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.
Claims 5 and 18-19 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 5 recites “up to 50% of any yarn twist including Zero Twist having a Twist multiplier in the range of 1.0 and 2.4”. It is unclear if a yarn has zero twist, its twist multiplier is 0, how can the twist multiplier of the Zero Twist fall into the range of 1.0 and 2.4 as in the claim?
Claim 18 recites “the yarn” in line 3. It is unclear which yarn the Applicant wants to refer to as there are plurality of yarns in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011) in view of Troy (US 3625260).
Regarding claim 1, Goenka teaches an improved terry fabric (fig. 3) with selectively composite twist in a pile (para. [0027], [0028]), comprising:
a ground warp yarn (fig. 3, yarn 40) and a ground weft yarn (fig. 3, yarn 42),
the ground weft yarn and ground warp yarn interlace to define a ground of said terry fabric (para. [0018]),
said ground having a top surface and a bottom surface, and pile warp extending from said ground (fig. 3),
said pile warp comprising a plurality of sets of pile yarns (fig. 4, sets 80, 180) with each set having a plurality of pile yarns (fig. 4, yarns 62a, 62b), wherein said plurality of pile yarns form a plurality of adjacent loops above said top surface and then pass through said ground and extend to form a plurality of adjacent loops beneath said bottom surface (fig. 3),
said plurality of pile yarns again pass through said ground and repeat in adjacent loops above said top surface and beneath said bottom surface across a dimension of terry structure (fig. 3), and each immediately adjacent pair of sets of pile yarns is staggered so as to provide a pattern defined by the sets of pile yarns and ground on each of said top and bottom surfaces (fig. 3), wherein each of the plurality of pile yarns comprises a composite twist yarn (fig. 4), wherein the plurality of pile yarns comprises a plurality of composite twist yarns having different twist types (para. [0027], [0028], the first twist multiplier of the first yarn 62a is different from the second twist multiplier of the second yarn 62b) in order to selectively use different combinations of composite twist yarns in the pile (para. [0027], [0028], as the plied yarn can be 2-ply yarn, 3-ply yarn, 4-ply yarn or 5-ply yarn, and the first twist multiplier can be higher or lower than the second twist multiplier, there are different combinations to be selectively used in making the terry fabric. Further, “in order to selectively use of different combinations of twist yarns in the pile” is functional language. A recitation of the functional language of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional language, then it meets the claim).
Goenka does not clearly teach the plurality of composite twist yarns includes at least two composite twist yarns having different twist multiplier.
However, Goenka teaches the plied yarns formed in the yarn formation 210 may be different for the upper and lower pile components 60 and 160, respectively.
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches one or more pile yarns may differ from one or more other pile yarns by amount of twist (col. 4, lines 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Goenka with the teaching that the plurality of composite twist yarns includes at least two composite twist yarns having different twist multiplier as suggested by Troy for the benefit of providing a desired pile tuft pattern (Troy, col. 4, line 1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Goenka-Troy teaches the said terry fabric is made with different weave structures including one of the following: three pick, four pick, five pick, seven pick, eight pick and nine pick terry fabric formed with a dobby or jacquard loom (Goenka, para. [0043]).
It is noted that “ fabric formed with a dobby or jacquard loom” is a product-by-process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure Goenka-Troy teaches said plurality of pile yarns comprising said plurality of composite twist yarns are comprised in a pile warp sheet having at least one of: up to 50% of any yarn twist including Zero Twist having a Twist multiplier in the range of 1.0 to 2.4, a High twist yarn having a Twist multiplier of more than 3.5 or a Low twist yarn having a twist multiplier in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 (Goenka, the first and second yarn counts are between 10Ne and 90Ne (para. [0026]), and the first and second yarns have a twist of about 3.5 twists per inch to about 15 twists per inch (para. [0027]), then the first yarn and/or the second yarn has twist multiplier about 0.36-4.74 (as twist per inch = twist multiplier x √yarn count (Ne)).
Regarding claim 6, “to provide 1/a bulky look, absorbency and soft feel through use of zero twist yarns, 2/durability and low lint generation through use of high twist yarns, and 3/balancing both 1/ and 2/ through use of low twist yarns” is functional language. A recitation of the functional language of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional language, then it meets the claim.
In this case the modified structure Goenka-Troy teaches the same structure as the invention and provides a balance between composite yarns (Goenka, figs. 3-4), then the terry fabric of Goenka is capable of performing the same functional language as in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Goenka-Troy teaches a process of manufacturing an improved terry fabric with selectively composite twist in pile as in claim 1, comprising:
(i) spinning the ground warp yarn, the ground weft yarn and the plurality of pile yarns (Goenka, para. [0005], [0032]);
(ii) weaving the ground warp yarn, the ground weft yarn and the plurality of pile yarns together to form a terry fabric (Goenka, fig. 3, para. [0018]); and
(iii) wet processing the terry fabric (Goenka, para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method Goenka-Troy teaches said plurality of pile yarns comprising said plurality of composite twist yarns has at least one of: 1/up to 50% of any yarn twist including zero twist, 2/a twist multiplier in the range of 1.0 to 2.4, 3/a high twist yarn having a twist multiplier of more than 3.5 or 4/a low twist yarn having a twist multiplier in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 (Goenka, the first and second yarn counts are between 10Ne and 90Ne (para. [0026]), and the first and second yarns have a twist of about 3.5 twists per inch to about 15 twists per inch (para. [0027]), then the first yarn and/or the second yarn has twist multiplier about 0.36-4.74 (as twist per inch = twist multiplier x √yarn count (Ne)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011) and Troy (US 3625260), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mittal (US 2020/0040491).
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure Goenka-Troy teaches the ground warp and ground weft yarns have a range of yarn count 6s Ne to 60s Ne (Goenka, para. [0020], [0021]).
