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 § 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 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2006-169688 issued to Suzuki et al.
Suzuki discloses a woven or knit fabric resistant to fraying at cut edges thereof, in particular an edge cut during a garment sewing step, such that said edge is seamless and does not require finishing (e.g., a folded hem or overcast stitch), which simplifies the garment sewing process (abstract and sections [0001]-[0004]). Said fray-resistant knit fabric is produced by incorporation of a low melt thermoplastic yarn blended into said knit fabric by integrally knitting said low melt yarn with other yarns during the knitting process (sections [0005] and [0008]). During application of heat during dyeing or finishing of the fabric, the low melt thermoplastic yarns are partially melted and fused to adhere with other yarns of the fabric, such that said fused yarns prevent unraveling of the knit loops and fraying of the fabric when cut (sections [0005] and [0008]).
The low melt thermoplastic yarn is an elastic yarn having a melting point of 180°C or less (item 1 of section [0006] and section [0009]). Said low melt thermoplastic elastic yarn is preferably a thermoplastic polyurethane, wherein said yarn is not melted more than necessary such that the hand of the fabric is hardly impaired (sections [0009] and [0015]). Suitable thermoplastic polyurethanes are disclosed in JP 2000-264326 A or available as ESPA-M and ESPA-R by Toyobo Co., Ltd. (section [0009]).
Said low melt elastic yarn may be used alone (e.g., a bare monofilament) or be a composite yarn comprising said low melt elastic yarn and another yarn comprising a thermoplastic filament (e.g., nylon) or cellulosic fiber (items 2 and 3 of section [0006] and sections [0010] and [0016]-[0018]). In working examples, said monofilament has a linear density of 22 dtex (19.8 den) and 44 dtex (39.6 den) (sections [0016] and [0018]). The fibers of the other yarn in said composite yarn (e.g., nylon, cotton) have a melting point of greater than 180°C, preferably greater than 200°C, so as not to be subjected to deformation during the partial fusion of the low melt elastic yarn (sections [0010] and [0016]-[0018]). Said composite yarn may be a covered (i.e., core-wrap) yarn or plied yarn (section [0010]). The amount of low melt elastic yarn in the composite yarn is at least 10% or more, preferably about 20-30% (section [0010]).
The fabric comprises said low melt elastic yarn interknitted or interwoven with another fiber yarn (item 4 of section [0006]). The fabric may be knit on a circular knitting machine in a plain knit (i.e., single jersey) or tuck rib knit pattern (sections [0016] and [0017]). Said low melt elastic yarn may be used uniformly over the entire surface of the fabric or may be employed intermittently in a certain pattern, preferably in a longitudinal direction of the fabric (items 5 and 6 of section [0006] and section [0011]). Garments made from the fabric may include a body, sleeves, and a collar (e.g., shirt or top) (section [0007]). The specification also discusses prior art garments include inner wear worn against the skin (i.e., underwear) (section [0007]). When present intermittently in a longitudinal direction, hemming or overstitching of the cut edges or openings for sleeves and the like can be omitted, without the texture (i.e., hand) of the garment body being impaired (section [0011]). Said low melt elastic yarn may not be present in all the yarn feeders to obtain an optimum texture (i.e., hand) of the body of the garment in the repetition of one complete knit structure (section [0012]). In other words, the low melt elastic yarn may be present in a minority amount of the fabric, wherein a majority of the yarns of said knit fabric are other thermoplastic (e.g., nylon) or cellulosic (i.e., cotton) yarn, especially when the low melt elastic yarn comprises a composite yarn and/or is knit intermittently only where a cut edge will occur as opposed to the entire fabric.
Note if the fused low melt elastic yarn is located longitudinally within (i.e., along the grain of) the knit fabric from which the garment is made, said fused yarn will necessarily be at least at some point, perpendicular, parallel, and/or angled to a cut edge thereof. In particular, in a tee-shirt embodiment, wherein the grain of the knit fabric is oriented vertically from neck to waist, the fused yarn will necessarily be perpendicular to the cut edge forming a waist opening, parallel and optionally at an angle to an arm opening, and perpendicular and optionally at an angle to a neck opening. Additionally, note if the cut edge is perpendicular to the longitudinally oriented fused yarn, said fused yarn will be touching only a portion and not all of said cut edge, while if said cut edge is parallel to said fused yarn, the fused yarn will be touching an entirety of said cut edge.
Thus, Suzuki teaches the invention of claims 1 4, 5, 9-11, 17, 18, 21, and 22 with the exceptions of explicit teachings to (a) the low melt elastic yarn is located within 0-25 millimeters from an edge or opening of said garment and (b) the fray-resistant cut edge is unravel free and roll-free. However, the claims are rejected as being anticipated by or obvious over the Suzuki reference.
