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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/13/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that firstly, “the special technical feature common to claims 1 and 2 is the fit between yarn fineness and contexture taken as a whole, not the individual ranges” (Remarks, page 5). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The analysis for Unity of Invention requires determining first, whether the groups share a same or corresponding technical feature, and second, whether that same or corresponding technical feature is a special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art. Claims 1 and 2 included various ranges for different parameters, some of which overlapped. Therefore, the features which they share (same or corresponding technical feature) are the overlapping portions of the ranges, even if the particular ranges obtained by the overlap of the claimed ranges were not explicitly claimed. The warp yarn density was not included in the shared technical feature analysis because the ranges recited in claims 1 and 2 were mutually exclusive, therefore the claims do not share a same or corresponding technical feature for their claimed ranges of warp yarn density. Further, even if all four claimed ranges in each claim were to be “taken as a whole” as Applicant appears to argue, then the fact that the warp density ranges do not overlap and the ranges for all other values are different would mean that the claims “as a whole” do not share a same or corresponding technical feature at all, which would still result in the claims lacking unity of invention, albeit for a different reason than the one presented in the Office action of 6/16/2026. Claims that do not share a same or corresponding technical feature also lack unity of invention. Applicant’s remarks regarding loom configurations are not commensurate with the claims, which do not recite any limitations regarding loom configuration. The claims are to a woven piece of material (label) with various ranges of warp density, warp fineness, weft density, and weft fineness. Applicant argues that “both groups also achieve the same effect by the same mechanism, which is what makes their technical features ‘corresponding’” (Remarks, page 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. For unity of invention analysis, any corresponding technical features are determined by what is recited in the claims.
Further, Applicant argues that Jiang does not teach a “woven 2D code” (Remarks, page7). In response, Examiner notes that the claim does not currently recite that the 2D code is woven and there is no claimed structure to support such a narrow interpretation. The claim recites “a Jacquard woven label comprising a two-dimensional code”. A label that is woven and has a printed two-dimensional code on the label satisfies the claim as written. Applicant also states that Jiang shows “printed word marks, but they do not show any two-dimensional code(s)” (Remarks, page 8). In response, Examiner notes that the claim has not specified any details about what the “two-dimensional code” is, and dependent claims support that words or letters (alphanumeric string) are suitable identifiers, so words or letters are understood to meet the claimed limitations as written. Applicant’s arguments regarding the warp density and fineness in Bassi are not commensurate with the rejection because Bassi was not relied upon to teach those limitations, as they were already met by Jiang. Applicant’s arguments regarding Bassi teaching weft density per color with at least two colors is also not commensurate with the rejection because the rejection did not propose using multiple colors, and Bassi was merely relied upon to teach a range of weft density/fineness that is suitable for labels.
Applicant argues that “Jiang’s worked examples are in any event outside claim 1” (Remarks, page 8). Examiner acknowledges that there are examples that have varying recitations for weft density and weft fineness; however, Jiang clearly states overall ranges that overlap with the claimed ranges, as recited in the Office action mailed 6/16/2026, therefore establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, which Applicant has not separately addressed.
Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Jiang with Bassi because they have different inventive concepts or solve different problems, which Examiner has interpreted as an argument that Jiang and Bassi teach nonanalogous art to each other. In response, Examiner notes that the test for analogous art compares each prior art reference to the instant application, not the prior art references to each other. Nonetheless, Jiang and Bassi teach woven labels, which makes them both analogous art to the instant application in the field of woven labels. Applicant states “the combination proposed in the Office action requires Jiang’s own teaching to be reversed” (Remarks, page 8) which has been interpreted as an argument that Jiang teaches away from the modification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2143.01 states, “The court stated that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." Id.”. In the instant case, Jiang does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage using alternative values for the weft density/fineness, such as the ones as taught by Bassi. Examiner maintains that the claims are obvious over the prior art and the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, 9-11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1, 3-8 are presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/20/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information that has been struck-through therein has not been considered. In the instant case, no copies of the original foreign patent documents have been provided. Only what appear to be machine translations of the descriptions of CN 106023792 and CN 106283349 appear to have been provided, but no copy of the original documents were provided for either of those references, nor has any document been provided for JP 2009161884 or WO 2018/015874.
