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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-6, 9-10 and 13-14 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 Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 11/24/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 6-7, "the flechage knitting technique" appears to read "a flechage knitting technique" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 1, second to the last line, "a central 2 portion" should read "a central portion";
In claim 13, line 5, "the flechage knitting technique" appears to read "a flechage knitting technique" as it is the first time the limitation is recited;
In claim 14, "said at least one structured stitch knitting step" should read "said at least one step of manufacturing by structured stitch knitting" for clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-14 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.
Claim 13 recites the phrase "in particular", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation following "in particular" is recited as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the limitation following "in particular" is optional in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a first flexible knitted portion", which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has set forth a first flexible knitted portion. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the same first flexible knitted portion or different. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with "said" or "the" when referring back. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "the first flexible knitted portion".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a second rigid knitted portion", which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 13 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has set forth a second structured stitch rigid knitted portion. It is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the same second rigid knitted portion or different. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with "said" or "the" when referring back. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "the second structured stitch rigid knitted portion".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said two manufacturing steps", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has set forth at least one step of manufacturing a first flexible knitted portion of said collar and at least one step of manufacturing by structured stitch knitting a second rigid knitted portion of said collar. It is unclear which two manufacturing steps are being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be said at least one step of manufacturing the first flexible knitted portion of said collar and said at least one step of manufacturing by structured stitch knitting the second rigid knitted portion of said collar.
Claim 14 recites the term "preferably", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation following "in particular" is recited as part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the limitation following "preferably" is optional in the claim.
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 1-6, 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevins (US 2,584,834 A) in view of Williams (US 2023/0000175 A1) and further in view of Seiler (US 3,293,662 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bevins discloses a collar of a knitted garment (collar 2 of a knitted sports shirt 1; fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 1-4; col. 2, ll. 11-18; claim 2), comprising:
a first flexible knitted portion (turn-down portion 2b, and roll welt structures 7, 8; figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll. 11-18; col. 3, ll. 5-15) comprising a rectilinear shaped inner longitudinal end (between roll welt structure 7 and neck band 2a; see fig. 1 and annotated figs. 2, 4; col. 2, ll. 8-10) and a curve-shaped outer longitudinal end (in garment 1; see annotated fig. 1);
- a second structured stitch rigid knitted portion (neck band 2a made of a bird's eye jacquard; figs. 1-2; col. 2, ll. 11-24), distinct from said first portion and constituting a collar stand (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2), said second portion comprising a rectilinear shaped inner longitudinal end (adjoining the roll welt structure 8; see fig. 1 and annotated figs. 2, 4) corresponding to said inner longitudinal end of said first portion (see fig. 1 and annotated figs. 2, 4) and a curve-shaped outer longitudinal end (at seam 3 and being curved in garment 1; see fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 13-17), said second portion being linked to said first portion at said inner longitudinal end of said first and second portions (knitted integrally; figs. 2, 4; col. 2, ll. 11-24); and
- a curve-shaped longitudinal fold axis (defined at one rib course at fold 6 and being curved in garment 1; see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 5-15) of said first portion, said longitudinal fold axis being located in said first portion (between roll welt structures 7, 8; figs. 1-2), so that an upper portion (portion 2b and roll welt structure 7; figs. 1, 4) of said first portion is folded along said longitudinal fold axis (at fold 6; figs. 1, 4) to cover a lower portion (roll welt structure 8; see figs. 1, 4) of said first portion located below the fold axis and the entirety of said second portion (entire neck band 2a; see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 4);
said collar comprising two rectilinear shaped lateral ends (see annotated fig. 1); and
said collar when unfolded defining a height H1 between said outer longitudinal end of said first portion and said outer longitudinal end of said second portion at its central portion at a central portion of said collar (inherent feature), and a height H2 at each of its two lateral ends of said collar (inherent feature).
PNG
media_image1.png
896
1196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 from US 2,584,834 A
PNG
media_image2.png
752
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 2, 4 from US 2,584,834 A
Bevins does not explicitly disclose wherein said curve-shaped longitudinal fold axis being parallel to said outer longitudinal end of said first portion. However, Bevins does disclose wherein said curve-shaped longitudinal fold axis (at 6; fig. 1) is substantially parallel to said outer longitudinal end of said first portion (see annotated fig. 1) so as to form a turndown collar (see annotated fig. 1). Further, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that it has been a common practice to make or select a fold axis to be parallel to an outer longitudinal end of a collar. Therefore, 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 have configured said curve-shaped longitudinal fold axis being parallel to said outer longitudinal end of said first portion. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Bevins does not explicitly disclose wherein the height H1 larger than the height H2. However, Williams, in an analogous art, teaches a collar (collar 100; fig. 1; para. 0025) comprising: a first portion (leaf 102; fig. 1; para. 0025) defining a height H1 at its central portion between two outer longitudinal ends of the collar (along axis 110; see fig. 1; para. 0025), and a height H2 at each of its two lateral ends between the two outer longitudinal ends of the collar (at first edge 128 and second edge 130; see fig. 1; para. 0028), with H1 being larger than H2 (inner edge 126 is concavely curved relative to outer edge 124, and the total height H of the collar 100 increases toward central plane 110; see fig. 1; para. 0030). 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 shape of the collar as disclosed by Bevins, with wherein H1 being larger than H2 as taught by Williams, in order to provide a stylish collar with small front portions when being worn thereby enhancing the aesthetic appeal driven by the fashion during a certain time period. In addition, such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results, therefore is not considered to be a patentably distinct limitation. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Bevins does not explicitly disclose said first and second portions of the collar being knitted according to the flechage knitting technique. However, Seiler, in an analogous art, teaches a knitted collar (figs. 5-6, 6a; col. 4, ll. 16-51; col. 5, ll. 38-40; claim 1) comprising a first knitted portion (outer portion 2; figs. 5-6, 6a, 10; col. 4, ll. 47-51; col. 5, ll. 38-40) and a second knitted portion (inner portion 4; figs. 5-6, 6a, 10; col. 4, ll. 47-51; col. 5, ll. 38-40), the second knitted portion constituting a collar stand (figs. 5-6, 6a, 10; col. 4, ll. 47-51; col. 5, ll. 38-40), said first and second portions of the collar being knitted according to the flechage knitting technique (flechage knitting is used at least in tips 2a in outer portion 2 and 4a in inner portion 4 for shaping the collar; figs. 5-6, 6a; col. 4, ll. 16-51). 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 collar as disclosed by Bevins, with said first and second portions of the collar being knitted according to the flechage knitting technique as taught by Seiler, in order to provide a fashioned collar by variation of dimensions in different portions of the collar by the flechage knitting technique (Seiler; col. 4, ll. 16-27).
Regarding claim 2, Bevins, Williams and Seiler, in combination, disclose the collar of the knitted garment according to claim 1. Bevins does not explicitly disclose wherein said height H1 is between 7 cm and 10 cm. 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 configured the height H1 as disclosed by Bevins, with wherein said height H1 is between 7 cm and 10 cm, in order to provide a suitable height for a collar product in a desired garment. A change in size 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 3, Bevins, Williams and Seiler, in combination, disclose the collar of the knitted garment according to claim 1. Bevins does not explicitly disclose wherein said height H2 is between 5 cm and 8 cm. 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 configured the height H2 as disclosed by Bevins, with wherein said height H2 is between 5 cm and 8 cm, in order to provide a suitable height for lateral ends of a collar product in a desired garment. A change in size 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 4, Bevins, Williams and Seiler, in combination, disclose the collar of the knitted garment according to claim 1, and Bevins further discloses wherein said collar is made in one-piece (fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 11-24).
Regarding claim 5, Bevins, Williams and Seiler, in combination, disclose the collar of the knitted garment according to claim 1. Bevins does not explicitly disclose wherein said second portion of said structured stitch collar extends over a height at its central portion between 0.5 cm and 2.5 cm. 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 configured the height H2 as disclosed by Bevins, with wherein said second portion of said structured stitch collar extends over a height at its central portion between 0.5 cm and 2.5 cm, in order to provide a suitable height for a collar stand in a desired garment. A change in size 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, Bevins, Williams and Seiler, in combination, disclose the garment collar according to claim 1, except for wherein said collar is made of cotton or of a synthetic material. 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 selected the material of the collar as claimed, in order to use a commonly used material for a garment collar to provide softness and comfort for a wearer. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. 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 9, Bevins, Williams and Seiler, in combination, disclose the garment collar as defined according to claim 1, and Bevins further discloses a garment (sports shirt 1; fig. 1; col. 1, ll. 1-4; col. 2, ll. 11-18) comprising the collar (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bevins, Williams and Seiler, in combination, disclose the garment according to claim 9, and Bevins further discloses the garment being a polo (sports shirt 1; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Bevins, Williams and Seiler, in combination, disclose a collar of a knitted garment according to claim 1. Bevins further discloses a method for manufacturing the collar (figs. 2-4; col. 2, ll. 11-55; col. 3, ll. 1-19), said method comprising
- at least one step of manufacturing a first flexible knitted portion of said collar (knitting turn-down portion 2b, and roll welt structures 7, 8 on a rib knitting machine; figs. 2-4; col. 2, ll. 28-55; col. 3, ll. 1-15);
- at least one step of manufacturing by structured stitch knitting a second rigid knitted portion of said collar (knitting neck band 2a; figs. 2-4; col. 2, ll. 28-55), distinct from said first portion and constituting the collar stand (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 2), and
said two manufacturing steps being done successively (fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 11-55; col. 3, ll. 1-19).
Bevins does not explicitly disclose said two manufacturing steps involving the flechage knitting technique. However, as discussed for claim 1, Seiler teaches knitting the first and second portion of the collar involving the flechage knitting technique (figs. 5-6, 6a; col. 4, ll. 16-51). 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 Bevins, with said two manufacturing steps involving the flechage knitting technique as taught by Seiler, in order to provide a fashioned collar by variation of dimensions in different portions of the collar by the flechage knitting technique (Seiler; col. 4, ll. 16-27).
Regarding claim 14, Bevins, Williams and Seiler, in combination, disclose the method according to claim 13, and Bevins further discloses wherein said at least one structured stitch knitting step is carried out according to a technique selected from among Milano knitting, Interlock knitting, double-face knitting, tubular knitting or ribbed/tubular combined knitting (double face knitting and ribbed knitting on a ribbed knitting machine with two needle beds; col. 2, ll. 28-38), said at least one structured stitch knitting step being preferably carried out according to the Milano knitting technique.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
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