Specifically, regarding exception (a), when the low melt elastic yarn is knit uniformly throughout the fabric, any fray-resistant cut edge forming an opening of a garment (e.g., hemline, neck opening, etc.) made therefrom will necessarily comprise at least one fused low melt elastic yarn. Even when the low melt elastic yarn is knit intermittently, the fused low melt elastic yarn is located in the region of the fabric to be cut for a garment opening. Thus, it is asserted said fused low melt elastic yarn will necessarily be located at or near the edge of an opening in order to prevent fraying. Therefore, exception (a) is rejected as being anticipated by the cited prior art.
In the alternative, it would it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the low melt elastic yarn within the knit fabric such that when cut for a garment, the cut edge will be within 25 mm of the fused low melt elastic yarn in order to prevent said cut edge from fraying. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results to the skilled artisan. Therefore, exception (a) is rejected as being obvious over the prior art.
Regarding exception (b), although Suzuki does not explicitly teach the limitation that the fray-resistant cut edge is unravel free and roll-free, it is reasonable to presume that said limitation is inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e., a knit fabric comprising a fused low melt elastic yarn integrally knit with a non-thermally fused yarn) and in the similar production steps (i.e., knitting said low melt elastic yarn uniformly or intermittently within the knit fabric so as to provide a cut edge that is fray-resistant) used to produce a garment from the knit fabric. The burden is upon applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 495. In the alternative, the claimed roll-free edge would obviously have been provided by the process disclosed by Suzuki. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection under 35 USC 103 in addition to the rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Therefore, claims 1, 4-16 are rejected as being anticipated by or obvious over the cited prior art.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, while Suzuki fails to explicitly teach suitable garments include pants, underwear, etc. comprising leg openings and a waist band, said claims are also anticipated by or obvious over the reference. Specifically, at least the species of pants and underwear, which necessarily include leg openings and waistbands, are at once envisaged from Suzuki’s disclosed genus of garments. See MPEP 2131.02, III. Hence, claims 2 and 3 are also anticipated by the reference.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select at least pants and underwear for the garments of Suzuki. Motivation to do so would be to apply the benefits of the Suzuki invention (i.e., seamless and hemless garment construction) to render comfortable pants, underwear, etc. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results to the skilled artisan. Therefore, claims 2 and 3 are alternately rejected as being obvious over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 20, although Suzuki does not explicitly teach the limitations that the garment has improved body grip capability, non-raveling capability, and roll-free capability, it is reasonable to presume that said limitations are inherent to the invention. Support for said presumption is found in the use of similar materials (i.e., a knit fabric comprising a fused low melt elastic yarn integrally knit with a non-thermally fused yarn) and in the similar production steps (i.e., knitting said low melt elastic yarn uniformly or intermittently within the knit fabric so as to provide a cut edge that is fray-resistant) used to produce a garment from the knit fabric. The burden is upon applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 495. In the alternative, the claimed improved properties would obviously have been provided by the process disclosed by Suzuki. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection under 35 USC 103 in addition to the rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected as being anticipated by or obvious over the cited prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006-169688 issued to Suzuki et al., as shown above, in view of US 2005/0025966 issued to Vedula et al.
Suzuki teaches the low melt elastic monofilament is made of polyurethane, such as thermoplastic polyurethanes disclosed in JP 2000-264326 A or available as ESPA-M and ESPA-R by Toyobo Co., Ltd. (section [0009]). [Note the JP patent number appears to in error in that the subject matter thereof is non-analogous art.] Looking to the prior art for further guidance, Vedula discloses melt spun elastic monofilaments made from thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) polymer containing a crosslinking agent to enhance the elastic properties thereof (abstract).
The TPU polymer is formed by reacting a polyisocyanate with an intermediate such as a hydroxyl terminated polyester, a hydroxyl terminated polyether, a hydroxyl terminated polycarbonate or mixtures thereof, with one or more chain extenders (section [0019]). In a preferred embodiment, said hydroxyl terminated intermediate is a blend of at least two polyethers having different number average molecular weights (Mn) (sections [0021] and claim 22). The monofilaments may have deniers in the range of 100-10,000, preferably 140-2000 denier (section [0050]). The TPU polymer is lightly crosslinked with a crosslinking agent present in an amount of 2-20%, preferably about 8.0-15% (sections [0042]-[0045]). Exemplary TPU monofilaments have a modulus of 300% in a range of 1571-1861 psi, an elongation of 583-652%, and a tenacity of 5200-5690 psi (Table 1). The elastic monofilaments are suitable for use in bras, waist bands, collars, leg and arm cuffs of clothing, such as undergarments, sweaters, athletic wear, and the like, wherein said monofilaments are capable of being heat sealed within the fabric (section [0056]).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the specific TPU monofilament as taught by Vedula for the low melt elastic thermoplastic polyurethane of Suzuki. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results to the skilled artisan (i.e., a fray resistant knit fabric having improved physical properties for use in seamless or hemless elastic garments). Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results achieved therefrom or other evidence of nonobviousness, claims 23-25 are rejected as being obvious over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ULA CORINNA RUDDOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-1481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 PM.
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, Srilakshmi K Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights