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 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. The claim amendment and substitute specification have been entered.
The drawing replacement has been fully reviewed and is not accepted due to new subject matter, i.e., the words "UP" and "DOWN" in Figs. 1-2, that does not find basis in the original disclosure. In addition, it is unclear what the words represent as such words are not defined in the original specification. Therefore, the drawing amendment filed on 11/25/2025 will not be entered.
Claims 1-5 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 Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 11/25/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed features:
1) "weft-knitted fabric" and "each of the plurality of cut-loop piles being formed by cutting a pile loop which is an extended needle loop and formed from a portion of one of at least two colored yarns" in claim 1, and 2) "wherein a portion of the basic yarn loops are not connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles" in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
About the feature 1), it is noted that Figs. 1-2 only depict a knit course without providing a representative knit structure and/or a knitting direction, failing to show how the yarns are connected between adjacent courses; consequently, the orientation of the depicted knit course relative to a knitting direction cannot be ascertained. Actually, Figs. 1-2 appear to depict an inversed knit course; and the pile loops 23 appear to be sinker pile loops as each connecting two feet of adjacent yarn loops when Figs. 1-2 are inversed (see the inversed Fig. 2 with annotations below). Therefore, there is no support in the drawings that the pile loops 23 are needle loops.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
About the feature 2), Fig. 1 shows all the basic yarn loops 21 are either directly or indirectly connected to the plurality of cut-loop piles 22.
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
The amendment filed 11/25/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material in the amendment filed 11/25/2025 which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: "wherein a portion of the basic yarn loops are not connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles" in page 3.
In addition, the specification still includes new matter " each of the plurality of cut-loop piles being formed by cutting a pile loop which is an extended needle loop" in pages 3 and 5, which was introduced to the specification on 06/05/2025 and was required to be canceled in the previous Office action dated 08/26/2025.
Applicant is required to cancel the above new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 "each of the plurality of cut-loop piles being formed by cutting a pile loop which is an extended needle loop". However, the original disclosure does not set forth the feature. The original specification does not have the term "needle loop"; in addition, as discussed above in the Drawings section, Figs. 1-2 of the drawings appear to show that the pile loops 23 are sinker pile loops. Therefore, claiming the pile loops being extended needle loops constitutes new matter.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein a portion of the basic yarn loops are not connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles". However, the original disclosure does not set forth the feature. The original specification is silent about wherein a portion of the basic yarn loops are not connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles; and the drawings show that all the basic yarn loops are either directly or indirectly connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles. Therefore, claiming wherein a portion of the basic yarn loops are not connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles constitutes new matter.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being which renders the claim 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 "wherein a portion of the basic yarn loops are not connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles", which renders the claim indefinite. As all the basic yarn loops and the plurality of cut-loop piles are components of the weft-knitted fabric, any basic yarn loop must be either directly or indirectly connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles. It is unclear how the weft-knitted fabric is configured to have a portion of the basic yarn loops not connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be wherein a portion of the basic yarn loops are not directly connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pot d'Or (US 2003/0150243 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pot d'Or discloses a weft-knitted fabric (fig. 2; paras. 0040-0041) with a plurality of cut-loop piles (formed by cutting loops 31 of yarn F2; see annotated fig. 2 with Fig. 2 inversed; paras. 0042, 0044), comprising:
a plurality of basic yarn loops (formed by ground yarn G; see annotated fig. 2 with Fig. 2 inversed; para. 0041), formed from at least one basic yarn (ground yarn G; fig. 2; para. 0041); and
the plurality of cut-loop piles, respectively connected to one of the plurality of basic yarn loops (by remaining portions of yarn F2; fig. 2; paras. 0041-0042), each of the plurality of cut-loop piles being formed by cutting a pile loop which is an extended needle loop and formed from a portion of one of at least two colored yarns (one of two colored yarns F1 and F2; see the inversed fig. 2 with annotations; paras. 0042, 0044), wherein another portion of each of the at least two colored yarns without forming the plurality of cut-loop piles forms at least one of the plurality of basic yarn loops together with the at least one basic yarn (fig. 2; paras. 0041-0042), and colors of the at least two colored yarns are different (para. 0041),
wherein a portion of the basic yarn loops are not connected with the plurality of cut-loop piles (not directly connected; see annotated fig. 2), a portion of the plurality of cut-loop piles is formed by one of the at least two colored yarns (fig. 2; colored yarn F2).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 from US 2003/0150243 A1
Pot d'Or does not disclose wherein another portion of the plurality of cut-loop piles is formed by another one of the at least two colored yarns. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also form cut-loop files from the extended needle loops 32, which are formed by colored yarn F1 in Pot d'Or, in order to form a velour fabric with all the pile loops being cut, as a velour fabric has been a well-known fabric in the knitting art and also widely used for a long time period. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, Pot d'Or discloses the weft-knitted fabric with the plurality of cut-loop piles as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of cut-loop piles comprises a pile base (see the inversed fig. 2 with annotations) connected to at least one of the plurality of basic yarn loops (see the inversed fig. 2 with annotations), and at least one cut pile (see the inversed fig. 2 with annotations) connected to the pile base (see the inversed fig. 2 with annotations).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pot d'Or (US 2003/0150243 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Pot d'Or discloses the weft-knitted fabric with the plurality of cut-loop piles as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the weft-knitted fabric comprises a plurality of courses (fig. 2; paras. 0040-0041).
Pot d'Or does not explicitly disclose wherein positions of the plurality of cut-loop piles between the plurality of courses are varied. However, Pot d'Or does disclose that the weft-knitted fabric comprising a knitted pattern with two yarns of different colors and different knitted structures (paras. 0043-0044), and the weft-knitted fabric is manufactured by a circular knitting machine with a pattern-dependent control program which enables knitting the two yarns of different colors by selective needles (paras. 0092-0095). 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 configured the weft-knitted fabric as disclosed by Pot d'Or, with wherein positions of the plurality of cut-loop piles between the plurality of courses are varied, in order to provide the weft-knitted fabric with esthetically attractive patterns to consumers. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art by using the circular knitting machine disclosed by Pot d'Or.
Regarding claim 3, Pot d'Or discloses the weft-knitted fabric with the plurality of cut-loop piles as claimed in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the weft-knitted fabric comprises a plurality of courses (fig. 2; paras. 0040-0041).
Pot d'Or does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the plurality of cut-loop piles between each of the plurality of courses is varied. However, Pot d'Or does disclose that the weft-knitted fabric comprising a knitted pattern with two yarns of different colors and different knitted structures (paras. 0043-0044), and the weft-knitted fabric is manufactured by a circular knitting machine with a pattern-dependent control program which enables knitting the two yarns of different colors by selective needles (paras. 0092-0095). 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 configured the weft-knitted fabric as disclosed by Pot d'Or, with wherein a number of the plurality of cut-loop piles between each of the plurality of courses is varied, in order to provide the weft-knitted fabric with esthetically attractive patterns to consumers. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art by using the circular knitting machine disclosed by Pot d'Or.
Regarding claim 4, Pot d'Or discloses the weft-knitted fabric with the plurality of cut-loop piles as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the weft-knitted fabric comprises a plurality of courses (fig. 2; paras. 0040-0041).
Pot d'Or does not explicitly disclose a number of the plurality of cut-loop piles between the plurality of courses is varied. However, Pot d'Or does disclose that the weft-knitted fabric comprising a knitted pattern with two yarns of different colors and different knitted structures (paras. 0043-0044), and the weft-knitted fabric is manufactured by a circular knitting machine with a pattern-dependent control program which enables knitting the two yarns of different colors by selective needles (paras. 0092-0095). 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 configured the weft-knitted fabric as disclosed by Pot d'Or, with wherein a number of the plurality of cut-loop piles between different courses of the plurality of courses is varied, in order to provide the weft-knitted fabric with esthetically attractive patterns to consumers. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art by using the circular knitting machine disclosed by Pot d'Or.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Further, Applicant's arguments filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered and addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that, because a circular knitting machine knits the fabric course by course, and the direction of the fabric will affect the knitting action of the circular knitting machine, when the person having ordinary skill in the art reads the fabric structure diagram, he will consider the direction of the figure is identical to the direction of the circular knitting machine and will not inverse the figures.
Examiner's response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, a weft-knitted fabric, as a product that has been manufactured, cannot affect a knitting action of a knitting machine, because a knitting action happens before the fabric is completed. Second, Figs. 1-2 only show a structure of a course of the fabric, thus cannot be considered as a knitting diagram unless the original specification has stated that the orientation of the course is the same as the knitting direction when the fabric is being knitted. Third, the instant Figs. 1-2 even do not show a structure of a fabric as being weft knitted in a circular knitting machine. Fourth, Applicant, in the remarks filed 06/05/2025, provides a definition of "sinker loop" as "the connection of two bottom half arcs (feet) belonging to the neighboring loops lying laterally". Applicant, in the remarks filed 06/05/2025, also provides illustrations of needle loops and sinker loops in the knitting art. Applicant's illustrations are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
295
393
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill of the art would also recognize that Fig. 1 of the cited reference Pot d'Or shows a common weft knitted fabric structure, with sinker loops being connected to adjacent stitches. Figs. 1-2 of the instant application, as reproduced below, fail to shows any sinker loop connecting two neighboring loops lying laterally as shown in the above illustration provided by Applicant. It is unclear how the structure shown in Figs. 1-2 can be obtained from a common circular knitting machine if the orientation of the structure matches the knitting direction. The examiner assumes that no essential matter is omitted in the original disclosure.
PNG
media_image4.png
475
932
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
453
896
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For the above reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
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