DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 limitations are:
i. Claims 12-13 and 26, “sliding mechanism(s)”, which has been interpreted as the combination of a panel and one or more tracks, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 88). This limitation has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claim 21 in view of the recited panel and track.
ii. Claim 22, “fixing device”, which has been interpreted as a clamp, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 89). This limitation has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claim 23 in view of the recited clamp.
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 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.
Claim 21-23 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.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear if “the projections” in line 12 is referring to the “plurality of projections” recited in lines 2-3 or the “at least some of the projections” recited in line 7. The latter appears to be the more reasonable interpretation since the projections in line 12 are movable as are the “at least some of the projections”. The examiner suggests using “the at least some of the projections” in line 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (TW M645298 U, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a method of manufacturing an article of apparel (Abstract). Huang’s helmet is considered an article of apparel because it is worn by an individual. This is consistent with “apparel” as defined in paragraph 42 of Applicant’s published application. Huang teaches forming a thread layer by winding a continuous thread around a plurality of projections disposed on a support shell 121 (Figures 3-8). It is noted that the thin curved shell 121 of Huang satisfies a plate. The examiner has interpreted a plate as a thin rigid material. A plate can be curved, and the claims do not recite a flat plate. Huang further teaches the support plate comprises a winding field around which the projections are arranged and away from which the projections are tilted (Figures 3-5). Here the projections 122b are clearly tilted away from a winding field above these projections. The projections 122b comprise a first set of movable projections on a first end of the winding field, satisfied by projections 122b on the at the left side of Figure 2 for example, and a second set of movable projections on a second end of the winding field, satisfied by projections 122b on the right side of Figure 2 for example. The left and right sides are on opposite sides of the winding field therebetween and thus are considered to be at respective first and second ends of the winding field (Figures 2-4). The first and second sets of movable projections are clearly configured to move relative to the support plate (Figures 3-4). As seen in Figures 2-4, the first and second ends of the winding field as interpreted above are opposite each other such that the first and second sets of movable projections are tilted away from each other. Huang further teaches the thread layer comprises a plurality of thread lines, with each thread line extending between two respective projections and across the winding field (Figures 5-8). Huang further teaches moving at least some of the projections relative to the field and removing the thread layer from the support plate after moving the at least some of the projections relative to the field (Figures 3-4; page 4, lines 17-40; page 5, lines 37-39; page 6, lines 1-4).
Regarding claims 4-9, Huang teaches these additional limitations (Figures 3-8; page 2, line 36 to page 3, line 19; page 4, lines 17-40; page 5, line 37 to page 6, line 8). The pivot points illustrated in Figure 3-4 satisfy the claimed hinges of claim 5 and a base of the support plate is satisfied by any portion of the support plate.
Regarding claim 10, Huang removes the thread layer from projections 122a before they are moved, i.e. rotated, in the next winding cycle. Huang also removes the thread layer from a subset of the projections 122b before they are moved, i.e. back into the winding position. This rather broad limitation is satisfied by Huang for either of these reasons.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claims 1 and 4-10 above, and further in view of Corcoran-Tadd (US 2019/0307208 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Huang teaches adhesive on the thread, but does not recite bonding thread lines before removing or before moving at least some of the projections toward the field as claimed. In related art of winding thread around pins to produce a thread layer, Corcoran-Tadd suggests such bonding prior to removing, to set the thread layer pattern before it is removed (paragraphs 81, 119, 121-123 and 169). In Huang, the projections are moved for removal of the thread layer. Accordingly, such bonding would naturally occur prior to the moving the projections. Moreover, since bonding sets the thread layer pattern, failure to bond before moving the projections would naturally disrupt the thread layer pattern because it is the projections which hold the pattern prior to stabilization with bonding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Huang because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to set the thread pattern before moving pins or removing the thread pattern from the support, as suggested by the teachings of Corcoran-Tadd for the reasons provided above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corcoran-Tadd in view of Cahuzac (US 2003/0140467 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Corcoran-Tadd teaches a method of manufacturing an article of apparel, the method comprising: forming a thread layer by winding a continuous thread around a plurality of projections disposed on a support plate, wherein the support plate comprises a winding field around which the projections are arranged, wherein the thread layer comprises a plurality of thread lines, with each thread line extending between two respective projections and across the winding field (Figures 3 and 13; paragraphs 5, 51, 72-74 and 106).
i. Corcoran-Tadd does not teach the projections are tilted away from the winding field.
ii. Corcoran-Tadd does not teach moving at least some of the projections relative to the field; and removing the thread layer from the support plate after moving the at least some of the projections relative to the field.
iii. Corcoran-Tadd does not teach the support plate comprises a base, a track and a panel, the track being positioned on the base, and the panel being slidable on the track such that the track and the panel define a sliding mechanism that movably couples the projections to the base.
(i) In related art of forming a thread layer by winding around pins, Cahuzac suggests this limitation to suitably hold the thread material (Figures 3-4b; paragraph 19-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Corcoran-Tadd because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably hold the thread material as suggested by teachings of Cahuzac.
(ii) Cahuzac also suggests these limitations to facilitate removing the thread layer from the support on which it is formed (paragraph 106). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Corcoran-Tadd because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to facilitate removal of the thread layer as suggested by the teachings of Cahuzac.
(iii) Cahuzac suggests a support plate which can be disassembled into its sides, the sides rotated and retracted in order remove the thread layer (paragraph 106). The support plate includes a sliding mechanism including a panel satisfied the side that slides, the track being satisfied by the sides or edges along which the sliding panel slides, and the base of the support is satisfied by a stationary side or sides. See Cahuzac (paragraph 101; Figure 12). The sliding mechanism of Cahuzac movably couples the movable projections to the base and allows changing the dimensions of the winding field (paragraph 101). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Corcoran-Tadd because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow for changing the dimensions of the winding field as suggested by the teachings of Cahuzac.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corcoran-Tadd in view of Cahuzac as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ortiz (US 5820013).
Regarding claims 22-23, Cahuzac was applied above for suggesting a sliding mechanism as illustrated in Figure 12 thereof. While Cahuzac does not recite a fixation device such as a clamp for fixing a position of the sliding mechanism, it is generally known in the art of fixtures which such a similar sliding mechanism to provide a clamp for fixing the position thereof. See Ortiz (Figures 1-3D; column 4, lines 30-52; column 5, lines 20-49). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Corcoran-Tadd because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to hold the sliding mechanism in a desired position in a known suitable manner, as suggested by Ortiz.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-27 are allowed. Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 11-12, the closest prior art of record is applied above. In combination with the claimed limitations, no teaching or suggestion was found in the prior art of record to provide the additional limitation of claim 11 or the additional combined limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 24, the closest prior art of record is applied above. In combination with the claimed limitations, no teaching or suggestion was found in the prior art of record to provide the claimed combined limitations of changing tension on the continuous thread after forming the first thread layer by moving the plurality of projections relative to the field from the first position to a second position; and after changing tension on the continuous thread by moving the plurality of projections to the second position, forming a second thread layer on the plurality of projections while the plurality of projections is in the second position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the pins 122b of Huang are all on the same side of the winding field. In response, the examiner’s position is that Applicant is reading amended claim 1 too narrowly. The broadest reasonable interpretation applied by the examiner in the new grounds of rejection above is satisfied by Huang as detailed in the above rejection.
The argument directed to Huang in view of Corcoran-Tadd is not persuasive for the reasons provided above.
The rejection over Corcoran-Tadd in view of Huang has been overcome by the most recent amendment. This rejection has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1 and 12 over Corcoran-Tadd in view of Cahuzac has been overcome by the most recent amendment. This rejection has been withdrawn. Claims 12-13 have been indicated as allowable if amended to include the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
New claims 21-23 are satisfied for the reasons provided above in the rejection of these claims over Corcoran-Tadd in view of Cahuzac.
Claims 24-27 have been indicated as allowable.
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 MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 pm.
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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights