this requirement.
Application 18/753,132 teaches of each of the two surfaces having a surface texture being concave and convex; a film layer, coveringly disposed on one of the two surfaces and being concave and convex corresponding to the surface texture of one of the two surfaces (see e.g. main body (two surfaces), each surface having concave and convex surface texture and a film layer coveringly disposed on one of the two surfaces with concave and convex texture in claim 1).
These two co-pending applications are analogous in the art as they have similar claims and dependents, functions of water resistance, figures, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the surface texture of the main body in co-pending application 18/794,527 with the concave and convex surface texture of co-pending application 18/753,132 because it gives a more defined, visual effect and reinforces the construction of the fabric through the raised and depressed areas formed by the plurality of yarns and plurality of holes (see e.g. paragraphs [0014 and 0018] in US20250387997-A1).
Regarding claim 2, application 18/794,527 teaches a textile fabric from claim 1, wherein the film layer is made of a material including at least one of polyurethane and polyvinyl chloride (see e.g. claim 1, claim 10, and claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, application 18/794,527 teaches the textile fabric of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 and claim 10), wherein the film layer includes a film material layer and a connecting layer, and the connecting layer is disposed on a side of the film material layer and connected with one of the two surfaces (see e.g. claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, application 18/794,527 teaches the textile fabric of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 and claim 10), wherein a material of the film layer being different from a material of the covering layer (see e.g. claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, application 18/794,527 teaches the textile fabric of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 and claim 10), wherein the main body includes a plurality of first holes, and the film layer is recessed within the plurality of first holes and connected with the covering layer (see e.g. claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, application 18/794,527 teaches the textile fabric of claim 5 (see e.g. claim 1 and claim 10), wherein a depth of the film layer recessed within one of the plurality of first holes is larger than a depth of the covering layer recessed within one of the plurality of first holes (see e.g. claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, application 18/794,527 teaches the textile fabric of claim 5 (see e.g. claim 1 and claim 10), wherein the covering layer is a fabric and includes a plurality of second holes, and a diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of second holes is smaller than a diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of first holes (see e.g. claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, application 18/794,527 teaches the textile fabric of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 and claim 10), wherein the main body further includes a plurality of yarns, the plurality of yarns are interlaced with one another to form at least one knitted structure, and the at least one knitted structure includes a plurality of loops sleeved to one another (see e.g. claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, application 18/794,527 teaches the textile fabric of claim 8 (see e.g. claim 1, claim 10, and claim 8), wherein the plurality of yarns are at least partially elastic yarns (see e.g. claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, application 18/794,527 teaches the textile fabric of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 1, claim 10, and claim 6), wherein the film layer is made of a material including polyurethane and is a waterproof breathable film layer; the film layer includes a film material layer and a connecting layer, and the connecting layer is disposed on a side of the film material layer and connected with one of the two surfaces (see e.g. claim 10); the covering layer is attached to one of the two surfaces by the connecting layer; a material of the film layer is different from a material of the covering layer (see e.g. claim 4); a thickness of the film layer is between 20µm and 450µm (see e.g. claim 10); the covering layer is a fabric (see e.g. claim 5) and includes a plurality of second holes, and a diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of second holes is smaller than a diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of first holes; the diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of first holes is larger than or equal to 2mm (see e.g. claim 10); a fabric density of the covering layer is larger than a fabric density of the main body (see e.g. claim 5); the main body further includes a plurality of yarns, the plurality of yarns are interlaced with one another to form at least one knitted structure, and the at least one knitted structure includes a plurality of loops sleeved to one another; the plurality of yarns are at least partially elastic yarns; as viewed in an axial direction of one of the plurality of yarns, the film layer covers at least 1/3 of an outer circumferential surface of said yarn; and an area of the covering layer covering the main body is smaller than or equal to an area of the film layer covering the main body (see e.g. claim 10).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelsey (US20190389172-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kelsey discloses a textile fabric (see e.g. “stretchable laminate” 4 in paragraph [0076] and in Figure 6 wherein it can be used in larger garments found in paragraphs [0018 and 0080] of Kelsey) including a main body (see e.g. “textile layer” 10 in paragraph [0050] and 10 in Figure 6 below), including two surfaces opposite to each other (see e.g. “first surface” 11 and “second surface” 12 in paragraphs [0046 and 0050] and 11 and 12 in Figure 4 below), each of the two surfaces having a surface texture being concave and convex (see e.g. paragraph [0052] where the surface texture has weft and warp yarns creating a concave and convex surface texture as seen in 10 of Figure 6), a film layer (see e.g. “functional layer” 40 and “additional adhesive layer” 32 in Figure 4 and 6 and in paragraph [0010] of Kelsey), coveringly disposed on one of the two surfaces and being concave and convex corresponding to the surface texture of one of the two surfaces (see e.g. “first surface” 11 and “second surface” 12 of “textile layer” 10 with concave and convex texture as seen in Figure 4 of Kelsey, being on one of the two surfaces as seen in Figure 6 of Kelsey, and in paragraphs [0046 and 0050]); and a covering layer (see e.g. “elastic layer” 20 in Figure 4 and 6 and paragraphs [0046 and 0050] of Kelsey), coveringly disposed on the other of the two surfaces (see e.g. paragraph [0010 and 0011] and the “functional layer” 40 combined with “additional adhesive layer” 32, “elastic fiber” 20, and “textile layer” 10 in Figure 6 of Kelsey 2019).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: Labeled Figure 4, Kelsey (US20190389172-A1) published 2019
PNG
media_image2.png
427
891
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6: Labeled Figure 6, Kelsey (US20190389172-A1) published 2019
Regarding claim 2, Kelsey teaches the textile fabric of claim 1, wherein the film layer is made of a material including at least one of polyurethane and polyvinyl (see e.g. “functional layer” 40 and “additional adhesive layer” 32 made out of polyurethane in paragraphs [0056 and 0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Kelsey teaches that the film layer (see e.g. “functional layer” 40 and “additional adhesive layer” 32 in Figure 4 and 6) includes a film material layer (see e.g. “functional layer” 40 in Figure 4 and 6 and in paragraph [0076]) and a connecting layer (see e.g. “additional adhesive layer” 32 in Figure 6 and in paragraph [0076]), and the connecting layer is disposed on a side of the film material layer and connected with one of the two surfaces (see e.g. “additional adhesive layer” 32 bonds the “functional layer” 40 to the “textile layer” 10 in paragraph [0021] and in 32, 40, and 10 in Figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Kelsey teaches the main body (see e.g. paragraph [0052] and the textile layer 10 in Figure 6) further includes a plurality of yarns (see e.g. “one or more yarns” in paragraph [0051] in Kelsey), the plurality of yarns are interlaced with one another to form at least one knitted structure (see e.g. “woven” or “knit” that was “knitted” from “one or more yarns” in paragraph [0051]), and the at least one knitted structure includes a plurality of loops sleeved (“one or more yarns” forming “loops” in paragraph [0052]) to one another.
Regarding claim 9, Kelsey discloses that the plurality of yarns are at least partially elastic yarns (see e.g. “one or more yarns” may be coated in elastic coating, have elasticity, and have stretch in paragraphs [0051 and 0052]).
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsey (US20190389172-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Lyttle et al (US20140059886-A1).
Regarding claim 4 Kelsey discloses a material of the film layer can be different from a material of the covering layer (see e.g. paragraphs [0056] and [0062] where while it includes some overlap, it does not specify the materials must be the same, meaning they can be made up of different materials without hindering function). Kelsey does not explicitly disclose that they are different materials or gives a specific example where they are different materials.
Lyttle et al discloses specific materials with no overlap, where a material of the film layer is different from a material of the covering layer (see e.g. Tables 2 and 3 and a “skin layer” 36’ being a thermoplastic polyurethane and a “mesh layer” made of single layer woven recycled polyethylene terephthalate and polyesters in paragraph [0075-0077]).
Kelsey and Lyttle et al are analogous in the art as they both discuss ways to create functional and wear resistant layers of clothing. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the implied different materials for the film layer and covering layer of Kelsey with the use of different materials for different layers as taught by Lyttle et al because both are describing ways to make breathable, resistant articles of clothing. Choosing different materials would increase durability and allow for individual parts to better function as suggested by Lyttle (see e.g. “mesh” breathability and “skin” protects, ability to conform to mesh, and provides resistance in paragraph [0075-0076]).
