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 § 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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 “the single uninterrupted conductive yarn forms the only electrically active sensing element of the capacitive touch sensor fabric”, which is not described in the specification and the drawings do not clearly show the limitation. Therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
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 1-9 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 “the conductive yarns of the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric act as a capacitive touch sensor” and then “the single uninterrupted conductive yarn forms the only electrically active sensing element of the capacitive touch sensor fabric”. It is unclear the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric is formed by “the single uninterrupted conductive yarn” or more than one “conductive yarns”.
Claim 1 recites “the only electrically active sensing element” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “a single continuous conductive yarn” in line 2. It is unclear “a single continuous conductive yarn” in claim 8 is the same or different from “the single uninterrupted conductive yarn” in claim 1. For the purpose of applying art, “a single continuous conductive yarn” in claim 8 is interpreted to be the same as “the single uninterrupted conductive yarn” in claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017/095861 (hereinafter WO’861) in view of Hamada (US 2018/0195218).
Regarding claim 1, WO’861 teaches a knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric (figs. 5A, 5B, abstract) comprising conductive (figs. 1A-1B, para. [0035], a conductive yarn 200 forms the patterned sensing element 130) and non-conductive yarns using interlooped stitches (figs. 1A-1B, para. [0034], a nonconductive layer 110 of the knitted fabric) formed using knitting, wherein the knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric has a single continuous pathway (figs. 1A, 8A-8D) formed from one uninterrupted conductive yarn (para. [0035], yarn 200 is a continuous knitted strip traversing the face of the sensor 130) extending between exactly two connection points (figs. 1A, 3A, 4, there are two connection points to connect to outside devices) to connect the knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric to an electronic device (figs. 1A, 3A, 4), and wherein the conductive yarns of the knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric act as a capacitive touch sensor (figs. 1A-B, 4, 5A-5B), wherein the single uninterrupted conductive yarn forms the only electrically active sensing element of the capacitive touch sensor fabric (figs. 1A, 3A, 4, there are only two connection points from one conductive yarn to connect to outside devices).
WO’861 does not teach the fabric is warp-knitted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada teaches a warp-knitted (abstract) capacitive touch sensor fabric (fig. 11, para. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to manufacture the knitted fabric of WO’861 with warp-knitting method as taught by Hamada as warp-knitting is a well-known method in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure WO’861-Hamada teaches the single pathway is a conductive pathway through the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric between the two connection points (WO’861, fig. 1A, layer 130 is a conductive sensing element layer; figs. 1A, 3A, 4 show a conductive pathway between two points 150, 152).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure WO’861-Hamada teaches the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric application is selected from a group consisting of a traditional garment, industrial, and military products (WO’861, abstract, para. [0029]; Hamada, para. [0030]).
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use 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 intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure WO’861-Hamada teaches a textile for an application of the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric is selected from a group consisting of men’s formal, sporting wear, sporting gear, backpack and footwear (WO’861, abstract, para. [0029]; Hamada, para. [0002], [0030]).
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use 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 intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure WO’861-Hamada teaches a textile for an application of the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric is selected from a group consisting of technical textiles consisting of industrial, construction, medical, and auxetic textiles (WO’861, abstract, para. [0029]; Hamada, para. [0030], [0031]).
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use 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 intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure WO’861-Hamada teaches the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric is applied to make military textiles consisting of soft-sided equipment, tenting products, vests, and boots (WO’861, abstract, para. [0029]; Hamada, para. [0030], [0031]).
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use 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 intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure WO’861-Hamada teaches placement of the two connection points is customized in spacing and length according to predetermined requirements (WO’861, para. [0102], [0115]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure WO’861-Hamada teaches a serpentine pattern that makes the single pathway, a continuous conductive pathway with one input and one output connector (WO’861, fig. 1A).
The modified structure WO’861-Hamada does not teach lateral yarn loop overlaps and underlaps of a single continuous conductive yarn.
However, Hamada teaches a warp knitting, in which lateral yarn loop overlaps and underlaps of a single yarn (figs. 2, 9, para. [0042]); the yarn is a conductive yarn (para. [0045]).
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 structure WO’861-Hamada with the teaching that lateral yarn loop overlaps and underlaps of a single continuous conductive yarn as suggested by Hamada for the benefit of providing a stable fabric which is strong, resistant to unraveling as warp-knitting is a well-known method in the art.
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure WO’861-Hamada does not teach the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric is produced by a warp-knitting raschel machine.
However, Hamada teaches the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric is produced by a warp-knitting raschel machine (para. [0013], [0051]).
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 structure WO’861-Hamada with a warp-knitting raschel machine as taught by Hamada for the benefit of providing a stable fabric which is strong, resistant to unraveling as using a warp-knitting raschel machine in making a warp-knitted fabric is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, WO’861 teaches a method for making a knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric (figs. 5A, 5B, abstract), comprising:
providing a knitting machine (para. [0031]);
feeding a nonconductive yarn (figs. 1A-1B, para. [0034], a nonconductive layer 110 of the knitted fabric) into the knitting machine;
feeding a conductive yarn (figs. 1A-1B, para. [0035], a conductive yarn 200 forms the patterned sensing element 130) into the knitting machine; and
knitting the conductive and non-conductive yarns using interlooped stitches into the knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric that includes a capacitive touch sensor (figs. 1A-B, 4, 5A-5B) formed from the conductive yarn formed from the conductive yarn being continuously knitted to form a single uninterrupted pathway (figs. 1A, 8A-8D) between exactly two connection points to connect the knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric to an electronic device (figs. 1A, 3A, 4).
WO’861 does not teach the fabric is warp-knitted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hamada teaches a warp-knitted (abstract) capacitive touch sensor fabric (fig. 11, para. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to manufacture the knitted fabric of WO’861 with warp-knitting method as taught by Hamada as warp-knitting is a well-known method in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the modified method WO’861-Hamada teaches the conductive yarn forms a conductive pathway through the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric between the two connection points (WO’861, figs. 1A, 3A, 4).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method WO’861-Hamada does not teach the warp knitting machine is a warp-knitting raschel machine.
However, Hamada teaches the warp knitting machine is a warp-knitting raschel machine (para. [0013], [0051]).
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 WO’861-Hamada with a warp-knitting raschel machine as taught by Hamada for the benefit of providing a stable fabric which is strong, resistant to unraveling as using a warp-knitting raschel machine in making a warp-knitted fabric is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the modified method WO’861-Hamada teaches the warp-knitted capacitive touch sensor fabric is knitted into a predetermined shape (WO’861, abstract, figs. 8A-8D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, the rejection is based on the combination of WO2017/095861 (primary reference) and Hamada (US2018/0195218), while the arguments are all about Hamada.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 9 AM-6 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights