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 8/26/25 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/28/25.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 15-19, 21-23, 25 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 2 is missing amendment annotations—the previous recitation said “wherein the”, but no annotations are provided for the cancellation of the term “the”; as a courtesy, the amendment will be examined on its merits; however, future issues may warrant a notice of non-compliance, and any additional amendments submitted herein with missing annotations that require further objections/rejections will not constitute new objections/rejections as a result of proceeding on the merits
Claim 1 Line 8 before “loops” delete “the”
Claim 1 Lines 10-12 “wherein the method…is elastic” should be outdented in a new paragraph, such as in Claims 23, 25
Claim 2 Line 2 delete “knitting of a tuck stitch” and substitute –the knitting of the at least one tuck stitch— to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, and has been corrected in Claim 3
Claim 5 Line 3 after “stitches” delete comma
Claim 5 Line 3 after “the needle” add –of the first selection of needles—to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, and has been corrected in Claim 9
Claim 6 Line 3 after “stitches” delete comma
Claim 6 Line 4 after “the needle” add –of the first selection of needles—to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, and has been corrected in Claim 9
Claim 7 Line 3 delete “dense zones” and substitute –at least one dense zone--
Claim 8 Line 4 after “a tuck” add –of the at least one tuck stitch—for clear antecedent basis with Claim 1 Line 7 and Claim 2 Line 2
Claim 8 Line 3 after “stitches” delete comma
Claim 9 Line 4 after “a tuck” add –of the at least one tuck stitch—
Claim 9 Line 3 after “stitches” delete comma
Claim 10 Lines 2-3 delete “dense zone or zones alternate” and substitute –at least one dense zone alternates—
Claim 10 Line 3 before “a first row” delete “of”
Claim 10 Line 7 before “loops” delete “the”
Claim 10 Lines 8-9 “further comprising…is elastic” should be outdented in a new paragraph, such as in Claims 23, 25
Claim 12 before “knitting” add –the—
Claim 15 Line 4 after “a tuck” add –of the at least one tuck stitch—
Claim 16 Line 1 delete “dense zones” and substitute –at least one dense zone--
Claim 16 Line 3 delete “dense zones” and substitute –at least one dense zone--
Claim 17 Line 3 after “stitches”, delete comma
Claim 17 Line 3 after “a tuck” add –of the at least one tuck stitch—
Claim 18 Line 3 after “stitches” delete comma
Claim 18 Line 4 after “a tuck” add –of the at least one tuck stitch—
Claim 19 Line 1 before “textile” delete “The” and substitute –A—
Claim 21 Line 1 before “textile” delete “The” and substitute –A—
Claim 21 Lines 1-2 delete “at least one dense zone” as it is redundant with the inclusion of Claim 10
Claim 22 Line 2 delete “compression and/or”
Claim 23 Lines 1-2 delete “, wherein the knit is formed” and substitute –to form a knit--, especially as corrected in Claim 1
Claim 23 Line 3 delete “, the dense zone or zones are” especially as corrected in Claim 1
Claim 23 Line 4 before “a first row of jersey stitches” delete “of”
Claim 23 Line 4 delete “(M1)”
Claim 23 Line 5 delete “as” and substitute –that—especially as corrected in Claim 1
Claim 23 Line 7 before “row of jersey stitches” add –first—especially as corrected in Claim 1
Claim 23 Line 8 before “loops” delete “the”
Claim 23 Line 13 before “method” delete “said”
Claim 23 Line 13 before “inlay” delete “a” and substitute –an—
Claim 25 Lines 1-2 delete “, wherein the knit is formed” and substitute –to form a knit--, especially as corrected in Claim 1
Claim 25 Line 3 delete “, the dense zone or zones are” especially as corrected in Claim 1
Claim 25 Line 4 before “a first row of jersey stitches” delete “of”
Claim 25 Line 4 delete “as” and substitute –that—especially as corrected in Claim 1
Claim 25 Line 6 before “row of jersey stitches” add –first—especially as corrected in Claim 1
Claim 25 Line 7 before “sinker loops” delete “the”
Claim 25 Line 12 before “method” delete “said”
Claim 25 Line 12 before “knitting” delete “the”
Claim 25 Line 14 after “a tuck” add –of the at least one tuck stitch—
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
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.
Claims 23-26 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “one…consecutive floats” in Claim 23 Line 14 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a single float constitutes a consecutive float. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “one float or two or three or four consecutive floats.”
Claim 25 Line 13 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly aforementioned for Claim 25 and is similarly interpreted.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, 17, 19-22, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Jr et al (USPN 4216662), herein Harris, in view of Gaither (USPN 8973411).
Regarding Claim 1, Harris teaches a method for circular knitting by using a knitting machine (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sock 10 be knitted on…circular knitting machine")
to form a knit from a plurality of rows of stitches knitted with a ground yarn (see Fig. 2, wherein the ground yarn is in white), the knit comprising
at least one dense zone (see Fig. 2 illustrating the at least one dense zone)
produced by knitting alternately, on each row of stitches, a first row (C-1) of jersey stitches and a second row (C-3) of jersey stitches (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Line 6 "alternating courses C-1 and C-3"), such that:
-the first row of jersey stitches is knitted on a first selection of needles, and includes at least one tuck stitch within the first row of jersey stitches, so as to form binding points with the loops of the second row of stitches (see Fig. 2),
-the second row of jersey stitches is knitted with a second selection of needles and includes knitting with a reinforcing yarn in addition to the ground yarn (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 7-8 "reinforcing yarn R").
Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises the step of knitting an inlay yarn between each row of stitches, wherein the inlay yarn is elastic.
Gaither teaches a step of knitting an inlay yarn between each row of stitches, wherein the inlay yarn is elastic (see Figs. 1, 7, 8; Col. 5 Lines 34-38 "the targeted compression zone 30 of sock 10 is formed …with the elastic yarn (E) laid-in the plaited body yarn (B)…in each course C1-C12 by tuck and float stitches in needle loops of wales W1-W8").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ knit with the elastic inlay yarn of Gaither in order to provide the desired level of compression in a sock (abstract), which Harris is directed to as well.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Harris further teaches wherein, for the first selection of needles, knitting of a tuck stitch is performed every other stitch within the first row of stitches (see Fig. 2, wherein at least a portion of the stitches is every other).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Gaither further teaches wherein the inlay yarn is inserted between each row of stitches by creating a float which corresponds to a needle of the first selection of needles which has knitted a tuck on the first row of stitches (see Figs. 7, 8; for example at C1-W3),
the inlay yarn being picked only every other needle (see Figs. 7, 8),
and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are produced in corresponding columns from one inlay row to the next, such that the floats are aligned with each other (see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Harris teaches a circular knit formed from a plurality of rows of stitches knitted with a ground yarn (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sock 10 be knitted on…circular knitting machine"; wherein a knit inherently has a plurality of rows of stitches knitted with a stitch-forming yarn; nevertheless, see Fig. 2, wherein the stitch-forming yarn is in white) and comprising
at least one dense zone (see Fig. 2 illustrating the at least one dense zone),
wherein the dense zone or zones alternate at each row of stitches, of a first row (C-1) of jersey stitches and a second row (C-3) of jersey stitches (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Line 6 "alternating courses C-1 and C-3"), such that:
-the first row of jersey stitches is knitted on a first selection of needles, and includes at least one tuck stitch within the first row of jersey stitches, so as to form binding points with the loops of the second row of jersey stitches (see Fig. 2),
the second row of jersey stitches knitted with a second selection of needles and includes knitting with a reinforcing yarn in addition to the ground yarn (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 7-8 “reinforcing yarn R”).
Harris does not explicitly teach further comprising an inlay yarn between each row of stitches, wherein the inlay yarn is elastic.
Gaither teaches an inlay yarn between each row of stitches, wherein the inlay yarn is elastic (see Figs. 1, 7, 8; Col. 5 Lines 34-38 "the targeted compression zone 30 of sock 10 is formed …with the elastic yarn (E) laid-in the plaited body yarn (B)…in each course C1-C12 by tuck and float stitches in needle loops of wales W1-W8").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ knit with the elastic inlay yarn of Gaither in order to provide the desired level of compression in a sock (abstract), which Harris is directed to as well.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Harris further teaches wherein the at least one tuck stitch is knitted every other stitch within the first row of stitches (Harris Fig. 2, wherein at least a portion of the stitches is every other).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Gaither further teaches wherein the inlay yarn is inserted between each row of stitches by creating a float in the column where a tuck has been knitted on the first row of stitches (see Figs. 7, 8; for example at C1-W3),
the inlay yarn being picked only every other column (see Figs. 7, 8),
and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are produced in same columns from one inlay row to the next, such that the floats are aligned with each other (see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Harris teaches a textile item (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sock 10 be knitted on…circular knitting machine", wherein a knit sock is a textile).
Modified Harris teaches comprising at least one of the knit according to claim 10 (see rejection of Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Harris further teaches said item being stockings, tights, or socks (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25).
Regarding Claim 21, Harris teaches a textile item (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sock 10 be knitted on…circular knitting machine", wherein a knit sock is a textile),
said item being stockings, tights, or socks (see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25),
Modified Harris teaches the item comprising at least one of the knit provided with at least one dense zone according to claim 10 (see rejection of Claim 10).
As such, modified Harris further teaches wherein the at least one dense zone is located on a surface of the item in contact with a heel and/or a surface of the item in contact with toes and/or a surface in contact with a lower surface of a foot of an individual when the item is worn by the individual (see Harris Figs. 1, 2; Col. 2 Line 67-Col. 3 Line 2 “the sock 10 includes…upper foot F, and a lower foot portion or sole S”; Harris teaches the zone with S and F which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of contacting at least lower surface of the foot an individual as recited).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Modified Harris further teaches wherein the textile item is a compression and/or compression garment item (modified Harris has the elastic inlay yarn of Gaither which provides compression and therefore provides a compression garment item).
Regarding Claim 25, Harris teaches a method for circular knitting by using a knitting machine (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sock 10 be knitted on…circular knitting machine")
wherein the knit is formed from a plurality of rows of stitches knitted with a ground yarn (see Fig. 2, wherein the ground yarn is in white), and comprises
at least one dense zone (see Fig. 2 illustrating the at least one dense zone)
the dense zone or zones are produced by knitting alternately, on each row of stitches, a first row (C-1) of jersey stitches and a second row (C-3) of jersey stitches (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Line 6 "alternating courses C-1 and C-3"), such that:
-the first row of jersey stitches is knitted on a first selection of needles, and includes at least one tuck stitch within the first row of jersey stitches, so as to form binding points with the sinker loops of the second row of stitches (see Fig. 2),
the knitting of the at least one tuck stitch is performed one stitch in two, one stitch in three or one stitch in four or one stitch in five, within the first row of stitches (see Fig. 2 for one stitch in two),
-the second row of jersey stitches is knitted with a second selection of needles and includes knitting with a reinforcing yarn in addition to the ground yarn (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 7-8 "reinforcing yarn R").
Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises the knitting of an inlay yarn between each row of stitches by creating one or two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles which have knitted a tuck on the first row of stitches,
the inlay yarn being picked only every second needle or only every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively,
and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are produced in the same columns from one inlay row to the next, such that the floats are aligned with each other.
Gaither further teaches the method further comprises the knitting of an inlay yarn between each row of stitches by creating one or two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles which have knitted a tuck on the first row of stitches (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Figs. 1, 7, 8; Col. 5 Lines 34-38 "the targeted compression zone 30 of sock 10 is formed …with the elastic yarn (E) laid-in the plaited body yarn (B)…in each course C1-C12 by tuck and float stitches in needle loops of wales W1-W8"; see Figs. 7, 8 for one float corresponding to tuck stitch, such as at C1-W3),
the inlay yarn being picked only every second needle or only every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively (see Figs. 7, 8 for only every second needle),
and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are produced in the same columns from one inlay row to the next, such that the floats are aligned with each other (see Figs. 7, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ knit with the elastic inlay yarn of Gaither in order to provide the desired level of compression in a sock (abstract), which Harris is directed to as well.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 25.
Gaither further teaches wherein the inlay yarn is elastic (see rejection of Claim 25).
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Jr et al (USPN 4216662), herein Harris, in view of Gaither (USPN 8973411), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Tatler et al (USPN 8448474), herein Tatler.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Harris does not explicitly teach wherein, for the first selection of needles, the knitting of a tuck stitch is performed one stitch in three or one stitch in four or one stitch in five within the first row of stitches.
However, Harris Fig. 2 does teach, for the first selection of needles, the tuck stitch being every other stitch.
