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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shytles et al. (US 5,265,445).
As seen below in annotated figure 1, Shytles teaches the knitted non-seamed fabric as claimed including a cool portion (relative to the warm portion); a warm portion (relative to the cool portion); wherein the cool portion and the warm portion are knit; and wherein the warm portion further comprises at least one set of in-laid yarns (130, 140) such that the warm portion has more in-laid yarns compared to the cool portion. The preamble recitation of intended use as a ”sheeting material” fails to provide any specific structure. Shytles is capable of being used as a “sheeting material” if so desired. Regarding claim 16, the warm portion comprises at least two sets of in-laid yarns as seen in annotated figure 1 at least at wale (d). Regarding claim 17, the warm portion comprises at least three sets of in-laid yarns as seen in annotated figure 1 at least at wale (d). Regarding claim 18, the warm portion comprises at least four sets of in-laid yarns as seen in annotated figure 1 at least at wale (d). Regarding claim 19, the cool portion is warp knit. Regarding claim 20, the warm portion is a raschel knit. Regarding claim 21, the fabric is a warp knit. Regarding claim 23, the fabric is a raschel knit. Regarding claim 24, the fabric is capable of being used as a bed sheet at least insofar as claimed since no specific bed sheet structure has been recited.
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shytles et al. (US 5,265,445) in view of Jackson (US 3,864,944).
Shytles teaches the invention substantially as claimed except Shytles is not set forth as being a warp double-knit. Jackson teaches laid in warp knits are known to be made as double-knit fabrics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to provide the laid-in warp knit of Shytles as a warp double-knit as known by Jackson for the purpose of providing a double thick fabric thus increasing the cushioning and thermal barrier of the knit fabric.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shytles et al. (US 5,265,445) in view of Foxman (US 4,847,133).
Shytles teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a brushed, sueded or sheared fabric. Foxman teaches a warp knit fabric which includes a brushed finishing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to provide the warp knit fabric with a brushed finish for the purpose of providing an improved thermal barrier and a soft fabric feel as set forth by Foxman in the abstract.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shytles et al. (US 5,265,445).
Shytles teaches the invention substantially as claimed including reinforced yarns (110) which form the common course and wale yarn at connection points between the warm and cool portions. However the reinforcement yarn is not specifically set forth as a polyester yarn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from different yarn materials including polyester for the purpose of providing the fabric with the well-known properties of polyester including durability and strength.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant is reminded that all business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. 37 C.F.R. 1.2
Further it is noted that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111, including:
-The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.
-A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
-Moreover, The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06, MPEP 714.02. The "disclosure" includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY WORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4997. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANNY WORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732