DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
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
Claim 2 recites, “the length A of the pattern thread seen through the openings is 0.50 mm to 2.50 mm, as viewed form the front side of the front layer knitted fabric” in lines 1-3. The length A, in view of the specification, is interpreted as the length of a straight line connecting the 2 points where the pattern thread has the longest linear distance within the distance between the surfaces contacting with the two stitches holding the pattern thread, throughout the full area of the pattern thread seen through an opening, as shown in FIGs. 1 and 3. In other words, the length A is the longest linear distance of the decorative thread between the two stitches holding the pattern thread as seen through the opening of the front layer of the knitted fabric.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13 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, “pattern thread” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites, “the length A of the pattern thread seen through the openings is 0.50 mm to 2.50 mm, as viewed from the front side of the front layer knitted fabric” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the length A of the pattern thread” in the claim. Secondly, it is advised to insert “of the” after “front layer” and before “knitted fabric” in view of clarity in claim 2.
Claim 3 recites, “the difference ΔH between the average value for the heights of two stitches holding both ends of the pattern thread seen through the openings, and the height of the pattern thread, is 0.10 mm or greater, as viewed from the front side of the front layer knitted fabric” in lines 1-4. Firstly, it is not clear at what location the height of the pattern thread is measured. In other words, is the height of the pattern thread measured near one of the ends held by one of the two stitches or at its center point of its length A (i.e., A/2)? It appears the position at which the height of the pattern thread is measured would alter the value of ΔH. Therefore, this claim is indefinite as it unclear at what location the height of the pattern thread is measured. Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the difference ΔH between the average value for the heights of two stitches holding both ends of the pattern thread seen the openings, and the height of the pattern thread” in lines 2-3.
Claim 4 recites, “the value ΔH/A, which is the difference between ΔH between the average value for the heights of two stitches holding both ends of the pattern thread seen through the openings, and the height of the pattern thread, divided by the length A of the pattern thread seen through the openings, is 0.02 or greater” in lines 1-4. Firstly, it is not clear at what location the height of the pattern thread is measured. In other words, is the height of the pattern thread measured near one of the ends held by one of the two stitches or at its center point of its length A (i.e., A/2)? It appears the position at which the height of the pattern thread is measured would alter the value of ΔH. Therefore, this claim is indefinite as it unclear at what location the height of the pattern thread is measured. Secondly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the value ΔH/A, which is the difference ΔH between the average value for the heights of two stitches holding both ends of the pattern thread seen through the openings, and the height of the pattern thread, divided by the length A of the pattern thread seen through the openings” in lines 2-4 (emphasis added).
Regarding dependent claims 2-13, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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 (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 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) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US 2003/0106346).
Regarding claims 1 and 5
Matsumoto teaches a three-dimensional knitted fabric comprising a front web, a rear web, and a linking yarn linking both webs. The three-dimensional knitted fabric is used for various applications such as bedclothes, clothing, cushioning materials. These end uses correspond to a surface covering material. At least one of the front and rear webs is knitted by a mesh construction. The front layer knitted fabric has openings and the inlay yarn of different color is inlay stitched in the openings. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0019-0025], [0130-0132], [0137], [0139-0140], [0151], [0168], and FIG. 30-31. Given the inlay yarn is of a different color, it follows it corresponds to a pattern thread as the different color forms a pattern on the surface of the three-dimensional knitted fabric.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2003/0106346).
Regarding claim 2
Matsumoto further teaches the length of the inlay yarn, corresponding to the pattern thread, seen through the opening of the front web, corresponds to the width of a wale. Paragraphs [0133-0139]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a width of a wale of a knitted fabric would reasonably overlap the range of 0.5 to 2.5 mm. Therefore, the length of the inlay yarn seen through the opening overlaps the range of 0.5 to 2.5 mm.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 6
Matsumoto further teaches the front layer knitted fabric has a ridge structure and the openings are the recesses of the gaps between adjacent convex ridges. Paragraphs [0167-0169] and FIGs. 29A-B.
Claims 7-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 2003/0106346), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. (US 2024/0401244).
Regarding claims 7-10
Matsumoto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the stitch density of the front layer knitted fabric.
With respect to the difference, Sakai teaches a knitted fabric for a seat exhibiting excellent appearance, sitting comfort, and air permeability. The knitted fabric preferably has a knitting density of 15 yarns/24.5 mm or more and 40 yarns/25.4 mm or less in the warp and weft direction. This knitting density allows for an appropriate amount of deflection and strength and provides excellent sitting comfort and air permeability. The fineness of the monofilament producing the fabric is 500 dtex or more and 2000 dtex or less. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0077], [0086-0087], and [0097]. The knitting density ranges from 5,031 to 71,554 in view of the equation to calculate knitting density provided by Applicant in paragraph [0040].
Sakai and Matsumoto are analogous art as they are both drawn to knitted fabric for seats.
In light of the motivation as provided by Sakai, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the knitting density of the front layer knitted fabric of Matsumoto ranges from 5,031 to 71,554, in order to provide excellent sitting comfort and air permeability and ensure strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claims 11-13
Matsumoto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the air permeability from the connecting layer side toward the front layer knitted fabric.
With respect to the difference, Sakai teaches a knitted fabric for a seat exhibiting excellent appearance, sitting comfort, and air permeability. The knitted fabric preferably possesses an air permeability of 20 cc/cm2/sec or more and 180 cc/cm2/sec or less in view of reducing a stuffy feeling and sufficiently supporting a body when used by a user. The air permeability is measured based on JIS L 1096 A method. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0089], and [0094].
Sakai and Matsumoto are analogous art as they are both drawn to knitted fabric for seats.
In light of the motivation as provided by Sakai, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the air permeability from the connecting layer side toward the front layer knitted fabric ranges from 20 to 180 cc/cm2/sec or more, in order to reduce a stuffy feeling and sufficiently supporting a body when used by a user, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789