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
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II, III and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/3/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/4/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction and states that the restriction states that claim 1 does not require printing nor first and second printed color markings and claim 12 is not a knit as require by claim 1. Applicant states that claim 14 (in Group II) recites a knit fabric.
This is not found persuasive because the restriction is maintained for several reasons as follows.
The restriction is maintained as claim 1 (Group I) does not positively recite the fabric is printed and claims 12 (Group II) does positively recite that the fabric is printed and printed with first and second printed colors in the different portions, i.e. portion with surface texture and portion adjacent the surface texture. See the 35 USC 112(b) rejections and claim interpretation below which states that printing is not positively recited in claim 1.
With regard to claim 15 (Group III) does not require printing and therefore differentiates from Group II and also does not require a stitching arranged in a pattern that creates undulations as in claim 1 (Group I). The threading variations and stitching of claim 15 can be a base stitching pattern and does not create a three-dimensional pattern per claim 1.
The restriction is further maintained between Groups I, II, III and IV as Group IV is directed to a method and Groups I and II are directed to products and the claims do not recite the same structure and methods. Claim 19 (Group IV) recites a printing method and claims 1 (Group I) and 15 (Group III) do not require printing. Claim 12 (Group II) does not require the design area and the print area of claim 19 (Group IV) and claim 19 does not require surface variations of claim 12.
With regards to claim 14 including a knit fabric which is the same as claim 1, as a first matter for the reasons above (claim 1 does not require printing and claim 12 does) the restriction is proper. As a second matter, Claim 14 is a dependent claim and only the scope of independent claims are considered for an restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
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 markings or making patterns on Fig. 3A-3L must be detailed. The specification paragraph [0073] describes to assist in determining where the stitches of the design (Fig. 8, 5) and the actual stitches (Fig. 6, 9) are located, reference markings in the fabric can be provided. Fig. 3A-3L shows example markers. These markings are typically also threadings and are typically in the selvedge of the fabric. Each pixel may represent a stitch or binding as can be seen in 3A-3H has common elements. The details of the markers is not provide on Fig. 3A-3I, and the details of the border and interior of the markers is not shown. No new matter should be entered.
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 stitches 18 of Fig. 5 must be shown in Fig. 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Fig. 8 is a portion of the stitch data of Fig. 5. Fig. 5 shows details 18 (stitching) presumably the stitching that creates pattern and the compressed areas, 24 and 22.
Fig. 8 shows some dark and light threads (?) and element 32 (blank stitch data) and 34 (stitches) which are shown in Fig. 9, along with the dark dots (threads?) and blank dots (threads?). Fig. 9 does not relate to Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 shows the same pattern as Fig. 5 but does not indicate the stitching 18. Fig. 6 is described as representing the actual print data to be printed and also can be seen to depict how actual threading data in the form of pattern registration 111 has been distorted relative to Fig. 5 in that the black lines shown have moved in different places relative to Fig. 5 [0071]. The reference to black lines is unclear and the black lines are not detailed in either Fig. 5 or 6. Fig. 6 details area 27 that is red between two black lines and area 28 is blue. The specification further describes “the threadings (stitches in this example) might also be printed, for example printed in black”. As a whole, the Figs do not relate to one another.
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 stitches 18 of Fig. 5 must be shown in Fig. 4B must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Instead, Fig. 4B shows stitches 3 that cross from front 5 to rear 11 exterior portions. [0072] states there is more loft in the areas shown with many stitches 3. However, Fig. 4B describes 7 as loft where there are no stitches 3. Clarification is required.
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
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:
The specification fails to further limit the claimed terms for “pattern” and “area”.
Based on the specification, the pattern can be the knit fabric pattern of threads as well as the printed pattern as well as the stitching pattern as well as markers that have patterns on them to direct the printing apparatus to print the desired design on the fabric. The pattern is shown as stitches 18 are shown in Fig. 5 however the specification describes Fig. 5 with a design stitch data. Fig. 7 shows the base knit structure with stitches or threads 30. The specification refers to the knit pattern in Fig. 7 as the base pattern [0065]. The specification fails to disclose a specific definition of pattern that would limit the use in the claims to the printed pattern [0064], the stitching arranged in a pattern (claim 1) or the background knit pattern [0062] and therefore lacks antecedent basis for the claimed terms.
With regard to claim 4, the specification fails to describe the markers and the stitches in the markers and the border portion and the interior portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step”, in this application “configured to” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is: markers in claims 1, 2-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
The markers are described with enough structure to describe the function of being read by imaging and printing machines.
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 and dependent claims 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 markings on the selvedge and then recites the fabric comprises a first exterior portion, a second exterior portion and a middle portion. It is not clear what the relationship between the selvedge, the first exterior portion, the second exterior portion and middle portion is. A selvedge, by definition is the edge of the fabric. It is not clear what the first and second exterior portions are as exterior would be the selvedge or edge of the fabric. Or it is possible that the first and second exterior portions refer to the first and second sides of the fabric and the middle is the interior of the fabric between the two outer sides or portion of the fabric.
For purposes of examination, the first and second exterior portions with a middle interior portion will be equated with a quilted type fabric with two exterior fabrics and an interior fabric or batting that is compressed when quilted or stitched together as shown in Fig. 4B.
Claim 1 recites the fabric includes “a pattern” in line 1 and then “printing on the pattern” in line 2.
In line 8, the claim recites “stitching arranged in a pattern” and lines 9 and 10 “a three dimensional pattern”.
In lines 17 and 18 recites “wherein the pattern is a repeating pattern which repeats at a defined interval”
Line 23-24 recites “the markers indicate a position along the longitudinal direction relative to the repeating pattern.”
The use of the claimed term pattern is not clear. Marking on the selvedge are machine read for printing on “the pattern”. The stitching is also arrange in a pattern.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pattern" in lines 2 and 17, 18, 23 and 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As there appears to be two different designations for “the pattern” and more than one reference to “a pattern” or “pattern”, the claimed term lack antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "areas" in lines 11 and 12, 13, 14 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As there appears to be two different designations for “the areas” and more than one reference to “area” the claimed term lack antecedent basis. Claim 1 in line 11 recites “loft is greater in areas without stitching as compared to areas at or adjacent to stitching” and then “undulations within an area of the knit fabric” and “the knit fabric and the first exterior portion is substantially un-printed within the area”. It is not clear which area is un-printed.
Additionally claim 1 is indefinite as line 2 recites “printing on the pattern” and then “un-printed within the area” wherein “the area” can be the undulation area or the area at or adjacent to the stitching. Line 14 recites “a selvedge is positioned adjacent to the area”. It is not clear which area the selvedge is adjacent to, the area at the stitching or the undulation area.
Additionally the claims lack the structural relationship between “the area” and the first exterior portion and the second exterior portion and the middle portion.
Combining the issue of lack of antecedent basis of the term “pattern” and “area”, lines 17 and 18, “wherein the pattern is a repeating pattern” and as line 2 recites “printing on the pattern”. It is not clear what “area” is printed and what “area” is un-printed and what “pattern” is printed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the knit" in 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as follows:
As claimed “A fabric which includes a pattern configured with markings on the selvedge to be machine read for printing on the pattern”. “Stitching arranged in a pattern which compresses the middle portion between the first and second exterior portions in order to create a three-dimensional pattern”.
The fabric pattern is interpreted to refer to the base fabric itself, i.e. a knit fabric with specific base stitching. The stitching arranged in a pattern refers to a quilting type sewn pattern that produces compressed areas at the stitching and undulation portions by compressing the fabric layers at the stitched portion and creating the undulations where the fabric layers are not stitched. The markings or markers are arranged on the selvedge to signal a printing apparatus to print on the fabric. The printed “pattern” may be consistent with the base fabric pattern of stitching as well as the stitched (quilted) type pattern or both.