PNG
media_image3.png
416
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Table 2: Highlighted Table 2 of Lyttle et al (US20140059886-A1) Published 2014, (“mesh” materials)
PNG
media_image4.png
347
469
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Table 3: Highlighted Table 3 of Lyttle et al (US20140059886-A1) Published 2014, (“skin” materials)
Regarding claim 5, Kelsey discloses, that the main body includes a plurality of first holes (see e.g. holes in “textile layer” is a feature paragraph [0095]). Kelsey further discloses that the film layer (see e.g. combined “functional layer” 40 and “additional adhesive layer” 32 disposed on one surface of “textile layer in Figure 6 and in paragraph [0010] of Kelsey) is connected with the covering layer (see e.g. “elastic fibers” disposed on another surface of the “textile layer” in paragraph [0010], connected through additional adhesive layer 32).
Kelsey does not disclose the film layer is recessed within the plurality of first holes.
Lyttle et al discloses that the film layer is recessed within the plurality of first holes (see e.g. “skin material layer” 36’ conforms to “mesh material layer” 28’ in paragraph [0047] and in 36’ and 28’ of Figure 6A of Lyttle et al).
Kelsey and Lyttle et al are both analogous in the art due to their construction of layered, resistant materials. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify Kelsey’s functional layer to conform to the textile layer’s surface texture as taught in Lyttle et al, because it results in a smooth texture on the surface (see e.g. in paragraph [0050], Lyttle et al) and increases comfort and avoids buckling as stated as potential problems (see e.g. in paragraph [0047], Kelsey).
PNG
media_image5.png
321
555
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 6A: Labeled Figure 6A of Lyttle et al (US20140059886-A1) Published 2014
Regarding claim 6 Kelsey teaches of an order of elements, the film layer, the main body, then a covering layer (see e.g. Figure 6) but does not teach of the film layer recessed within one of the plurality of first holes is larger than a depth of the covering layer recessed within one of the plurality of first holes.
Lyttle et al does teach of the textile fabric, wherein a depth of the film layer recessed within one of the plurality of first holes (see e.g. “skin layer” 36’ recesses fully into the “mesh layer” 28’ concavities in Figure 6A and in paragraph [0016]). Lyttle et al further teaches that the film layer’s recessed depth is larger than a depth of the covering layer recessed within one of the plurality of first holes (see e.g. an “additional smooth surface of upper” can be added to configuration as a reinforcement made of thicker materials such as nylon that does not conform as easily to the “mesh layer” 28’ paragraph [0098]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the film layer of Kelsey via the teaching of Lyttle et al so that the film layer is recessed within the holes of the main body. The film layer applies reinforcement for the main body and the covering layer, allowing protection from wear and can additionally allow for decoration (“skin” reinforces “mesh” and protects the “mesh” in paragraph [0075]). Having some of the covering layer, shallowly recessed would allow for further reinforcement and mesh protection, however would not recess as easily for the thicker material and/or denser weave (see e.g. denser weave or higher strength material, placed in areas with less flexibility and subjected to more force in paragraph in [0118] of Lyttle et al).
Regarding claim 7 Kelsey discloses the covering layer is a fabric and includes a plurality of second holes (see e.g. large holes can be made by longitudinal “elastic fibers” 20 as they occasionally contact and cross as seen in Figure 3 and described as crossing in paragraph [0063]). Kelsey does not teach that the diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of second holes is smaller than a diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of first holes.
PNG
media_image6.png
441
623
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Highlighted Figure 3 from Kelsey ((US20190389172-A1) published 2019 (depicts ‘holes’)
However, Lyttle et al teaches of the diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of second holes is smaller than a diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of first holes (see e.g. the “first type of mesh” has larger openings than “second type of mesh” in paragraph [0118] of Lyttle et al).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the covering layer hole size of Kelsey to be smaller as taught by Lyttle et al’s to allow for a more comprehensive construction where the smaller holes provide a more resistant and durable texture while the larger holes of the main body, allows for better air flow through the main body, helping the overall fabric to cool and dry (see e.g. in paragraph [0052 and 0118] of Lyttle et al). The different layers having different hole sizes would have been obvious through routine experiments to achieve desired air flow, wear protection, and/or decoration.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelsey (US2019/0389172-A1) in view of Lyttle et al (US20140059886-A1) as applied to claim 6 above and in further view of Kim et al (KR100696269-B1).
Regarding claim 10 Kelsey teaches the film layer is made of a material including polyurethane and is a waterproof breathable film layer (see e.g. the “functional layer” 40 contains polyurethane and can be used to impart breathability and water impermeability in paragraph [0055 and 0056] and “additional adhesive layer” 32 contains polyurethane in paragraph [0067]). Further Kelsey teaches the film layer (see e.g. combined “functional layer” 40 and “additional adhesive layer” 32 in Figure 4 and 6 and in paragraph [0010] of Kelsey) includes a film material layer (see e.g. “functional layer” 40 in Figure 4 and 6 and in paragraph [0076]) and a connecting layer (see e.g. “additional adhesive layer” 32 in Figure 6 and in paragraph [0076]), is disposed on a side of the film material layer and connected with one of the two surfaces (see e.g. “additional adhesive layer” 32 bonds the “textile layer” 10 to the “functional layer” 40” in paragraph [0050] and 32, 10, and 40 in Figure 6). A thickness of the film layer is between 20µm and 450µm (see thickness 0.01mm-0.5mm in paragraph [0060]). Kelsey further teaches the covering layer (see e.g. “elastic fibers” 20 as in Figure 6 and paragraph [0010]) is attached to one of the two surfaces by the connecting layer (see e.g. “elastic fibers” 20, are attached to one side of the “textile layer” 10, by an “adhesive layer” 30 within Figure 6 of Kelsey and paragraph [0066] ). Kelsey discloses a material of the film layer can be different from a material of the covering layer (see e.g. lists of materials that do not specify they must be the same, in paragraphs [0056] and [0062]).
Kelsey further discloses how the main body further includes a plurality of yarns (see e.g. “one or more yarns” in paragraph [0051] in Kelsey). The plurality of yarns are interlaced with one another to form at least one knitted structure (see e.g. “woven” or “knit” that was “knitted” from “one or more yarns” in paragraph [0051]), and at least one knitted structure includes a plurality of loops (“one or more yarns” forming “loops” in paragraph [0052]) sleeved to one another (see e.g. “textile layer” 10 is woven/knitted with “one or more yarns” forming “loops” in paragraph [0052]). Kelsey additionally teaches that the plurality of yarns are at least partially elastic yarns (see e.g. “one or more yarns” may be coated in elastic coating, have elasticity, and have stretch in paragraphs [0051 and 0052]). Kelsey teaches of the covering layer being a fabric and includes a plurality of second holes, (see e.g. large holes can be made by longitudinal “elastic fibers” 20 as they occasionally contact and cross as seen in Figure 3 and described as crossing in paragraph [0063]). Kelsey teaches of some applicable materials for the main body layer and a fiber density of the covering layer (7.9 fibers/cm in paragraph [0079] in Kelsey). Kelsey teaches that as viewed in an axial direction of one of the plurality of yarns, the film layer covers at least part of an outer circumferential surface of said yarn (see e.g. where to maintain the moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR), “functional layer” covers less than or equal to 20% in paragraph [0059]); and an area of the covering layer covering the main body is smaller than or equal to an area of the film layer covering the main body (see e.g. where to maintain the moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR), the “elastic fibers” covering less than or equal to 40%, in paragraph [0059]).
Kelsey does not explicitly disclose that the film layer and covering layer are different materials or gives a specific example where they are different materials. Kelsey does not teach of a compared fabric density (see e.g. paragraph [0053 and 0062]). Kelsey does not teach specific proportions of the second holes compared to the first holes. Kelsey does not teach the specific values of the film layer covering at least 1/3 of the surface of the yarn and the covering layer covering a smaller than or equal area of the film layer.
Lyttle et al discloses specific materials with no overlap, where a material of the film layer is different from a material of the covering layer (see e.g. Tables 2 and 3 and a “skin layer” 36’ being thermoplastic polyurethane and a “mesh layer” made of single layer woven recycled polyethylene terephthalate and polyesters in paragraphs [0075-0076]). Lyttle et al teaches of the diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of second holes is smaller than a diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of first holes (see e.g. the “first type of mesh” has larger openings than “second type of mesh” in paragraph [0118] of Lyttle et al). Lyttle et al discloses how a fabric density of the covering layer is larger than a fabric density of the main body (see e.g. where “second mesh” is a denser weave while the “first mesh” is lighter weight with larger openings in paragraph [0118], of Lyttle et al). Lyttle et al teaches that as viewed in an axial direction of one of the plurality of yarns, the film layer covers at least 1/3 of an outer circumferential surface of said yarn; and an area of the covering layer covering the main body is smaller than or equal to an area of the film layer covering the main body (see e.g. the “skin layer” 36’ covers at least 1/3 of the area of the “mesh layer” 28’ as seen in Figure 6A and includes “second mesh layers” covering smaller or equal surfaces in Figure 1B and paragraph [0119] of Lyttle et al).
Kelsey and Lyttle et al are analogous in the art as they both discuss ways to create functional and wear resistant layers of clothing. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the implied different materials for the film layer and covering layer of Kelsey with the use of different materials for different layers as taught by Lyttle et al because choosing different materials would increase durability and allow for individual parts to better function as suggested by Lyttle (see e.g. “mesh” breathability and “skin” protects, ability to conform to mesh, and provides resistance in paragraph [0075-0076]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the covering layer hole size of Kelsey to be smaller as taught by Lyttle et al’s to allow for a more comprehensive construction where the smaller holes provide a more resistant and durable texture while the larger holes of the main body, allows for better air flow through the main body, helping the overall fabric to cool and dry (see e.g. in paragraph [0052 and 0118] of Lyttle et al). The different layers having different hole sizes would have been obvious through routine experiments to achieve desired air flow, wear protection, and/or decoration. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the density of the main body of Kelsey with the teachings of Lyttle et al because a less dense main body would prevent the material overall from being too heavy and encourage the majority of the textile fabric to be breathable, while the denser covering layer would encourage durability. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface coverage of the covering layer in Kelsey with Lyttle et al because lower surface coverage can avoid a decrease in the MVTR (paragraph [0059], Kelsey). Additionally, the selected overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Kelsey and Lyttle et al with the overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
PNG
media_image7.png
442
569
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 1B: Lyttle et al (US20140059886-A1) Published 2014
However, Kelsey in view of Lyttle et al does not teach any specific sizes of the first holes on the main body. Kim et al teaches the diametrical dimension of each of the plurality of first holes is larger than or equal to 2mm (see e.g. holes formed have a diameter of 2-5 mm on page 3, paragraph 19, Kim et al).
Kim et al is analogous art to Kelsey in view of Lyttle et al as they are both water proof and resistant fibrous sheets with surrounding layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, modify the size of the main body first holes of Kelsey in view of Lyttle’s main layer first holes and covering layer second holes and adjust them to the taught sizes of Kim et al to have the main body have first holes of 2mm-5mm, because that size of holes allow for both reinforcement and avoids cracking or shrinking of the film layer (see e.g. “waterproof fiber sheet” 30 has the “coating material layer” 40 penetrate the “holes” 31, and hence reinforces the “coating material layer” but also improves shrinkage or cracking of “coating material layer” and “primer layer” 20 on page 5, paragraphs [5-6] and in Figure 1 of Kim et al). Further it was obvious of the claimed invention to have selected overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
PNG
media_image8.png
261
478
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Labeled Figure 1 from Kim et al (KR100696269-B1) Published 2007
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu (US20260027814-A1), Wu (US20260027815-A1), Wu (US202500387996-A1), Yu et al (US2022/0403589-A1), Conley et al (US8241729-B2), Shortway (US4187131-A), Wanibuchi (US20210040683-A1), Brewin et al (CN110191801-A), Huang et al (US20190143632-A1), Huang et al (CN108995334-A), and Huang et al (US20140363625-A1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA N WHIPKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/T.N.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/TONG GUO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights