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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 5/27/2026 has been received; Claims 1-5 are pending.
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 Tatsuro (JP 08-199448) in view of Chaplin (US 2018/0119352).
Regarding Claim 1, Tatsuro discloses a mesh woven fabric (Para. 1) comprising a warp thread (Para. 1) and a weft thread (Para. 1), wherein a bending angle of the warp thread and a bending angle of the weft thread at an intersection where the warp thread and the weft thread intersect each other are different from each other (Para. 40-43), and a rate of an absolute value of a bending angle difference between the warp thread and the weft thread to an average of the bending angle of the warp thread and the bending angle of the weft thread is 20% or less (Para. 40-43 & 50-68). Tatsuro does not specifically disclose each of the warp thread and weft thread is a monofilament having a diameter of 10um or more. However, Chaplin discloses a woven fabric using monofilament warp and weft threads having a diameter of 10um or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the warp and weft thread as claimed, since it is well within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known thread on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred thread that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using a monofilament thread for the weft and warp at the diameter more than claimed would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding Claim 2, Tatsuro discloses which satisfies at least one of conditions described below: a rate of an absolute value of a tensile strength difference between a warp direction and a weft direction to an average of a tensile strength in the warp direction and a tensile strength in the weft direction is 20% or less; a rate of an absolute value of a tensile elongation difference between the warp direction and the weft direction to an average of a tensile elongation in the warp direction and a tensile elongation in the weft direction is 68% or less; and in curves showing a relation between a tensile load 36 and a tensile elongation percentage, with respect to slopes in elastic deformation regions of the curves, a rate of an absolute value of a slope difference between the warp direction and the weft direction to an average of a slope for the warp direction and a slope for the weft direction is 62% or less (Para. 40-43 & 50-68).
Regarding Claim 3, Tatsuro discloses a rate of an absolute value of a thermal deformation amount difference between a warp direction and a weft direction to an average of a thermal deformation amount in the warp direction and a thermal deformation amount in the weft direction is 180% or less (Para. 37-43 & 50-68).
Regarding Claim 4, Tatsuro discloses at least one of the warp thread and the weft thread is a synthetic fiber (Para. 22).
Regarding Claim 5, Tatsuro discloses the synthetic fiber is a PE fiber, a PTFE fiber, a PPS fiber, an LCP fiber, or a PEEK fiber (Para. 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
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 KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST.
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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights