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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 are pending in this 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 Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 06/05/2025.
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 "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 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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, after a careful review, 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
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 06/05/2025 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. Due to the same reason as discussed above in the Drawings section, the added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: "which is an extended needle loop" in pages 3 and 5.
Applicant is required to cancel the 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.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 from US 2003/0150243 A1
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 06/05/2025 have been fully considered and addressed as follows.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that the term "needle loop" in the art refers to the upper part of the loop produced by the needle drawing the yarn, and the term "sinker loop" in the art refers to the lower part of the knitted loop which is the connection of two bottom half arcs (feet) belonging to the neighboring loops lying laterally and provided annotated figures to show piles loops 23 are needle loops in the instant application.
Examiner's response: The instant claims are directed to a weft-knitted fabric, and the terms "upper part" and "lower part" can be inversed due to different orientations of the weft-knitted fabric. In other word, an upper part will become a lower part and a lower part will become an upper part when the weft knitted fabric is flipped upside down. The instant drawings only show one knitted course, and fail to provide a view of a weft-knitted fabric or a knit direction when manufacturing the fabric. After a careful review, Figs. 1-2 of the instant application appear to show an inversed knit course; and the pile loops 23 appear to be sinker pile loops because each of the pile loops 23 two adjacent yarn loops when the figures are flipped upside down. See the Fig. 2 annotated by the examiner in the Drawing section. As such, pile loops 23 are actually sinker pile loops. Applicant's arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant's remarks: Applicant asserts that the needle loops are usually shown at the technical front of the fabric, the pile loop formed by extending the needle loop is at the technical front, the sinker loops are usually shown at the technical back of the fabric, and the pile loop formed by extending the sinker loop is at the technical back; therefore, Pot d'Or fails to show the extended needle loops as claimed because the pile loops of Pot d'Or are formed from extended sinker loops on the technical back of the fabric.
Examiner's response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the term "usually" means less than 100%; therefore, one cannot assume that needle loops must be shown at a technical front and sinker loops must be shown at a technical back just because they "usually" do. As such, one of ordinary one cannot assume that a pile loop formed by extending a needle loop must be at a technical front and a pile loop formed by extending a sinker loop must be at a technical back. Therefore, one cannot assume that the pile loops in the cited reference Pot d'Or must be at the technical back as Pot d'Or does not explicitly make such a statement. In addition, the instant drawings fail to provide a view of a representative knit structure of the knitted fabric or a knitting direction as previously discussed, one of ordinary skill of the art cannot recognize that the pile loops 23 must be needle loops at a technical front. Actually, when Fig. 2 of Pot d'Or is inversed, it shows the same structure as Fig. 2 of the instant application and shows the pile loops at the same positions as the pile loops 23 (i.e., "extended needle loops" as Applicant argued) of the instant application; therefore, the pile loops of Pot d'Or can be considered as "extended needle loops" as Applicant argues. Therefore, Pot d'Or still meets the structural requirement of the product claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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