The printed pattern is not positively recited as in claim 1 for two reasons:
(1) “A fabric which include a pattern (interpreted as the stitching pattern) and is configured with markings on the selvedge thereof to be machine read for printing the pattern” does not positively recite that the machine prints the pattern, just that there are markings configured to be machine read.
(2) The printed pattern is not positively recited in claim 1 “a plurality of markers positioned on the selvedge which are configured to be read by the imaging and printing machine” does not positive recite the fabric is printed.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codos et al (US 6158366) in view of Andrew (GB 2584456).
Codos teaches a quilting machine is provided having a first station and a second station, one being a printing station and one being a quilting station. The printing station is located either in line and preferably upstream of the quilting station, with a conveyor extending through each of the stations to convey a web of quilting material through the machine, or is off of the quilting line such that the material with a pre-applied pattern thereon is transferred to the line of the second station for the application of a pattern in registration with the first applied pattern. At the second station, registration of a plurality of transversely spaced points is detected to determine longitudinal and transverse registration as well as skewing or rotation of the material, and the opposite transverse sides of the material are differently adjusted to orient and register the material. Where the second station is a multi-needling quilting station, different parts of the quilted pattern are applied in precise registration with the preprinted pattern. A master batch controller assures that the proper combinations of printed and quilted patterns are combined to allow small quantities of different quilted products to be produced automatically along a material web (ABST).
Preferably, the printed designs are applied first onto the top layer or facing material, then a pattern is quilted in registration with the printed designs. Alternatively, printed designs can be applied after the patterns are quilted (col. 4, lines 24-27).
Codos teaches markers in the selvedge as follows. The printed pattern may include a machine identifiable mark or other reference, such as may be achieved by the printing of selvage edge registration marks on the material that are uniquely positioned relative to the printed pattern. The printed material is then transferred to a quilting line at which a quilted pattern is applied in registration with the printed pattern. Machine readable registration information is produced on the material at more than one transversely spaced points on the material, such as on opposite selvages or side edges of the material (col. 5, lines 37-43).
Wherein Codos teaches the fabric is applicable to roll fed materials where printing and quilting are best performed on material webs (col. 2, lines 37-40; col. 3, lines 52-55; col 7, lines 55-67). The fabrics are fed from supply rolls as shown in fig. 1 and the fabric is shown as longer than it is wide.
Codos does not teach the fabric is a knit. Codos teaches general fabric and webs are printed and quilted but is only specific to woven fabrics.
Andrew (GB 2584456) is directed to automated embroidery and that known types of fabric can be suitable for automated machine embroidery such as woven, felted, velvet, felt, denim, cotton, blended, leather and knitted fabrics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute a knit fabric for a woven fabric motivated to make an embroidered fabric in an automated machine.
As to claim 4, Codos teaches the fabric is made from stitches and therefore the selvedge markers are also made of stitches. The markers are printed on the stitches.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codos et al (US 6158366) in view of Andrew (GB 2584456) and in further view of Dunand et al (US6068362) and William (US 2546857).
As to claim 2, Codos is silent with regard to the size of the markers and the selvedge width.
Dunand is directed to continuous multicolor ink jet printing system for printing marks regularly on a substrate and these marks are detected by a sensor associated with the printheads (ABST). Dunand teaches the printed marks are on textiles (col. 7, lines 25-35).
Dunand teaches the invention relates to a continuous multicolor ink jet press comprising a substrate driven by a motor and passing under at least one print head associated with a sensor and supplied with ink through an ink circuit, and a process controller, characterized in that it comprises a synchronization circuit connected to this process controller, and to a position encoder located on the substrate drive motor, this encoder which is a position encoder with a high resolution, typically 3000 to 300,000 dots per motor revolution which gives a high frequency pulse representing a step of a few microns in advance of the substrate, sending a signal to the synchronization circuit; and in that it comprises a device for printing the first marks regularly printed on the substrate (col. 4, lines 33-46).
The geometry and color of these first marks enable unambiguous reading in an industrial environment by an optical system such as a CCD camera and lighting, or a sensor measuring the optical reflection of the substrate. A square block with a side dimension of between one and a few millimeters and a fluorescent color are particularly suitable choices (col. 4, lines 57-67).
The marks may be printed on the edge of the substrate in a line parallel to the direction of the advance (col. 10, lines 30-40). The first marks, 51, are shown on the edge of the fabric and this is equated with printed on the selvedge. As shown in the figures of Dunard, Fig. 5 and 6 the marks 51 are in the edge portion and a portion of the edge portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
536
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dunard teaches the marks 51 have a dimension of one to a few millimeters (col 4, lines 57-67). Dunard does not disclose the width of the edge (selvedge) portion.
William is directed to a textile fabric with a reinforced selvedge edge for withstanding the stresses exerted on the fabric to prevent fraying (col. 1, lines 1-5). Williams teaches the selvedge width is ¼ to 1 inch (col. 2, lines 43-50) which is equivalent to 6.35 to 25.4 mm.
One to a few millimeter square mark in a 6-25 mm selvedge is a selvedge that is at least twice the width of the marker (claim 2) and less than 6 times the width of the markers (claim 3). A few millimeter is about 3 millimeter.
As to claims 2 and 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a selvedge width and markers of the claimed ratio of widths motivated to produce a marker within a selvedge designed to reduce fraying.
Claims 5, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codos et al (US 6158366) in view of Andrew (GB 2584456) and in further view of Mosky et al (US 4144647).
As to claim 5, Codos is not specific with regard to the size or pattern of printed marks in the selvedge.
Mosky is directed to techniques for the manufacture of garments which is facilitated by reference marking along at least two adjacent side of length of the material (ABST). As shown in Fig. 1 is shown selvedge 4 and markings as numbers in the selvedge. The length of fabric material from which a dress is to be produced is indicated generally at 1. The fabric 1 is imprinted with a design 3 and is edged by a selvedge indicated generally at 4. The selvedge 4 has regularly spaced numerals imprinted thereupon, as indicated at 6 and 8, along the oppositely disposed long sides 5 and 4 of the material. The short sides 9 and 10 of selvedge 4, which interconnect the long sides 4 and 5, are respectively provided with regularly spaced indicia 12 and 13 in the form of letters. (col 2, lines 58-68).
Mosky shows the printed reference markings, spaced indicia, are letters and numbers (col. 2, lines 4-17) as shown in Fig. 1. Letters and numbers inherently have borders and interior portions, e.g. the number 8 has the outline for 8 and the interior portion of the number. As the numbers and letters vary and are equated with the marker, the markers vary.
PNG
media_image3.png
600
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claims 5 and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide for varying types of markers with different interiors and borders motivated to provide the proper signal for printing or quilting pattern.
As to claims 8 and 9, Codos teaches markers but is not specific with regard to first and second markers that are different.
Durand teaches first markers 51 and second markers 53 wherein the first and second markers are unambiguously distinguished from the first marks (col. 5, lines 22-32). The function of the second markers is to signal the change in the pattern to be printed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ different markers motivated to signal a change in print pattern by the second markers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codos et al (US 6158366) in view of Andrew (GB 2584456) and Mosky et al (US 4144647) in further view of Collins (US 0746465).
As to claim 6, Codos is not specific with regard to the printed marks in the selvedge.
Mosky differs and does not teach the same type of border on each marker.
Collins is directed to a pattern on a selvedge edge that has writing, e.g. trademark, guarantee, or other evidence of quality or ownership (lines 45-60). The pattern shown on Collings has a diamond shape which is equated with a border that is similar.
PNG
media_image4.png
284
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce markers that have similar borders motivated to produce a regular pattern that is recognized by the user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codos et al (US 6158366) in view of Andrew (GB 2584456) and Dunand et al (US6068362) and in further view of Wildeman et al (US 6082412).
As to claim 10, Codos does not teach the spacing nor dimension of the markers.
Dunand teaches the first markers are 1 to a few millimeter in dimension but differs and does not teach the spacing between the markers.
Wildeman is directed to a weaving system is provided to automatically maintain a printed pattern in alignment with a woven pattern as a fabric is being formed. The printed pattern is printed onto the warp yarns. A controller is used to monitor the position of the printed pattern during the weaving process relative to the position of a woven pattern that is being formed into the fabric. Should the printed pattern and woven pattern fall out of alignment, the controller then alters the longitudinal size of the woven pattern, the printed pattern, or both patterns, in order to realign the patterns.
Wildeman teaches in order to monitor the position of the printed pattern while the fabric is being woven, the warp yarns can include a plurality of registration marks that are placed at selected locations. The registration marks can be placed along an edge or selvege of the warp yarn at spaced apart intervals (col. 3, lines 14-22). The registration marks can be spaced apart horizontal lines that are ¼ to ½ inch apart. It is also understood that the besides horizontal marks, other types of indicia may be applied to the warp yarns (col. 7, lines 16-26).
Spacing of ¼ to ½ inch apart is 6.35 to 12.7 mm and therefore the marker size of Dunand of 1 to a few mm square (a few mm can be 3) divided by 6.35 to 12.7 is between 2 to 10 times a length of the longest of the markers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the claimed marker size to spacing ratio motivated to provide the desired amount of markers needed to monitor the printing design.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Codos et al (US 6158366) in view of Andrew (GB 2584456) and in further view of Kushner et al (US 8708437) and in further view of GB1577399.
As to claim 11, Codos differs and does not teach a double jersey jacquard fabric.
Andrew teaches the fabrics for automated embroidery can be woven fabrics, felted fabrics, velvet, satin, silk, felt, denim, cotton, neoprene, carbon infused fabrics, blended fabrics, knitted fabrics, leathers but differs and is not specific with regard to a double jersey jacquard fabric.
Kushner is directed to an ink jet multi-color printing system (Title). Kushner teaches the term printable substrate are textiles (col. 6, lines 19-25). The system upstream can detect patterns in the fabric that come from jacquard weaving or knitting or embroidery or previous printing so as to synchronize the pattern being printed (col. 10, lines 33-43).
Kushner is not specific with regard to a double jersey jacquard fabric.
GB1577399 is directed to a combined knitted fabric and process for production. Textile articles are known to consist of top and bottom knitted layer and the fabric layers are fixed together by quilting (page1, lines 11-15). GB1577399 teaches circular knitting machine that can produce a double jersey jacquard may be used. The top face is knitted on the cylinder and the bottom face knitted on the dial and the connection of the two knitted fabrics may be realized by tuck stitches in a pattern by means of jacquard device (page 1, lines 99-100; page 2, lines 1-12). GB1577399 teaches the pattern provides raise areas in relief (page 1, lines 47-50, page 2, lines 1-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to stitch together jersey knit top and bottom faces in a jacquard pattern motivated to produce a quilted knit fabric with raised areas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tack et al (US 20240300249) is an application wherein the claims are directed to method and the filing date is the same as the instant application filing date and not considered prior art.
Thomson (US 1012480) is directed to printing device for selvedge printing.
Hans (US 2110306) is directed to selvedge printing apparatus for woven goods.
Engelhardt (EP 0200963) is directed to marker applied to the edge of the material for continuous quilting.
Tedesco et al (US 20050193574) is directed to sew procedure and map applied to a fabric with markers on the selvedge.
Costin, JR. et al (US 20160263928) is directed to a method of generating a pattern image on the surface of a fabric.
Xu et al (EP 3653391) is directed to a digital printing method for fabric. Xu teaches feature points, but not markings in the selvedge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789