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 . Claims 1-10 are being treated on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to as it sets forth a plurality of elements; however, the plurality of elements are not separated by a line indentation. 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP 608.01(m) require each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
Claim 1, 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 3-4, "the production direction" appears to read "a production direction" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 5, line 2, "the range" appears to read "a range";
In claim 10, line 1, "a The" appears to read "a" or "the" and should be consistent with the preambles of claims 1-9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "rigidifying element" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "rigidifying element" which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the writing disclosure fails to provide any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. There is a lack of written description for this limitation.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "double-needle Raschel machine". It is unclear whether the machine comprises two needles or two needle beds. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "double needle-bed Raschel machine".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a straight yarn or an assembly of capstan-mounted yarns, which thus does not loop, a band, optical fibers, or any other material having length as a main dimension, a rod, a cord, or a rigidifying element", which renders the claim indefinite. The claimed subject matter is unclear due to the claim language. First, it is unclear what item is being referred to by "which". The straight yarn? The assembly of capstan-mounted yarns? Second, it is also unclear what is being referred to by "loop". Does "loop" refer to forming loops? Second, a rod and a cord also have length as a main dimension; therefore, the scope of "any other material having length as a main dimension" encompassing "a rod" and "a cord". Third, a straight yarn, an assembly of capstan-mounted yarns, a band, optical fibers, or any other material having length as a main dimension, a rod, a cord, each can also be a "rigidifying element". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the terms are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the implementation of the insert implantation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is being referred to. The claim does not set forth any implementation or insert implantation. It is unclear where the insert is intended to implanted. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be an implementation of implantation of the insert.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one or the side tubes", which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear what is "one" before the term "or" being referred to. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the side tubes" in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the at least one side tube.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the so-called main tube", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to by "so-called"? Is the limitation referring to the main tube in the preamble? For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the main tube.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "in a single step" with two instances. It is unclear whether the two instances of "in a single step" are referring to the same single step or different single steps. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "in the single step".
Claim 2 recites "the tubes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has defined parallel or substantially parallel tubes including a main tube and "one or the side tubes". It is unclear which tubes are being referred to. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted "the tubes" as any two or more tubes of the parallel or substantially parallel tubes in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the tube having the largest diameter, called main tube". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "the main tube".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "receives a catheter, a Nitinol tube, or an implantable element", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has set forth the method consisting of knitting in a single step. It is unclear whether the main tube receives a catheter, a Nitinol tube, or an implantable element in the single step of knitting or in a different step. If the latter, the limitation would be out of the scope of the claimed method. For examination purposes, "receives" has been construed to be "configured to receive".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the porosity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims have not set forth any porosity. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the insert having a porosity.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bindings or weaves implemented on the machine". There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the bindings or weaves" in the claim. In addition, it is unclear what elements are the bindings or weaves, how they are implemented on the machine, and how they define the porosity of the insert. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be a knitted pattern of the insert.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "one tube". The claim depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has set forth parallel or substantially parallel tubes including a main tube and "one or the side tubes". It is unclear whether "one tube" is referring to one of the parallel or substantially parallel tubes or a different tube. For examination purposes, "one tube" has been construed to be one tube of the parallel or substantially parallel tubes.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other". It is unclear which item is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be another tube of the at least two tubes.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the opening of the insert pores". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has not set forth the insert having pores or the pores having openings. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the insert comprising pores, the pores comprising openings.
Claim 5 recites the term "their". It is unclear which structures are being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be the openings.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the yarns". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be yarns forming the knitted textile insert.
Claim 7 recites "the tubes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has defined parallel or substantially parallel tubes including a main tube and "one or the side tubes". It is unclear which tubes are being referred to. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted "the tubes" as any two or more tubes of the parallel or substantially parallel tubes in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the yarns". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be yarns forming the knitted textile insert.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "synthetic polymer or copolymer". It is understood that a synthetic polymer includes a copolymer and a copolymer can be a synthetic copolymer. The scopes of "synthetic polymer" and "copolymer" overlap. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the terms are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the yarns". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be yarns forming the knitted textile insert.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "other yarns are introduced into the insert on forming thereof". First, it is unclear what are included or excluded by "other yarns". Second, it is unclear what is being referred to by "thereof". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the inserted yarns". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that at least one yarn is inserted into the at least one side tubes, and the limitation has been construed to be the at least one inserted yarn.
Claim limitation “rigidifying element” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
The examiner notes that the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. Effort has been made to identify all the indefinite issues; however, the above list is not necessarily to be comprehensive. In addition, the interpretations aforementioned do not necessarily constitute suggestions, especially in light of the plethora of potential inconsistencies and indefiniteness throughout the claims. Applicant is recommended to review the claims in full and make proper amendments in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure.
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 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn (US 6,367,781 B1) in view of Jackson (US 3,656,324 A).
Regarding claim 1, Flynn discloses a method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert, said insert comprising in the production direction at least two tubes extending parallel to one another and separated from one another by a binding area, respectively a main tube and at least one side tube (a method of producing a double-knitted fabric 14 comprising multiple tubular pockets 42, 43; figs. 1-2, 5, 11; col. 3, ll. 63-67; col. 5, ll. 47-67; col. 6, ll. 1-11; claim 17), said method consisting of
knitting in a single step by warp knitting technology, on a double-needle Raschel machine or on a crocheting machine (figs. 1-2, 5, 11; col. 5, ll. 47-67; col. 6, ll. 1-11), parallel or substantially parallel tubes (parallel tubular pockets 42 or 43; figs. 1-2, 5, 11; col. 3, ll. 1-10, 63-67) and creating said binding area (bounded regions between parallel tubular pockets 42 or 43; figs. 1-2, 5, 11; col. 3, ll. 11-17),
wherein a straight yarn or an assembly of capstan-mounted yarns, which thus does not loop, a band, optical fibers, or any other material having length as a main dimension, a rod, a cord, or a rigidifying element (barrier supports 118, 218 including fence posts, rope, cable, cordage or other such structures; figs. 5, 11; col. 6, ll. 46-61; col. 7, ll. 20-26; col. 8, ll. 54-61), intended to ease the implementation of the insert implantation (capable of easing implantation of the insert into a panel or other structures), is introduced into one or the side tubes (at least one of the multiple tubular pockets 42 or 43; figs. 5, 11; col. 4, ll. 29-34; col. 6, ll. 46-61), that is, other than the so-called main tube (figs. 5, 11; col. 4, ll. 29-34; col. 6, ll. 46-61).
Flynn does not explicitly disclose wherein the main tube having a greater diameter than the at least one side tube. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method as disclosed by Flynn to create the tubular pockets with varied sizes, in order to accommodate barrier supports in different sizes for specific applications. A change in size/proportion is an obvious variation of engineering design and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Mere changes of dimensions/proportions are not considered to be patentably distinct limitations. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Flynn does not disclose wherein the straight yarn or the assembly of capstan-mounted yarns, which thus does not loop, the band, optical fibers, or any other material having length as a main dimension, the rod, the cord, or the rigidifying element is introduced into one or the side tubes in the single step on forming of the insert on the knitting machine. However, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that insertion of an elongated element in a wale direction during a warp knitting process, forming an inlaid element in the textile, has been a common practice in the knitting art. Further, Jackson, in an analogous art, teaches a method of warp knitting (a method of knitting a power net; figs. 1, 15; col. 2, ll. 50-53; col. 3, ll. 37-48), the method comprising a single step of warp knitting a textile (figs. 1, 15; col. 2, ll. 50-53; col. 3, ll. 37-48), the textile comprising parallel or substantially parallel tubes (for accommodating multiple spandex yarns 47; col. 3, ll. 37-48) on a double-needle Raschel machine (fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 56-68), wherein a straight yarn, a cord or any other material having length as a main dimension (spandex yarns 47; fig. 15), is introduced into at least one of the tubes in a single step on forming of the insert on the knitting machine (fig. 15; col. 3, ll. 37-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method as disclosed by Flynn, with wherein the straight yarn or the assembly of capstan-mounted yarns, which thus does not loop, the band, optical fibers, or any other material having length as a main dimension, the rod, the cord, or the rigidifying element is introduced into one or the side tubes in the single step on forming of the insert on the knitting machine as taught by Jackson, in order to efficiently manufacture the knitted textile insert with inserted elongated elements in the at least one side tubes in a single knitting step. Such a modification is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Flynn and Jackson, in combination, disclose the method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert according to claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the tubes are tangent to one another or separated from each other or from one another by a planar area (figs. 1-2, 5, 11; col. 3, ll. 11-17).
Regarding claim 3, Flynn and Jackson, in combination, disclose the method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert according to claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the tube having the largest diameter, called main tube is configured to receive a catheter, a Nitinol tube, or an implantable element (as being able to receive a barrier support such as a cord or a cable; col. 6, ll. 46-61).
Regarding claim 4, Flynn and Jackson, in combination, disclose the method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert according to claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the porosity of the insert is defined by the bindings or weaves implemented on the machine (the fabric, including the bounded regions, is a double-knit mesh fabric; col. 5, ll. 1-6).
Flynn does not disclose wherein said porosity differs from one tube to the other of the insert. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have varied the size and/or the distribution of the meshes in the textile, to have formed a textile with different porosities in different areas for specific applications. A change in size/proportion is an obvious variation of engineering design and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Mere changes of dimensions/proportions are not considered to be patentably distinct limitations. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Flynn and Jackson, in combination, disclose the method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert according to claim 5. Flynn does not explicitly disclose wherein the opening of the insert pores, defined by the bindings or weaves, is in the range from 0.05 to 3 millimeters in their largest dimension. However, Flynn does disclose wherein the pockets in the textile are configured to receive an element which may have a diameter of 1-3 millimeters (a cord or a cable; col. 4, ll. 26-28; col. 6, ll. 46-61). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the size of the openings of the pores as claimed, in order to accommodate particular barrier supports that are being used to construct a barrier apparatus (Flynn; col. 4, ll. 26-28). A change in size/proportion is an obvious variation of engineering design and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Mere changes of dimensions/proportions are not considered to be patentably distinct limitations. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Flynn and Jackson, in combination, disclose the method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert according to claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the yarns are monofilament or multifilament yarns (cords are multifilament yarns; col. 6, ll. 46-61).
Regarding claim 7, Flynn and Jackson, in combination, disclose the method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert according to claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein one of the tubes is open during the knitting (the pockets 42, 43 are open at the ends during knitting; figs. 1-2, 5).
Regarding claim 8, Flynn and Jackson, in combination, disclose the method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert according to claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the yarns forming the insert are made of synthetic polymer or copolymer, resorptive or not (col. 6, ll. 14-22).
Regarding claim 9, Flynn and Jackson, in combination, disclose the method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert according to claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein the yarns forming the insert are made of polymer of natural origin, resorptive or not (natural fibers; col. 6, ll. 14-18). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material of the yarns forming the insert as claimed, in order to use a suitable material for the yarns for specific applications (Flynn; col. 6, ll. 46-61). It has been held to be 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Flynn and Jackson, in combination, disclose the method for realizing a three-dimensional knitted textile insert according to claim 1, and Flynn further discloses wherein other yarns are introduced into the insert on forming thereof (yarns for forming the body of the textile insert; figs. 1-2, 5, 11; col. 6, ll. 14-22), to give the insert specific properties (col. 6, ll. 46-61), the inserted yarns being metallic or shape-memory yarns of Nitinol type, or made of polymer (metal, plastic or other polymers; col. 6, ll. 14-22, 54-61).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Joubert (US 2010/0018620 A1) discloses a method of warp knitting a net in a single step comprising parallel tubular structures, wherein multiple cords are introduced into the tubular structures in the single step. Day (US 4,923,724 A) discloses a method of warp knitting a net in a single step comprising parallel tubular structures on a double needle-bed Raschel warp knitting machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 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 on (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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732