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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 17, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “said cutting lines do not cause an opening of the first tubular element itself, and the first tubular element maintains at least one tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed” in Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
2. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 recites “said cutting lines do not cause an opening of the first tubular element itself, and the first tubular element maintains at least one tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, there does not appear to be support for “said cutting lines do not cause an opening of the first tubular element itself” and “the first tubular element maintains at least one tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed”. As seen in Fig.1B the cutting lines DO cause openings in the first tubular element and there is no tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed. For these reasons, Applicant’s specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “said cutting lines do not cause an opening of the first tubular element itself, and the first tubular element maintains at least one tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, there does not appear to be support for “said cutting lines do not cause an opening of the first tubular element itself” and “the first tubular element maintains at least one tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed”. As seen in Fig.1B the cutting lines (31,32,33,34,35,36) do cause openings in the first tubular element and there is no tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed. For these reasons, the claim limitations are regarded as new matter
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.
4. Claims 1 and 3-10 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 cutting lines do not cause an opening of the first tubular element itself, and the first tubular element maintains at least one tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed”. The claim limitation is indefinite as it the claim previously recites “cutting said first tubular element along said cutting lines to separate portions of fabric of said first tubular element to create flaps of fabric belonging to the front side and to the rear side of said first tubular element” which would create openings in the tubular element and therefore the tubular element would not have at least one tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed. Claim 1 is rejected as best understood by examiner.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected, insofar as is definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 2015/0284885) in view of Dias (US 2005/0049741).
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as is definite, Turner discloses a procedure for manufacturing an undershirt provided with a trunk (102), two sleeves (118) and a collar (112,114), comprising the following steps: - a knitting machine using seamless technology (para.29); - constructing a first tubular fabric element (300) using said machine, the first tubular fabric element being a single piece of fabric (as seen in Fig.4A & 4B), where said first tubular element comprises a front side (102/302), a rear side (104/304), an upper edge (edge of 309) and a lower edge (404); - drawing cutting lines on said first tubular element (as seen in Fig.3B, 4A & 4B, lines are drawn), during construction - cutting said first tubular element along said cutting lines to separate portions of fabric of said first tubular element to create flaps of fabric belonging to the front side and to the rear side of said first tubular element (Para.37); and - joining with stitches the flaps of said portions of fabric obtained during the preceding step of cutting said first tubular element along said cutting lines to create at least the two sleeves and the trunk of said undershirt from said first tubular element (Para.23, 32 & 39); wherein said step of drawing cutting lines on said first tubular element, during construction, comprises the step of drawing a first (right 311 on 302), a second (left 311 on 302), a third (right 311 on 304) and a fourth (left 311 on 304) cutting line positioned longitudinal to the length of said first tubular element (300), where said first and said second cutting line belong to the front side of said first tubular element while said third and said fourth cutting line belong to the rear side thereof (as seen in Fig.3B, 4A & 4B); and wherein, in the step of cutting the first tubular element (para.23, 32, 37 & 39), said cutting lines do not cause an opening of the first tubular element itself (as this limitation is in direct contradiction to prior claimed limitations, this limitation is rejected insofar as is definite), and the first tubular element maintains (via seams) at least one tubular fabric portion that is continuous and circumferentially closed (insofar as is definite, the seams form a continuous and circumferentially closed tubular fabric portion; para.23 & 32); and wherein the step of joining with stitches comprises the realization of: a first seam, which starts at a lower end of the trunk and ends at a respective lower end of the right sleeve (para.38; i.e. seam from 404 along left 311 to apex and down to 404 at end of left 307), joining the flaps obtained with said first and said third cutting line to create the right sleeve and the right side of the trunk of the undershirt (para.23, 32 & 39); and- a second seam, which starts at a lower end of the trunk and ends at a respective lower end of the left sleeve (para.38; i.e. seam from 404 along right 311 to apex and down to 404 at end of right 307), joining the flaps obtained with said second and said fourth cutting line to create the left sleeve and the left side of the trunk of the undershirt (as seen in Fig.3B, 4A & 4B; para.23, 32 & 39). Turner does not disclose providing a circular knitting machine using seamless technology. However, Dias teaches knitting a tubular, seamless material on a flat bed knitting machine or a circular knitting machine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the flat bed knitting machine of Turner with the circular knitting machine of Dias, as a simple substitution of one well known type of seamless knitting machine for another, in order to yield the predictable result of knitting a tubular, seamless material.
Regarding Claim 3, Turner discloses a procedure according to claim 1, wherein said first, second, third and fourth cutting lines are between said lower edge (404) of said first tubular element and an intermediate portion (i.e. portion where 408 starts), without reaching the upper edge (as seen in Fig.4A & 4B).
Regarding Claim 4, Turner discloses a procedure according to claim 1, wherein each of said first, second, third and fourth cutting lines separates the fabric of said first tubular element to form an respective overturned elongated V shape (as seen in Fig.3B; para.38), and wherein each of said first, second, third and fourth cutting lines start from the lower edge of said first tubular element, rise towards said upper edge and descend to finish once again on the lower edge (as seen in Fig.3B; para.38, i.e. as 311 are cut from 404 toward 408 and back down to 404, the cut would create two edges of material between 302/304 and adjacent 307 that form overturned elongated V shapes).
Regarding Claim 5, Turner discloses a procedure according to claim 1, wherein - said step of drawing cutting lines on said first tubular element, during construction, comprises the step of drawing a fifth (right side 410) and a sixth (left side 410) cutting line, where said fifth and said sixth cutting line each start from the upper edge (309/108 at 112) of the front side of said first tubular element (as seen in Fig.2A & 4A), descend towards said lower edge (as seen in Fig.4A) and rise again to end on the upper edge (309/108 at 114) of the rear side of said first tubular element (as seen in Fig.2B & 4B); and - said procedure comprises the steps of joining with stitches the flaps of said portions of fabric obtained with said cutting lines to create the two shoulders of said undershirt (para.23, 32 & 39).
Regarding Claim 6, Turner discloses a procedure according to claim 5, wherein said step of drawing cutting lines on said first tubular element, during construction, comprises the step of drawing a seventh cutting line (406) that extends along said upper edge of said first tubular element and has a profiled shape, moving away from (i.e. at the lowest portion of the V) and towards said upper edge (as seen in Fig.4A).
Regarding Claim 7, Turner discloses a procedure according to claim 6, further comprising drawing an eighth (right 408) and a ninth (left 408) cutting line positioned transversal to the length of said first tubular element (as seen in Fig.4A & B), the eighth cutting line extending from said first and said third cutting line and the ninth cutting cline extending from said second and said fourth cutting line respectively (i.e. 408 are from the front and back 311).
Regarding Claim 9, Turner discloses a procedure according to claim 1, further comprising eliminating excess material (307,414) deriving from cutting said first tubular element along said cutting lines (Para.37).
Regarding Claim 10, Turner discloses an undershirt (100) manufactured using the procedure according to claim 1 (i.e. 100 is an undershirt, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant).
6. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (US 2015/0284885) and Dias (US 2005/0049741), in view of Friedland (US 2,126,186).
Regarding Claim 8, Turner and Dias disclose the invention substantially as claimed above; including using a circular knitting machine, drawing cutting lines along fabric portions, and cutting portions out. Turner does not disclose constructing a second fabric tubular element, where said second tubular element is distinct and comprises a respective front side, a respective rear side, a respective upper edge and a respective lower edge; sewing said ring along a line of said first tubular element to create a collar of the undershirt. However, Friedland teaches a second fabric tubular element (32), where said second tubular element is distinct and comprises a respective front side (i.e. 32 on 20), a respective rear side (i.e. 32 on 21), a respective upper edge (i.e. free edge of 32) and a respective lower edge (i.e. edge of 32 sewn to 11) sewing said ring along a line of a first tubular element (20,21) to create a collar of the undershirt (Pg.3, Col.1, lines 21-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the portions of fabric of Turner to create a collar binding that is sewn to the cutting line creating the collar opening, as taught by Friedland, in order to provide desired amount of give of the neck opening to facilitate putting on and taking off the t-shirt. When in combination modified Turner and Friedland teach where said second tubular element is distinct from said first tubular fabric element; drawing on said second tubular element, during construction, a tenth and an eleventh cutting line, positioned longitudinal to the length of said second tubular element, between its lower edge and its upper edge, where said tenth cutting line belongs to the front side of said second tubular element while said eleventh cutting line belongs to the rear side thereof; - cutting said second tubular element along said tenth and said eleventh cutting line to separate two portions of fabric of said second tubular element, each of the two portions extending between two respective flaps;- sewing together, with a seam, the flaps of one of said two portions of fabric obtained with said tenth and said eleventh cutting line to create a ring; and sewing said ring to said T-shirt along said seventh cutting line to create the collar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
7. Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts lines 311 of Turner are not cutting lines at all, but lines along which the tubular fabric is directly produced, by means of a flat knitting machine, with longitudinal openings that cause the central tubular 316 to be separated from the two side portions 307 (see paragraph 31). Applicant does not understand how the same elements (i.e. the lines 311 delimiting the two portions 307 to the right and left of the central portion 316) can be identified as both cutting lines and seams. Also, arguing that in Turner, there is no joining operation that follows a cutting operation. Further stating that Turner teaches three methods which are presented as separate possibilities, with the second method being only mentioned in passing and never in operational terms.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments that lines 311 are not cutting lines, is not found persuasive as Para.23 of Turner explicitly states that portions of the shirt “may be separately knitted and joined at various seams, e.g., along a side seam”. In other words, Turner teaches multiple ways of forming the shirt, one of which includes separately knitting portions (instead of seamlessly knitting) of the shirt front and back, cutting along the side of the torso portion (which would be at 311), and joining such torso portions, which are side seams; this is further evidenced by Para.28 of Turner. It is unclear why Applicant is confused by the references to 311 of Turner as the cutting lines and the seams, the rejection clearly pointed out that while the cut lines would be along 311 of the front and back shirt portions, the edges created by the cuts, also lines 311 of the front and back shirt portions, are joined to create the side seams. One of ordinary skill in the sewing art would readily be aware that the same pattern lines one cuts fabric from create the edges/lines that are joined as seams. Further, obviously by teaching seaming after cutting, Turner teaches a joining operation that follows a cutting operation. Lastly, Applicant’s argument that the second method is only mentioned in passing and never in operational terms is not found persuasive as Para.23 of Turner provides enough detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how it is operationally applied. For all of these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments, which are drawn to the newly amended limitations, have been considered but are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
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 MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732