The modified structure Goenka-Troy does not teach the terry fabric having a range from 350 to 900 GSM.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mittal teaches the terry fabric having a range from 350 to 900 GSM (claim 15, para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fabric of the modified structure Goenka-Troy with fabric weight in the range of 350 to 900 GSM as suggested by Mittal for the benefit of making terry towels used in institutional, industrial, and hospitality industries (Mittal, para. [0003]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011) and Troy (US 3625260), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mandawewala (US 2004/0131821).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method Goenka-Troy does not teach dissolution of a soluble fiber or soluble yarn in the terry fabric.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mandawewala teaches dissolution of a soluble fiber or soluble yarn in the terry fabric (abstract, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Goenka-Troy with dissolution of a soluble fiber or soluble yarn in the terry fabric as taught by Mandawewala for the benefit of making towels which produce little or no lint (Mandawewala, abstract).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011) and Troy (US 3625260), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dash (US 2018/0245251)(hereinafter Dash).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method Goenka-Troy does not clearly teach spinning comprises: opening and blending fibers in a specific proportion to form blended fibers and transferring the blended fibers to a chute feed system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dash teaches spinning includes sub-steps: opening and blending of the different fibers in specific proportion send to next machine by a chute feed system (para. [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Goenka-Troy with sub-steps of Dash for the benefit of manufacturing a fabric from blended fibers which has a pleasing appearance, and is comfortable to wear (Dash, abstract).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash does not teach carding the blended fibers to clean all impurities and neps from the blended fibers and forming a sliver.
However, Dash teaches carding the blended fibers to clean all impurities and neps from the blended fibers and forming a sliver (para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash with sub-steps of Dash for the benefit of manufacturing a fabric from blended fibers which has a pleasing appearance, and is comfortable to wear (Dash, abstract).
Regarding claim 13, the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash does not teach drawing blended fibers in the sliver, via a draw frame, to arrange the blended fibers in parallel and removing thick-thin places and hooks.
However, Dash teaches drawing blended fibers in the sliver, via a draw frame, to arrange the blended fibers in parallel and removing thick-thin places and hooks (para. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash with sub-steps of Dash for the benefit of manufacturing a fabric from blended fibers which has a pleasing appearance, and is comfortable to wear (Dash, abstract).
Regarding claim 14, the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash teaches combing the sliver to remove short fibers (Goenka, para. [0032]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011), Troy (US 3625260) and Dash (US 2018/0245251), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 2014/0308865).
Regarding claim 15, the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash does not clearly teach drawing remaining fibers in the sliver, via a draw frame, to arrange the remaining fibers in parallel and removing thick-thin and hooks.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kumar teaches drawing remaining fibers in the sliver, via a draw frame, to arrange the remaining fibers in parallel and removing thick-thin and hooks (para. [0056], [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash with a finisher drawing frame as taught by Kumar for the benefit of reducing the mass/length variation in a sliver at a minimal level and orienting the fiber along the length direction (Kumar, para. [0056]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash-Kumar does not teach speed framing the sliver to form a roving.
However, Dash teaches speed framing the sliver to form a roving (para. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash-Kumar with sub-steps of Dash for the benefit of manufacturing a fabric from blended fibers which has a pleasing appearance, and is comfortable to wear (Dash, abstract).
Regarding claim 17, the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash-Kumar does not teach ring framing the roving to form a yarn through twisting by imparting a draft into the roving.
However, Dash teaches ring framing the roving to make a yarn through twisting by imparting draft into the roving (para. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash-Kumar with sub-steps of Dash for the benefit of manufacturing a fabric from blended fibers which has a pleasing appearance, and is comfortable to wear (Dash, abstract).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011), Troy (US 3625260), Dash (US 2018/0245251) and Kumar (US 2014/0308865), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Dash (US 2019/0249342)(hereinafter Dash’342).
Regarding claim 18, the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash-Kumar teaches
winding the yarns to make a yarn package (Goenka, fig. 6, para. [0036]);
parallel winding two yarns to make a plied yarn (Goenka, para. [0036]); and
twisting the plied to impart a required selective twist into the yarn (Goenka, figs. 4-5).
The modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash-Kumar does not teach steaming the yarns to remove the snarling and making the yarn relax and stable.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dash’342 teaches steaming the yarns to remove the snarling and making the yarn relax and stable (para. [0011], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash-Kumar with steaming the yarns as taught by Dash’342 for the benefit of removing a snarling thereby eliminating any tendency for undesirable torque in the yarns (Dash’342, para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 19, the modified method Goenka-Troy-Dash-Kumar teaches weaving comprises warping the ground warp yarn, the ground weft yarn and the plurality of pile yarns to form a warp sheet for a loom (Goenka, fig. 3, para. [0037]); and sizing the warp sheet to enhance the weavability (Goenka, para. [0036]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011) and Troy (US 3625260), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sachdev (US 2012/0309077).
Regarding claim 20, the modified method Goenka-Troy teaches de-sizing the terry fabric to remove size material (Goenka, para. [0045]); scouring or bleaching to remove natural impurities and natural color (Goenka, para. [0045]); dying to color the fabric (Goenka, para. [0045]).
The modified method Goenka-Troy does not teach bio-polishing the terry fabric to remove protruding fibers from yarns by using a cellulose enzyme to give luster and improve piling.
However, in the same field of dyeing and processing a natural textile product, Sachdev teaches bio-polishing the fabric to remove protruding fibers from the yarns by using a cellulose enzyme (para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Goenka-Troy with bio-polishing by using a cellulose enzyme as taught by Sachdev for the benefit of retaining the colors firmly in the fibers for a much longer period of usage (Sachdev, para. [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 05/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 05/29/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
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 UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights