Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed December 8, 2025 has been received, Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of first pile yarns, each of the plurality of first pile yarns sequentially forms one of the plurality of cut-loop piles, at least continuous two of the arcuate yarn segments, and another one of the plurality of cut-loop piles, wherein the other one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of second pile yarns, each of the plurality of second pile yarns sequentially forms one of the cut-loop piles, one of the arcuate yarn segments, and another one of the plurality of cut-loop pile” in Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
2. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 recites “wherein one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of first pile yarns, each of the plurality of first pile yarns sequentially forms one of the plurality of cut-loop piles, at least continuous two of the arcuate yarn segments, and another one of the plurality of cut-loop piles, wherein the other one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of second pile yarns, each of the plurality of second pile yarns sequentially forms one of the cut-loop piles, one of the arcuate yarn segments, and another one of the plurality of cut-loop pile”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, there does not appear to be any support for the two plush structures each comprising a plurality of pile yarns, and each of the pile yarns forming a cut loop pile. It appears Applicant is meaning to claim the plush structures each comprise a plurality of cut loop piles, each cut loop pile being formed by a yarn segment that forms either a “first cut loop portion, two continuous arcuate portions, and a second cut loop portion” or “a first cut loop portion, an arcuate portion, and a second cut loop portion” (or something to that effect). See Page 4 of Applicant’s Specification, which details that “the cut-loop piles 221, 231 are produced by loop-cutting when knitting with the circular knitting machine”; i.e. a loop is made by the pile yarn and then cut. Therefore, Applicant’s specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of first pile yarns, each of the plurality of first pile yarns sequentially forms one of the plurality of cut-loop piles, at least continuous two of the arcuate yarn segments, and another one of the plurality of cut-loop piles, wherein the other one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of second pile yarns, each of the plurality of second pile yarns sequentially forms one of the cut-loop piles, one of the arcuate yarn segments, and another one of the plurality of cut-loop pile”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, there does not appear to be any support for the two plush structures each comprising a plurality of pile yarns, and each of the pile yarns forming a cut loop pile. It appears Applicant is meaning to claim the plush structures each comprise a plurality of cut loop piles, each cut loop pile being formed by a yarn segment that forms either a “first cut loop portion, two continuous arcuate portions, and a second cut loop portion” or “a first cut loop portion, an arcuate portion, and a second cut loop portion” (or something to that effect). See Page 4 of Applicant’s Specification, which details that “the cut-loop piles 221, 231 are produced by loop-cutting when knitting with the circular knitting machine”; i.e. a loop is made by the pile yarn and then cut. Therefore, the limitation is regarded as new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-11 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 “wherein one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of first pile yarns, each of the plurality of first pile yarns sequentially forms one of the plurality of cut-loop piles, at least continuous two of the arcuate yarn segments, and another one of the plurality of cut-loop piles, wherein the other one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of second pile yarns, each of the plurality of second pile yarns sequentially forms one of the cut-loop piles, one of the arcuate yarn segments, and another one of the plurality of cut-loop pile”. The claimed limitations are indefinite as it is unclear how each of the plush structures comprise a plurality of pile yarns. It appears Applicant is meaning to claim the plush structures each comprise a plurality of cut loop piles, each cut loop pile being formed by a cut yarn segment that forms either a “first cut loop pile portion, two continuous arcuate portions, and a second cut loop pile portion” or “a first cut loop portion, an arcuate portion, and a second cut loop portion” (or something to that effect). See Page 4 of Applicant’s Specification, which details that “the cut-loop piles 221, 231 are produced by loop-cutting when knitting with the circular knitting machine”; i.e. a loop is made by the pile yarn and then cut. Claim 1 is rejected as best understood by 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryong (KR 20020073056 A) in view of Torri (US 2014/0237747), and in further view of Ernst (GB 1285054 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ryong discloses a double-sided plush fabric (Fig.7), formed by knitting with a knitting machine (Pg.1, line 11), the double-sided plush fabric comprising: a basic structure (f1,f2,f3); and two plush structures (right CP & left CP) respectively positioned on two opposite sides of the basic structure (as seen in Fig.7), each of the two plush structures comprising a plurality of cut-loop piles (para.27) and a plurality of arcuate yarn segments knitted with the basic structure (see annotated Figure below), and a length of the plurality of cut-loop piles of the two plush structures (as seen in Fig.7), wherein one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of first pile yarns (i.e. left LP yarn: forming each left CP portion), each of the plurality of first pile yarns sequentially forms one of the plurality of cut-loop piles (i.e. one segment of CP), at least continuous two of the arcuate yarn segments (i.e. they are continuously knit as LP prior to being cut), and another one of the plurality of cut-loop piles (i.e. second segment of CP), wherein the other one of the two plush structures comprises a plurality of second pile yarns (i.e. right LP yarn: forming each right CP portion), each of the plurality of second pile yarns sequentially forms one of the cut-loop piles, one of the arcuate yarn segments, and another one of the plurality of cut-loop pile (see annotated Figure below & Fig.5; para.22-24 & 27-28).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ryong does not disclose the double-sided plush fabric is formed by knitting with a circular knitting machine. However, Torri teaches a plush fabric formed by a raschel knitting machine or a circular knitting machine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the raschel knitting machine of Ryong with the circular knitting machine of Torri, as a simple substitution of one well known type of warp knitting machine for another in order to yield the predictable result of providing a warp knit pile material.
Ryong and Torri disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Ryong does not disclose a length of the plurality of cut-loop piles of the two plush structures being in a range from 3.5 mm to 15 mm. However, Ernst teaches a pile material with a length of the plurality of cut-loop piles of the two plush structures being in a range from 3.5 mm to 15 mm (Pg.6, lines 10-12; 1/2in=12.7mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pile length of Ryong to be in a range from 3.5 mm to 15 mm, as taught by Ernst, in order to provide the desired feel to the material. Further, the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, Ryong discloses a double-sided plush fabric as claimed in claim 1, wherein the basic structure (f1,f2,f3) comprises a plurality of yarn loops (i.e. knitting is formed by looping yarn, creating a plurality of yarn loops), each of the yarn loops is knitted with one of the two plush structures, and in a same course of the plurality of yarn loops, the plurality of cut-loop piles of the two plush structures are arranged alternately (as seen in Fig.7).
Regarding Claim 3, Ryong discloses a double-sided plush fabric as claimed in claim 1, wherein the basic structure is a single-layer structure (as seen in Fig.7).
2. Claim(s) 4-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryong (KR 20020073056 A), Torri (US 2014/0237747), and Ernst (GB 1285054 A), in view of Ikeda (US 7,021,085).
Regarding Claims 4 and 8, Ryong, Torri, and Ernst disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Ryong does not disclose wherein a length of the cut-loop piles of one of the two plush structures is different from a length of the cut-loop piles of the other one of the two plush structures. However, Ikeda teaches a knit plush material with two different lengths of cut piles (4E & 4G)(as seen in Fig.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cut pile lengths of the two plush structures Ryong such that there are two different lengths, as taught by Ikeda, in order to provide the desired feel to the material. When in combination, Ryong and Ikeda teach a length of the cut-loop piles of one of the two plush structures is different from a length of the cut-loop piles of the other one of the two plush structures.
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, Ryong, Torri, and Ernst disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Ryong does not disclose wherein the two plush structures have different colors. However, Ikeda teaches a knit pile material where the pile fibers can have different colors (Col.4, line 61-Col.5, line 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plush structures of Ryong to have different colors, as taught by Ikeda, in order to provide the desired aesthetic appearance to the material. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the piles of Ryong to have different colors, since applicant has not disclosed that such solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than aesthetics. Furthermore, it is noted that matters relating to ornamentation which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding Claims 6 and 10, Ryong, Torri, and Ernst disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Ryong does not disclose wherein the cut-loop piles of at least one of the two plush structures have different colors. However, Ikeda teaches a knit pile material where cut-loop piles of one plush structures have different colors. (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cut-loop piles of at least one of the two plush structures Ryong to have different colors, as taught by Ikeda, in order to provide the desired aesthetic appearance to the material. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the piles of Ryong to have different colors, since applicant has not disclosed that such solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than aesthetics. Furthermore, it is noted that matters relating to ornamentation which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
3. Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryong (KR 20020073056 A), Torri (US 2014/0237747), and Ernst (GB 1285054 A), in view of Lawrence (US 2018/0347084).
Regarding Claims 7 and 11, Ryong, Torri, and Ernst disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Ryong does not disclose wherein at least one of the two plush structures comprises at least one burn-out area. However, Lawrence teaches a knit pile material with at least one burn-out area (para.55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least one of the two plush structures of Ryong to have a burn-out area, as taught by Lawrence, in order to provide a knit pile material with the optimum level of ventilation for enhanced evaporation rate and increased cooling ability to the user.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection and new ground(s) of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but, as they are drawn solely to the newly amended limitations, are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection and new ground(s) of rejection.
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 MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732