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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 07/07/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claims 2, 4 and 7 each recite "the at least two tubes". The claims each depend from claim 1, and claim 1 has set forth "parallel or substantially parallel tubes". It is noted that the phrase "at least two tubes" is presented in the preamble of claim 1 and is not necessarily a limitation of the claimed method because the claim body of each of the claims does not require the method to form the "at least two tubes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted "the at least two tubes" as any two or more tubes of the parallel or substantially parallel tubes in the method of claim 1.
Claims 4-5 each recite the limitation "bindings or weaves implemented on the machine". 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 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 a 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-bed 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 non-looping capstan-mounted yarns, a band, optical fibers, a rod or a cord (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 implantation of the insert (capable of easing implantation of the insert into a panel or other structures), is introduced into the at least one side tube (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 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 parallel or substantially parallel tubes 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 a straight yarn or an assembly of non-looping capstan-mounted yarns, a band, optical fibers, a rod, or a cord, intended to ease implantation of the insert, is introduced into the at least one side tube, that is, other than the main tube, in the single step on forming of the insert on the machine. However, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that insertion of an elongated element in a wale direction during a single step of 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 a straight yarn or an assembly of non-looping capstan-mounted yarns, a band, optical fibers, a rod, or a cord, intended to ease implantation of the insert, is introduced into the at least one side tube, that is, other than the main tube, in the single step on forming of the insert on the 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 via 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 at least two 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 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 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 between the at least two tubes 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 4. Flynn does not explicitly disclose wherein opening of pores of the insert, defined by the bindings or weaves, have a largest dimension in a range from 0.05 to 3 millimeters. However, Flynn does disclose wherein the tubular 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 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 yarns forming the knitted textile insert 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 at least two 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 yarns forming the knitted textile insert are made of synthetic polymer, 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 yarns forming the knitted textile 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 yarns forming the knitted textile 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 additional inserted yarns are introduced into the knitted textile insert on forming of the knitted textile insert (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 additional 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).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied as necessitated by the amendment. Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that the cited reference Jackson is non-analogous art.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Jackson and the claimed invention are directed to a method of warp knitting a textile on a double-needle Raschel machine; therefore, they are from the same field of endeavor, even if they address different problems. In addition, Jackson is also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor; i.e., a problem of forming separated parallel tubes in a textile in a single step of warp knitting on a double needle-bed Raschel machine. See MPEP 2141.01(a), section I.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that Flynn does not disclose the main tube having a greater diameter than the at least one side tube, and Jackson does not cure this deficiency.
Examiner's response: It is noted that the office action has provided an obvious rejection which is reasonable according to MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Therefore, there is no requirement to use Jackson to address the limitation again. In addition, the phase "the main tube having a greater diameter than the at least one side tube" is presented in the preamble of the claim, and the method of the claim body does not explicitly require the feature.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that neither Flynn nor Jackson discloses or suggests elements "intended to ease implantation of the insert" as recited in claim 1.
Examiner's response: 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. In this case, Flynn's textile insert includes all the claimed features of the warp-knitted fabric with respect to both structure and material, and the cord of Flynn introduced into the at least one side tube is capable of easing implantation of the textile insert as claimed. As the cord of Flynn has met the claimed feature, there is no requirement for Jackson to also have the claimed feature.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that Jackson's yarns are knitted into the fabric structure, they loop and interlock with other yarns as part of the knit, while the instant claim 1 explicitly recites "an assembly of non-looping capstan-mounted yarns."
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, "an assembly of non-looping capstan-mounted yarns" in claim 1 is recited as one of alternative elements (see the claimed limitation "a straight yarn or an assembly of non-looping capstan-mounted yarns, a band, optical fibers, a rod, or a cord"), and a prior art reference does not have to include "an assembly of non-looping capstan-mounted yarns". Second, in Jackson, yarns 47 are inlaid in the knitted textile and do not form any loops. Therefore, Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that Jackson's "tubes" are the garment body itself - a front knitted fabric panel and a rear knitted fabric panel joined along their side edges, which are not separate tubular pockets within a fabric structure as recited in claim 1.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office action has mapped the knitted wales accommodating spandex yarns 47 as tubes. Applicant's argument appears to be irrelevant.
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights