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.
Claim 87 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 “high” in claim 87 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. Amending the claim to recite “higher” rather than “high” when comparing moisture regain levels would overcome this rejection as relative moisture regain may be compared within the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 77, 78, and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Bailey (US 2016/0243792 A1).
Bailey discloses an adaptive material garment system that includes a fabric layer comprising an inner face surface configured to face a wearer’s body and an outer fabric layer comprising an outer face surface configured to face an ambient environment, and further comprising multiple stimuli response materials, wherein a first stimuli responsive material and a second stimuli response materials are different. Bailey abstract, ¶¶ 15–19, 25, 34, Fig. 4. The first stimuli responsive material may respond to temperature changes by the wearer and the second stimuli responsive material may respond to moisture each by changing dimensions (i.e., stress/strain) to allow for increased air transmission. Id. ¶¶ 14, 19–20, 23, 25. The moisture-responsive material may be located closer to skin of a wearer’s body, while the temperature responsive material may be further away from the wearer’s body. Id. ¶¶ 20–23, Fig. 4.
Claim 82 is rejected as the garment of Bailey may further include a middle layer 203 positioned between face layer 206 and back layer 300. Id. ¶ 23, Fig. 2.
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.
Claim(s) 79, 80, 85, and 96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as applied to claim 77 above, and further in view of Rosselli (US 2024/0167219 A1).
Bailey fails to teach arranging the temperature and moisture responding materials in a form of a pattern on the fabric.
Rosselli teaches the use of adaptive materials for implementation in smart clothing comprising fibers and fabrics which reversibly change permeability upon moisture and/or temperature stimulation. Rosselli abstract, ¶ 53. The fabrics of the smart clothing preferably comprise humidity and/or temperature responsive material coated in a pattern along pores on the surface of the fabric, wherein the pattern reversibly opens in response to exposure to moisture and/or temperature stimulation. Id. ¶¶ 34, 37–40, 68, 126–127. The stimuli responsive materials may include a synthetic polymer. Id. ¶¶ 40–46.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selectively applied the synthetic polymer stimuli responsive materials of Rosselli in the form of a pattern on the fabric motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Bailey which is silent as to the manner in which the responsive materials are to be applied.
Claim 80 is rejected as the moisture and temperature responsive materials are located on different layers which constitute different “areas” of the garment. See Bailey ¶ ¶¶ 15–19, 25, 34, Fig. 4.
Claim(s) 81, 83, 90, 92, and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as applied to claim 77 above, and further in view of Nordstrom (US 2014/0053312 A1).
Bailey fails to teach the use of a responsive material comprising a stress/strain responsive material configured to dynamically change dimensions, chemical structure, rigidity/elasticity or color in response to a force applied to the fabric.
Nordstrom teaches the formation of garment materials that change in response to thermal and moisture stimuli, wherein the garment further comprises patterned auxetic materials that dynamically change dimension when exposed to force. Nordstrom abstract, ¶¶ 107–109, 119–128, Figs. 20–27. The addition of auxetic material to the garment allows for an article that better conforms to the shape of a wearer and allows for thermal regulation. Id. ¶ 108. Shape memory polymers such as polyurethane may be in the form of a composite of polymers that include a biasing or base polymer; and may also be used along with stimuli responsive materials to help retain the original shape of the fabric. Id. ¶¶ 45–49, 54–57. Additionally, polymers may be selected and added to the shape memory polymer to form a composite that increases toughness in response to stimuli. See id. ¶ 64.
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have included auxetic materials and shape memory polymers such as polyurethane along with one or more of the stimuli responsive materials of Bailey motivated by the desire to create a garment that conforms to the shape of the wearer.
Claim(s) 84, 86, and 89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as applied to claim 77 above, and further in view of West (US 2022/0316099 A1).
Bailey fails to teach the use of liquid crystal as part of the stimuli responsive materials.
West teaches the creation of fiber clad with liquid crystal material and a polymer for use in advanced textiles. West abstract. Liquid crystals are known for their responsiveness to external stimuli by changing their optical properties (i.e., color) and fibers comprising the crystals can be used to sense and report the state of an environment by weaving them into garments. Id. ¶¶ 2–4, 43, 58.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the liquid crystal fibers into the moisture responsive material of Bailey motivated by the desire to create a garment that optically shows changes in temperature.
Claim(s) 87 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey as applied to claim 77 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2016/0376747 A1).
Bailey fails to teach the use of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) as the temperature-responsive material.
Wang teaches the formation of a temperature-regulating composite fabric, wherein the fabric comprises optical nanostructures and an environment (i.e., temperature and moisture) responsive mechanism. Wang abstract. The environmental responsive mechanism may include a temperature responsive polymer layer on the fiber capable of expansion/shrinkage depending on the applied temperature, or a moisture responsive fiber changing its shape depending on the moisture level to affect spacing between the optical nanostructures. Id. The temperature responsive polymer may include poly(N-isopropylacrylamide). Id. ¶ 41. The fibers of the fabric may comprise a moisture-responsive formed from hydrophilic and hydrophobic parts. Id. ¶ 43. The fibers may further comprise functional groups that cause the fibers’ wettability to change reversibly and responsively at the liquid-solid (or water-polymer) interface, acting as a hydrophilic (below the transition temperature Tc), and as a hydrophobic (above the transition temperature). Id. ¶ 150.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have included the environmentally responsive fibers of Wang comprising include poly(N-isopropylacrylamide and functional groups to further increase the functionality of the Bailey fabric.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 88, 91, 93, and 95 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