The Non-Patent Literal description is not sufficient because it does not contain sufficient information regarding the application for which the Internation Search Report was conducted. That is the NPL merely states “International Search Report dated March 19, 2024”. The Examiner cannot be certain the ISR submitted in the IDS is the correct ISR because additional details of the ISR (the application number of the international application) are missing.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 is a photograph of a view that is capable of being illustrated as a line drawing. See 37 CFR 1.84(b) which states “Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. […] If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph.” A photograph is not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention, therefore the figure should be illustrated as a line drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4-6, 8 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the identifier is a unique identifier”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what would be considered a “unique identifier”. The instant specification describes that “within the same manufacturing batch of labels, not all have the same code” and “several labels (1) have an identical code (2) corresponding to a family of articles” (paragraph 58) and “several labels (1) possibly having the same identifier” (paragraph 64). If batches of labels are created where multiple labels have the same code/identifier (for example, as described in the instant specification, when used to identify a family of articles), would that code still be considered “unique” even though it is present on multiple labels?
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “preferably composed of eight characters”. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “preferably selected from within a predetermined list”. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “floats of the stitch yarns located on the back of the label are interlaced at the level of floats of weft yarns located on the front of the label in accordance with a rhythm equal to or a divider of the rhythm of the weave of the weft yarns”. This limitation is unclear because the wording is confusing. The phrase “interlaced at the level of floats of weft yarns” is confusing because it is not clear what the floats of the stitch yarns are interlaced with, and it is also not clear what the “level of floats of weft yarns” is referring to. The phrase “a rhythm equal to or a divider of the rhythm of the weave of the weft yarns” is confusing because it is unclear what a “rhythm” is in reference to a weave. As best understood by examiner, this is supposed to be referring to a weave repeat or pattern, but it is unclear what a “equal to or a divider of” means when referring to a weave pattern in general. For the purposes of examination, the weave structure shown in, for example, figures 7, 8, or 9, will be used as a reference for how this claim appears to be describing/claiming a stitch yarn should be interlaced with the warp yarn at a location where the ground yarn is also lifted above the warp yarn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 106023792 A), a machine translation of which was provided with Office action mailed 6/16/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses: A Jacquard woven label comprising a two-dimensional code, termed a 2D code, encoding an identifier (“the label is an accessory that is sewn and pasted on the product. It can express the name, LOGO, and connotation of the product, and can also represent the size, origin, composition, and description of the product” page 1, paragraph 5; the label has a 2D code, such as written words or letters, that represents identifying information like a name or logo therefore it is considered an identifier; Examiner further notes that the 2D code is considered to be indicia, as the claim does not include any structural or functional relationship between the 2D code and the label; Examiner notes that the 2D code/identifier in this case will be considered to be a 25mm2 area on the label as shown in figure 2 of Jiang; see page 1, paragraph 11 where it states the label is woven; Examiner notes that the specific method of weaving being Jacquard weaving is a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP § 2113).), wherein: the warp yarn density of the label is comprised between 38 and 70 yarns per cm (“warp yarns have a density of from 135 to 155 per inch” page 2, paragraph 12; Examiner notes that 135-155 yarns/in equals 53-61 yarns/cm, which is fully within the claimed range); the warp yarns of the label have a fineness comprised between 50 and 110 dtex (“warp and weft yarns in the bottom belt are both 50D to 100D polyester yarns” page 2, paragraph 11; Examiner notes that 50-100D equals 56-111 dtex, which overlaps the claimed range; see MPEP 2144.05 which states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”); the weft yarn density of the label is comprised between 65 and 125 yarns per cm (“weft yarns have a density of from 100 to 165 per inch” page 2, paragraph 12; Examiner notes that 100-165 yarns/in equals 39-65 yarns/cm, which overlaps the claimed range at the endpoint; see MPEP 2144.05 which states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”); the weft yarns of the label have a fineness comprised between 20 and 65 dtex (“warp and weft yarns in the bottom belt are both 50D to 100D polyester yarns” page 2, paragraph 11; Examiner notes that 50-100D equals 56-111 dtex, which overlaps the claimed range; see MPEP 2144.05 which states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang discloses: The Jacquard woven label as claimed in claim 1, wherein the code comprises an alphanumeric string comprising between 30 and 45 characters (The 2D code as claimed is considered indicia, as the claim does not include any functional relationship between the 2D code and the label; It is also noted that claimed limitation to ornamentation only which have no functional relationship to the product will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.05). See also In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir 1983) (“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability”); therefore, the specific requirement for the 2D code having an alphanumeric string between 30-45 characters does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood by Examiner, Jiang discloses: The Jacquard woven label as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identifier is a unique identifier (see figure 2; the 2D code of Jiang is considered to be a “unique identifier” insofar as understood because a logo is a unique symbol that represents a specific company).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood by Examiner, Jiang discloses: The Jacquard woven label as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identifier comprises an alphanumeric string, preferably composed of eight characters (see figure 2; the 2D code of Jiang has an alphanumeric string; It is also noted that the 2D code as claimed is considered indicia, as the claim does not include any functional relationship between the 2D code and the label, and a claimed limitation to ornamentation only which have no functional relationship to the product will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.05). See also In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir 1983) (“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability”); therefore, the specific requirement for the 2D code having an alphanumeric string does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood by Examiner, Jiang discloses: The Jacquard woven label as claimed in claim 5, wherein the alphanumeric string simultaneously comprises numbers and letters, preferably selected from within a predetermined list (see figure 2; the 2D code of Jiang has an alphanumeric string; It is also noted that the 2D code as claimed is considered indicia, as the claim does not include any functional relationship between the 2D code and the label, and a claimed limitation to ornamentation only which have no functional relationship to the product will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.05). See also In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir 1983) (“Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability”); therefore, the specific requirement for the 2D code having an alphanumeric string with both numbers and letters does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang discloses: The Jacquard woven label as claimed in claim 1, wherein the 2D code has dimensions comprised between 9 and 25 mm (as described in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, the 2D code’s dimensions were defined as a 25 mm2 area on the label, so it has a dimension of 25 mm).
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 106283349 A) (hereinafter “Jiang ‘349”), a machine translation of which is provided with this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang ‘349 discloses: A Jacquard woven label (“Woven label”, title; Examiner notes that the specific method of weaving being Jacquard weaving is a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP § 2113).) comprising a two-dimensional code, termed a 2D code, encoding an identifier (see figure 8, showing that there is a symbol and words on the label, which constitutes a “two-dimensional code” and an identifier insofar as claimed; Examiner further notes that the 2D code is considered to be indicia, as the claim does not include any structural or functional relationship between the 2D code and the label), wherein: the warp yarn density of the label is comprised between 38 and 70 yarns per cm (“the fabric has a warp density of 140-152 threads/inch” page 2, line 9; Examiner notes that 140-152 threads/inch equals 55-60 threads/cm, which is fully within the claimed range); the warp yarns of the label have a fineness comprised between 50 and 110 dtex (“a warp yarn thickness of 50D-100D” page 2, lines 9-10; Examiner notes that 50-100D equals 56-111 dtex, which overlaps the claimed range; see MPEP 2144.05 which states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”); the weft yarn density of the label is comprised between 65 and 125 yarns per cm (“a weft density of 112-180 threads/inch” page 2, line 9; Examiner notes that 112-180 threads/inch equals 44-71 threads/cm, which overlaps the claimed range; see MPEP 2144.05 which states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”); the weft yarns of the label have a fineness comprised between 20 and 65 dtex (“a weft yarn thickness of 50D-150D” page 2, line 10; Examiner notes that 50-150D equals 56-167 dtex, which overlaps the claimed range; see MPEP 2144.05 which states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood by Examiner, Jiang ‘349 discloses: The Jacquard woven label as claimed in claim 1, wherein the weft yarns comprise ground yarns (1) and stitch yarns (3), and floats of the stitch yarns located on the back of the label are interlaced at the level of floats of weft yarns located on the front of the label in accordance with a rhythm equal to or a divider of the rhythm of the weave of the weft yarns, in order to increase the rigidity of the label (see figure 10 of Jiang ‘349 below, which shows a similar weave construction as shown in figure 7 of the instant application, also copied below; there is an interlacing of the float of the yarn (3) at point (5) at the level of floats of weft yarns located on the front of the label in accordance with a rhythm equal to or a divider of the rhythm of the weave of the weft yarns insofar as can be understood, and it is understood that since the structure of Jiang ‘349 meets all claimed limitations, it also meets the function of increasing the rigidity of the label).
PNG
media_image1.png
157
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 10 of Jiang ‘349
PNG
media_image2.png
443
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of instant application
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lau (US 2017/0037546), Wang (US 11120319), Montorfano (US 2018/0057975) teach relevant woven labels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights