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 .
Claims 1-16 are being treated on the merits.
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 1-16 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.
The terms “arched gauze”, “surface layer gauze”, “fuzzing device of a towel loom” in the claims are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “arched gauze”, “surface layer gauze”, “fuzzing device of a towel loom” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The terms “short beat up” and “long beat up” in the claims are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “short beat up” and “long beat up” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann (USPN 1,795,156) in view of Qin (CN 107268159).
Regarding Claim 1, Zimmermann discloses a weaving method for a fluffy, soft, and low-hairiness three-dimensional fabric (Figures 1 & 2, Page. 1, lines 1-15), comprising: in a process of fabric structure design, initially interweaving first ground warps (1/2, upper), pile warps (6/7/8) with first weft yarns (3, upper) and second weft yarns (4/5) over several picks, and forming a surface layer gauze (“upper ground weave”, Page 1, lines 83-96) and a middle layer arched gauze through a fuzzing device of a towel loom (Figures 1 & 2, Page 2, lines 63-75), while second ground warps (1/2, bottom) are not interwoven with the first weft yarns and the second weft yarns, but form a part of a bottom layer gauze (“lower ground weave”, Page 1, lines 83-96) in a form of warp floats (Figures 1 & 2); subsequently interweaving the pile warps (6/7/8) and the second ground warps (1/2, bottom) with the second weft yarns (4/5) and third weft yarns (3, bottom) over several picks, and forming the middle layer arched gauze and the bottom layer gauze through the fuzzing device of the towel loom (Figures 1 & 2, Page 2, lines 63-75); cyclically repeating above steps to weave the fluffy, soft, and low-hairiness three-dimensional fabric (Page. 2, lines 5-75). Zimmerman does not specifically disclose while the first ground warps are not interwoven with the second weft yarns and the third weft yarns, but form a part of the surface layer gauze in the form of warp floats. However, Qin discloses while the first ground warps are not interwoven with the second weft yarns and the third weft yarns, but form a part of the surface layer gauze in the form of warp floats (Page 2, line 42-Page 3, line 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include weft not interwoven with ground warps to form part of surface layer gauze in the form of warp floats, as taught by Qin, to the weave of Zimmerman, in order to provide thick and soft fabric.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin disclose the first ground warps and the pile warps are interwoven with the first weft yarns and the second weft yarns (Zimmerman, Figures 1 & 2 & Qin, Page 2, line 42-Page 3, line 53), the pile warps and the second ground warps are interwoven with the second weft yarns and the third weft yarns (Zimmerman, Figures 1 & 2 & Qin, Page 2, line 42-Page 3, line 53). The combination does not specifically disclose ground warps interwoven with weft yarns of 6 to 12 picks. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin disclose a number of the second weft yarns interwoven with the pile warps is 2 to 8 (Zimmerman, Figures 1 & 2 & Qin, Page 2, line 42-Page 3, line 53).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin disclose fuzzing device (Figures 1 & 2, Page 2, lines 63-75). The combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose during formation of the surface layer gauze and the middle layer arched gauze through the fuzzing device of the towel loom, a number of the first weft yarns interwoven with the first ground warps of a surface layer is 4; and during formation of the middle layer arched gauze and the bottom layer gauze through the fuzzing device of the towel loom, a number of the third weft yarns interwoven with the second ground warps of a bottom layer is 4. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62) while Qin disclose various specific ranges of specific woven structures (Pages, 2, 3 & 4). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of interwoven warps with weft yarns in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of interwoven warps with weft yarns involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose a process of weaving the surface layer gauze and the middle layer arched gauze, 1st and 2nd picks of the first weft yarns interwoven with the first ground warps and all picks of the second weft yarns interlaced with the pile warps of a middle layer adopt short beating-up with evenly increasing weft insertion distance, 3rd pick of the first weft yarns interwoven with the first ground warps adopts long beating-up, 4th pick of the first weft yarns interwoven with the first ground warps adopts plain weave beating-up. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62) while Qin disclose various specific ranges of specific woven structures (Pages, 2, 3 & 4). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns and various beating-up in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose a process of weaving the middle layer arched gauze and the bottom layer gauze, 1st and 2nd picks of the third weft yarns interwoven with the second ground warps and all picks of the second weft yarns interwoven with the pile warps of a middle layer adopt short beating-up with evenly increasing weft insertion distance, 3rd pick of the third weft yarns interwoven with the second ground warps adopts long beating-up, 4th pick of the third weft yarns interwoven with the second ground warps adopts plain weave beating-up. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62) while Qin disclose various specific ranges of specific woven structures (Pages, 2, 3 & 4). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns and various beating-up in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns and beatin-up involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose a weft insertion distance of a long beating-up for weaving the surface layer gauze and the middle layer arched gauze can be the same as or different from a weft insertion distance of a long beating-up for weaving the middle layer arched gauze and the bottom layer gauze. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62) while Qin disclose various specific ranges of specific woven structures (Pages, 2, 3 & 4). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of beating-up in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of beating-up involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose the second weft yarns in the middle layer arched gauze can be water-soluble yarns or alkali-soluble yarns in whole or in part. It, however, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the weft yarn as claimed, since it is well 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using water-soluble or alkali-soluble yarns would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin disclose a weaving method according to Claim 1 (Zimmerman, Figures 1 & 2 & Qin, Page 2, line 42-Page 3, line 53)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin disclose the first ground warps and the pile warps are interwoven with the first weft yarns and the second weft yarns (Zimmerman, Figures 1 & 2 & Qin, Page 2, line 42-Page 3, line 53), the pile warps and the second ground warps are interwoven with the second weft yarns and the third weft yarns (Zimmerman, Figures 1 & 2 & Qin, Page 2, line 42-Page 3, line 53). The combination does not specifically disclose ground warps interwoven with weft yarns of 6 to 12 picks. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin disclose a number of the second weft yarns interwoven with the pile warps is 2 to 8 (Zimmerman, Figures 1 & 2 & Qin, Page 2, line 42-Page 3, line 53).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin disclose fuzzing device (Figures 1 & 2, Page 2, lines 63-75). The combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose during formation of the surface layer gauze and the middle layer arched gauze through the fuzzing device of the towel loom, a number of the first weft yarns interwoven with the first ground warps of a surface layer is 4; and during formation of the middle layer arched gauze and the bottom layer gauze through the fuzzing device of the towel loom, a number of the third weft yarns interwoven with the second ground warps of a bottom layer is 4. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62) while Qin disclose various specific ranges of specific woven structures (Pages, 2, 3 & 4). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of interwoven warps with weft yarns in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of interwoven warps with weft yarns involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose a process of weaving the surface layer gauze and the middle layer arched gauze, 1st and 2nd picks of the first weft yarns interwoven with the first ground warps and all picks of the second weft yarns interlaced with the pile warps of a middle layer adopt short beating-up with evenly increasing weft insertion distance, 3rd pick of the first weft yarns interwoven with the first ground warps adopts long beating-up, 4th pick of the first weft yarns interwoven with the first ground warps adopts plain weave beating-up. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62) while Qin disclose various specific ranges of specific woven structures (Pages, 2, 3 & 4). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns and various beating-up in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose a process of weaving the middle layer arched gauze and the bottom layer gauze, 1st and 2nd picks of the third weft yarns interwoven with the second ground warps and all picks of the second weft yarns interwoven with the pile warps of a middle layer adopt short beating-up with evenly increasing weft insertion distance, 3rd pick of the third weft yarns interwoven with the second ground warps adopts long beating-up, 4th pick of the third weft yarns interwoven with the second ground warps adopts plain weave beating-up. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62) while Qin disclose various specific ranges of specific woven structures (Pages, 2, 3 & 4). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns and various beating-up in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the picks for the ground warps interwoven with weft yarns and beatin-up involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose a weft insertion distance of a long beating-up for weaving the surface layer gauze and the middle layer arched gauze can be the same as or different from a weft insertion distance of a long beating-up for weaving the middle layer arched gauze and the bottom layer gauze. However, Zimmerman disclose various patterns can be used for color and pattern (Page 2, lines 22-62) while Qin disclose various specific ranges of specific woven structures (Pages, 2, 3 & 4). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of beating-up in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of engineering design choice, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of beating-up involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Zimmerman and Qin do not specifically disclose the second weft yarns in the middle layer arched gauze can be water-soluble yarns or alkali-soluble yarns in whole or in part. It, however, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the weft yarn as claimed, since it is well 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. Also, such a modification would be considered a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, using water-soluble or alkali-soluble yarns would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a material that is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732