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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 6/3/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 states that the substrate is coated with a metal but also states that the substrate has an opening. It is not clear if the substrate is coated or the yarn is coated.
Claim 1 states that the substrate has a substantially non-extending tissue and an opening formed in said tissue. The word “tissue” renders the claim indefinite. It is not known what, if any, structure is imparted by use of the term. The specification lacks any clarification. The conventional meaning of tissue is a lightweight nonwoven product but the claim is clearly not directed to a nonwoven product.
Claim 8 requires the braided or woven yarn (tissue) substrate be a tulle mesh knit or a marquisette knit. It is unclear what structure (e.g. woven, knit, mesh, braid) is being claimed. Plus, a tulle is conventionally a mesh net and a marquisette is conventionally a woven mesh. Neither a tulle or a marquisette is traditionally a knit (knitted fabric).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2021/0028784 to Takahara or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2021/0028784 to Takahara in view of USPN 4,572,960 to Ebneth and/or USPAP 2003/0089704 to Weiss.
Claim 1, Takahara discloses a conductive fabric comprising a substrate formed by braiding or weaving a yarn, said substrate being coated with a metal, wherein: the substrate has a substantially non-extending tissue and an opening formed in said tissue, and wherein the substrate is configured to extend by deformation of the opening when said substrate is pulled (see entire document including [0006], [0029]-[0032], [0055], [0109] and [0113]).
Plus, Weiss and Ebneth disclose that it is known in the metal coated fabric art to construct an extensible fabric with a tulle mesh or marquisette structure such that when the fabric is extended/deformed the yarns do not extend (see entire documents including [0002]-[0009] of Weiss and column 1, line 59 through column 2, line 29 of Ebneth). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fabric of Takahara with any suitable fabric structure, such as tulle mesh or marquisette, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 2, Takahara illustrates the claimed opening rate of 40-95% (Figures 5 and 7) and discloses that the fabric has a high proportion of openings per area ([0031] and [0045]). Therefore, the claimed opening rate is either sufficiently taught or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fabric with any suitable large opening rate, such as claimed, based on the desired/required intended use and because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an opening rate on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 3, Takahara does not appear to specifically mention the extension ratio of a side of the opening of the substantially non-extending tissue at 20% extension relative to the substrate when not extended to be from 0.90 to 1.10 but the current specification discloses that the claimed property results in the suppression of crack damage in the metal film ([0013]-[0014]). Similarly, Takahara discloses that the when the fabric extends the fibers do not extend resulting in the suppression of cracks in the metal film [0113]. Therefore, the claimed property appears to be inherently taught.
Claim 4, Takahara does not appear to specifically mention the claimed tension at 20% extension in at least one or more of a longitudinal direction, a latitudinal direction and an oblique direction of the substrate being 10 N/cm or less but Takahara does disclose that the fabric is easily stretched ([0029]-[0031]). Therefore, the claimed tension is either sufficiently taught or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fabric with any suitable low tension, such as claimed, based on the desired/required intended use and because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a tension on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 5, the applied prior art does not appear to specifically mention the claimed elongation rate but considering that the applied prior art teaches a substantially identical fabric in terms of materials and structure and extensibility/deformation, the claimed property appears to be inherent. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fabric of Takahara with any suitable elongation rate, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 6, the applied prior art does not appear to specifically mention the claimed surface resistivity but considering that the applied prior art teaches a substantially identical fabric in terms of materials and structure and extensibility/deformation, the claimed property appears to be inherent. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fabric of Takahara with any suitable surface resistivity, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 7, the opening has a minimum inner diameter when not extended or contracted of from 0.5 to 5 mm [0131]. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fabric of Takahara with any suitable opening size, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 8, Takahara does not appear to mention the substrate being a tulle mesh knit or a marquisette knit but Weiss and Ebneth each disclose that it is known in the metal coated fabric art to construct an extensible fabric with a tulle mesh or marquisette structure such that when the fabric is extended/deformed the yarns do not extend (see entire documents including [0002]-[0009] of Weiss and column 1, line 59 through column 2, line 29 of Ebneth). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fabric of Takahara with any suitable fabric structure, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 9, Takahara discloses that the conductive fabric is used as a sensor material, a monitoring material, a shielding material or an electrode material (title).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights