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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 , 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 3, “warp yarn” is read as “ground warp yarn”.
In claim 4, line 5, “more then” is read as “more than”.
In claim 7, line 1, “the process of manufacturing …” is read as “a process of manufacturing…”.
In claim 8, line 2, “the said pile yarns contains” is read as “said pile yarns contain”.
In claim 9, line 5, “more then” is read as “more than”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 recites “said pile yarns” in line 8 and line 11 while there are a plurality of pile yarns, it is unclear which pile yarns the Applicant wants to refer to. For the purpose of applying art, “said pile yarns” in line 8 and line 11 are interpreted as said plurality of pile yarns.
Claim 1 recites “the sets of pile yarns” in line 14 while there are a plurality of sets of pile yarns. It is unclear which sets of pile yarns the Applicant wants to refer to. For the purpose of applying art, “the sets of pile yarns” is interpreted as the plurality of sets of pile yarns.
Claim 1 recites “the pile warp yarns” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a composite twist yarns” in line 15. It is unclear there is a composite twist yarn or there are composite twist yarns.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the pile warp yarns have a composite twist yarns each having different type of twist”. It is unclear each twist yarns of the composite yarn has a different type of twist or each composite yarn having different type of twist. For the purpose of applying art, it is interpreted that each twist yarns of the composite yarn has a different type of twist.
Claim 2 recites “said warp and weft yarns” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear the Applicant wants to mention the ground weft yarn and ground warp yarn or the Applicant wants to mention the ground weft yarn, ground warp yarn and pile warp yarn? For the purpose of applying art, the limitation is interpreted as the ground weft yarn and ground warp yarn.
Claim 4 recites “the said pile yarn” in line 2. It is unclear which pile yarn the Applicant wants to refer to as there are a plurality of pile yarns in claim 1.
Claims 4 and 8 recite “…at least within the range of 25% to 50% by number of high twist yarns…”. It is unclear if the prior art has a number of high twist yarns which is equal or greater than 50% , does the prior art satisfy with the claim range or not.
Claims 4 and 8 recite “…at least within the range of 0 to 33% by number of low twist yarn..”. It is unclear if the prior art has a number of low twist yarns which is equal or greater than 33% , does the prior art satisfy with the claim range or not. Further, is “0%” included in the claim range? Or if the prior art has 0% by number of low twist yarn, does the prior art satisfy with the claim?
Claim 5 recites “in another preferred embodiment” in line 2, and “the said pile yarn preferably contains…”. It is unclear the limitations following the term “preferred”/ “preferably” are required by the claim or not.
Claim 5 recites “the said pile yarn” in line 2. It is unclear which pile yarn the Applicant wants to refer to as there are a plurality of pile yarns in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “an optimized balance”. The term “optimized” is a subjective term. The claim is held indefinite because the balance may be "optimized" to one person but not to another.
Claim 6 recites “the zero twist yarns” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the high twist yarns” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the warp, weft and pile yarns” in lines 3, 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the different fibers” in line 7. It is unclear which different fibers the Applicant wants to refer to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the impurities” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the fibers” in line 11. It is unclear which fibers the Applicant wants to mention. Is “the fibers” the same or different from “the different fibers” in line 7?
Claim 7 recites “remove thick-thin places and hooks” in lines 12 and 15. It is unclear how to define “thick-thin” and how the fibers have thick-thin places and hooks?
Claim 7 recites “the yarns” in line 19. It is unclear which yarns the Applicant wants to refer to, are they warp yarns, weft yarns or pile yarns?
Claim 7 recites “the snarling” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the weavability” in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “size material” in line 30. It is unclear which is size material? Are yarns considered to be size material? Or which structure of the terry fabric is considered to be size material?
Claim 7 recites “optionally printing the terry fabric” in line 34. It is unclear the limitations following the term “optionally” is required by the claim or not. For the purpose of applying art, printing the terry fabric is not required by the claim.
Claim 7 recites “optimized” in line 40. The term “optimized” is a subjective term. The claim is held indefinite because the balance may be "optimized" to one person but not to another.
Claim 7 recites “to achieve requisite attributes of end user”. It is unclear how selective use of different combination of twist in yarns in the pile with different recurrence would lead to achieving requisite attributes of end user.
Claim 9 recites “the said pile yarn” in line 2. It is unclear which pile yarn the Applicant wants to refer to as there are a plurality of pile yarns in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “optionally” in line 2. It is unclear the limitations following the term “optionally” is required by the claim or not. For the purpose of applying art, the limitations following the term “optionally” is not required by the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the dissolution” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goenka (US 2019/0257011).
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 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 of pile yarns having a plurality of pile yarns (fig. 4, yarns 62a, 62b), wherein said pile yarns of each sets 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 pile yarns of each set 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 yarns is staggered so as to provide a pattern defined by the sets of pile yarns and ground on each if said top and bottom surfaces (fig. 3), wherein the pile warp yarns have a composite twist yarns (fig. 4) each having different type of twist (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 of different combinations of 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).
Regarding claim 3, Goenka 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 (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, Goenka teaches the said pile yarn contains composite twist as pile warp sheet having high twist yarn having twist multiplier more than 3.5 and/or low twist yarn having twist multiplier in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 (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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mittal (US 2020/0040491).
Regarding claim 2, Goenka teaches the warp and weft yarns have a range of yarn count 6s Ne to 60s Ne (para. [0020], [0021]).
Goenka 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 Goenka 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]).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011).
Regarding claim 4, Goenka does not explicitly teach the said pile yarn contains composite twist having at least 50% by number of zero twist yarns having a twist multiplier in the range of 1.0 to 2.4, at least within the range of 2.5% to 50% by number of high twist yarns having a twist multiplier more than 3.5, and at least within the range of 0 to 33% by number of low twist yarn having twist multiplier in the range of 2.5 to 3.5.
However, Goenka teaches each pile yarn (80, 180) has one first yarn (62a) and one second yarn (62b), wherein 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have one first yarn of the pile yarns (50% of the pile yarns) being zero twist yarns which have a twist multiplier in the range of 1.0 to 2.4 and the second yarn of the pile yarn (50% of the pile yarns) being high twist yarns which have a twist multiplier more than 3.5 for the benefit of combining different yarn characteristics in making composite plied yarn (Goenka, para. [0024], [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, “to provide 1/a bulky look, absorbency and soft feel through use of the zero twist yarns, 2/durability and low lint generation through the use of high twist yarns, and 3/balancing the 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 Goenka teaches the same structure as the invention (fig. 3, and para. [0027], [0028]), then the terry fabric of Goenka is capable of performing the same functional language as in the claim.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goenka (US 2019/0257011) and Mittal (US 2020/0040491), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dash (US 2018/0245251)(hereinafter Dash), Kumar (US 2014/0308865), Mandawewala (US 2004/0131821), Dash (US 2019/0249342)(hereinafter Dash’342) and Sachdev (US 2012/0309077).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method Goenka-Mittal teaches the process of manufacturing an improved terry fabric with selectively composite twist in pile as in claim 2, comprising:
(i) spinning the warp, weft and pile yarns (Goenka, para. [0005], [0032]);
(ii) weaving the warp, weft and pile yarns together to form a terry fabric (Goenka, fig. 3, para. [0018]); and
(iii) wet processing the terry fabric (Goenka, para. [0045]),
wherein spinning further includes following sub-steps:
[i] opening (Goenka, para. [0032]);
[ii] carding (Goenka, para. [0032]);
[iii] drawings (Goenka, para. [0032]); [iv] combining the sliver to remove short fibers(Goenka, para. [0032]);
[viii] winding (Goenka, fig. 6, para. [0036]) the yarns to make a yarn package;
[x] parallel winding (Goenka, para. [0036]) two yarns to make a plied yarn; and
[xi] twisting (Goenka, figs. 4-5) the plied to impart a required selective twist into the yarn,
wherein the weaving step includes:
[i] warping (Goenka, fig. 3, para. [0037]) to make warp sheet for a loom; and
[ii] sizing (Goenka, para. [0036]) the warp sheet to enhance the weavability,
wherein wet processing step includes:
[ii] de-sizing (Goenka, para. [0045]) the terry fabric to remove size material;
[iii] scouring or bleaching (Goenka, para. [0045]) to remove natural impurities and natural color;
[iv] dying to color the fabric (Goenka, para. [0045]);
[v] optionally printing the terry fabric (Goenka, para. [0045]);
wherein the pile warp yarns have composite twist yarns having different types of twist (Goenka, para. [0027]) in an optimized manner through selective use of different combination of twist in yarns in the pile (Goenka, para. [0027]) with different recurrence (Goenka, fig. 3) to achieve requisite attributes of end user.
Goenka does not clearly teach specific steps of spinning and wet processing the fabric.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dash teaches spinning includes sub-steps: [i] opening and blending of the different fibers in specific proportion send to next machine by a chute feed system (para. [0064]); [ii] carding to cleaning all the impurities, neps from the fibers to output a sliver (para. [0065]); [iii] drawings, via a draw frame, to draft and make the fibers in the sliver more parallel and remove thick-thin places and hooks (para. [0066]); [vi] speed framing the sliver to make a roving (para. [0067]); [vii] ring framing the roving to make a yarn through twisting by imparting draft into the roving (para. [0068]); [viii] winding the yarns to make a yarn package (para. [0069]); [vii] stentering the terry fabric (para. [0094], [0096]).
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-Mittal 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).
The modified method Goenka-Mittal-Dash does not clearly teach [v] drawing, via a finisher drawing frame, to do draft and make fibers drafting more parallel and remove thick-thin places and hooks.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kumar teaches [v] drawing, via a finisher drawing frame, to do draft and make fibers drafting more parallel and remove thick-thin places 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-Mittal-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]).
The modified method Goenka-Mittal-Dash-Kumar does not teach [vi] air beating the terry fabric to make the pile open and provide a mechanically soft finish.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mandawewala teaches air beating the terry fabric to make the pile open and provide a mechanically soft finish (para. [0070]).
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-Mittal-Dash-Kumar with air beating as taught by Mandawewala for the benefit of properly lifting the pile (Mandawewala, para. [0070]).
The modified method Goenka-Mittal-Dash-Kumar-Mandawewala does not teach [ix] 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-Mittal-Dash-Kumar-Mandawewala 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]).
The modified method Goenka-Mittal-Dash-Kumar-Mandawewala-Dash’342 does not teach [i] bio-polishing the terry fabric to remove protruding fibers from the 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-Mittal-Dash-Kumar-Mandawewala-Dash’342 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]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method Goenka-Mittal-Dash-Kumar-Mandawewala-Dash’342-Sachdev does not explicitly teach the said pile yarn contains composite twist having at least 50% by number of zero twist yarns having a twist multiplier in the range of 1.0 to 2.4, at least within the range of 2.5% to 50% by number of high twist yarns having a twist multiplier more than 3.5, and at least within the range of 0 to 33% by number of low twist yarn having twist multiplier in the range of 2.5 to 3.5.
However, Goenka teaches each pile yarn (80, 180) has one first yarn (62a) and one second yarn (62b), wherein 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention combine the modified method Goenka-Mittal-Dash-Kumar-Mandawewala-Dash’342-Sachdev with having one first yarn of the pile yarns (50% of the pile yarns) being zero twist yarns which have a twist multiplier in the range of 1.0 to 2.4 and the second yarn of the pile yarn (50% of the pile yarns) being high twist yarns which have a twist multiplier more than 3.5 as suggested by Goenka for the benefit of combining different yarn characteristics in making composite plied yarn (Goenka, para. [0024], [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method Goenka-Mittal-Dash-Kumar-Mandawewala-Dash’342-Sachdev teaches the said pile yarn contains composite twist having high twist yarn having twist multiplier more than 3.5 and/or low twist yarn having 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 10, the modified method Goenka-Mittal-Dash-Kumar-Mandawewala-Dash’342-Sachdev does not teach dissolution of a soluble fiber or soluble yarn in the terry fabric.
However, 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-Mittal-Dash-Kumar-Mandawewala-Dash’342-Sachdev 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 7:30 AM-4:30 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3732