However, Tatler at least suggests the knitting of a tuck stitch is performed one stitch in three or one stitch in four or one stitch in five (see Fig. 13B; Col. 12 Lines 37-40 "Tubular and interlock tuck knit zone 162 imparts various advantages...For example, tubular and interlock tuck knit zone 162 has greater stretch resistance than some other knit structures").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’s tuck stitch to be performed as recited in light of Tatler depending on the amount of stretch resistance desired (Col. 12 Lines 37-40).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Harris does not explicitly teach for the first selection of needles, knitting of the at least one tuck stitch is performed one stitch in three or one stitch in four or one stitch in five within the first row of stitches.
However, Harris Fig. 2 does teach, for the first selection of needles, the tuck stitch being every other stitch.
However, Tatler at least suggests the knitting of a tuck stitch is performed one stitch in three or one stitch in four or one stitch in five (see Fig. 13B; Col. 12 Lines 37-40 "Tubular and interlock tuck knit zone 162 imparts various advantages...For example, tubular and interlock tuck knit zone 162 has greater stretch resistance than some other knit structures").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’s tuck stitch to be performed as recited in light of Tatler depending on the amount of stretch resistance desired 9Col. 12 Lines 37-40).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Jr et al (USPN 4216662), herein Harris, in view of Gaither (USPN 8973411), and Tatler et al (USPN 8448474), herein Tatler, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Danaher (US Publication 2018/0103783).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 3.
Modified Harris further teaches and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are produced in corresponding columns from one inlay row to the next, such that the floats are aligned with each other (see Gaither Fig. 8).
Modified Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the inlay yarn is inserted between each row of stitches by creating two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to needles of the first selection of needles which have knitted a tuck on the first row of stitches,
the inlay yarn being picked only every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively.
Danaher teaches wherein the inlay yarn is inserted between each row of stitches by creating two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to needles of the first selection of needles which have knitted a tuck on the first row of stitches (see Fig. 7A; [0076] “in-laid yarn 18”; [0084] “Fig. 7A and 7B…illustrates weft-knitted jersey-based fabric containing non-knitted in-laid…yarns incorporated into the ground fabric on a tuck-and-miss basis in course-wise direction”),
the inlay yarn being picked only every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively (see Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ inlay yarn as provided by Gaither to be of the consecutive pattern of Danaher to provide a desired stretch resistance pattern, as it is known in the art that a greater amount of float/miss provide greater resistance to stretch (see extrinsic evidence Adami et al USPN 10458052), and/or that a greater amount of tuck also provides greater resistance to stretch (see extrinsic evidence Tatler et al USPN 8448474), and as Gaither of modified Harris also is directed to a desired stretch.
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Jr et al (USPN 4216662), herein Harris, in view of Gaither (USPN 8973411), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Imboden et al (USPN 7155940), herein Imboden.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Harris further teaches wherein the inlay yarn is inserted between each row of stitches, by creating a float which corresponds to the needle which has knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches (see Gaither Fig. 8),
the inlay yarn being picked only every other needle (see Gaither Fig. 8),
the floats being in inlay rows (see Gaither Fig. 8).
Modified Harris does not explicitly teach and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next.
Imboden teaches wherein floats are staggered relative to those of the next row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one row to the next (Col. 7 Lines 61-67 "alternate courses of the crotch portion 27 may float across several loops, and the floats may be in line with one another to form a ribbed look, be uniformly staggered in a zig-zag pattern to produce a waffle effect, or the floats may be in a random pattern, depending upon the look to be achieved at the crotch portion 27”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ floats as provided by Gaither to be staggered/offset as taught in Imboden depending on the desired aesthetic effect (Col. 7 Lines 61-67).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Gaither further teaches wherein the inlay yarn is inserted between each row of stitches, by creating a float in the column where a stitch has been knitted on the first row of stitches (see Fig. 8),
the inlay yarn being picked only every other column (see Fig. 8).
Modified Harris does not explicitly teach and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are staggered from one inlay row to the next, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next.
Imboden teaches wherein floats are staggered relative to those of the next row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one row to the next (Col. 7 Lines 61-67 "alternate courses of the crotch portion 27 may float across several loops, and the floats may be in line with one another to form a ribbed look, be uniformly staggered in a zig-zag pattern to produce a waffle effect, or the floats may be in a random pattern, depending upon the look to be achieved at the crotch portion 27”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ floats as provided by Gaither to be staggered/offset as taught in Imboden depending on the desired aesthetic effect (Col. 7 Lines 61-67).
Claim(s) 6, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Jr et al (USPN 4216662), herein Harris, in view of Gaither (USPN 8973411), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Danaher (US Publication 2018/0103783).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Harris further teaches wherein the inlay yarn inserted between each row of stitches by creating a float in the column which correspond to the needles which have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches (see Gaither Fig. 8).
Modified Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the inlay yarn is inserted between each row of stitches by creating two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles which have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches,
the inlay yarn being picked only every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively,
and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next.
Danaher teaches the knitting of a inlay yarn (18) between each row of stitches (see Fig. 7A; [0076] “in-laid yarn 18”; [0084] “Fig. 7A and 7B…illustrates weft-knitted jersey-based fabric containing non-knitted in-laid…yarns incorporated into the ground fabric on a tuck-and-miss basis in course-wise direction”) by creating two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles which have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches (Fig. 7A),
the inlay yarn being picked only every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively (Fig. 7A),
and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next (Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ inlay yarn as provided by Gaither to be of the consecutive pattern of Danaher to provide a desired stretch resistance pattern, as it is known in the art that a greater amount of float/miss provide greater resistance to stretch (see extrinsic evidence Adami et al USPN 10458052), and/or that a greater amount of tuck also provides greater resistance to stretch (see extrinsic evidence Tatler et al USPN 8448474), and as Gaither of modified Harris also is directed to a desired stretch.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ inlay yarn as provided by Gaither to be of the staggered/offset pattern of Danaher to provide a desired aesthetic effect (see extrinsic evidence Imboden et al USPN 7155940).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Modified Harris further teaches wherein the inlay yarn inserted between each row of stitches by creating a float in the column where a tuck has been knitted on the first row of stitches (see Gaither Fig. 8).
Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the inlay yarn inserted between each row of stitches by creating two or three or four consecutive floats in the column where a tuck has been knitted on the first row of stitches,
the inlay yarn being picked only every third or every fourth or every fifth column respectively,
and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are staggered from one inlay row to the next, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next.
Danaher teaches the knitting of a inlay yarn (18) between each row of stitches (see Fig. 7A; [0076] “in-laid yarn 18”; [0084] “Fig. 7A and 7B…illustrates weft-knitted jersey-based fabric containing non-knitted in-laid…yarns incorporated into the ground fabric on a tuck-and-miss basis in course-wise direction”) by creating two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles which have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches (Fig. 7A),
the inlay yarn being picked only every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively (Fig. 7A),
and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next (Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ inlay yarn as provided by Gaither to be of the consecutive Danaher to provide a desired stretch resistance pattern, as it is known in the art that a greater amount of float/miss provide greater resistance to stretch (see extrinsic evidence Adami et al USPN 10458052), and/or that a greater amount of tuck also provides greater resistance to stretch (see extrinsic evidence Tatler et al USPN 8448474), and as Gaither of modified Harris also is directed to a desired stretch.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ inlay yarn as provided by Gaither to be of the staggered/offset pattern of Danaher to provide a desired aesthetic effect (see extrinsic evidence Imboden et al USPN 7155940).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Modified Harris further teaches and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are produced in the same column from one inlay row to the next, such that the floats are aligned with each other (see Gaither Fig. 8).
Modified Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the inlay yarn is inserted between each row of stitches by creating two or three or four consecutive floats in the columns where a tuck has been knitted on the first row of stitches,
the inlay yarn being picked only every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively.
Danaher teaches wherein the inlay yarn is inserted between each row of stitches by creating two or three or four consecutive floats in the columns where a tuck has been knitted on the first row of stitches (see Fig. 7A; [0076] “in-laid yarn 18”; [0084] “Fig. 7A and 7B…illustrates weft-knitted jersey-based fabric containing non-knitted in-laid…yarns incorporated into the ground fabric on a tuck-and-miss basis in course-wise direction”),
the inlay yarn being picked only every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively (see Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ inlay yarn as provided by Gaither to be of the consecutive pattern of Danaher to provide a desired stretch resistance pattern, as it is known in the art that a greater amount of float/miss provide greater resistance to stretch (see extrinsic evidence Adami et al USPN 10458052), and/or that a greater amount of tuck also provides greater resistance to stretch (see extrinsic evidence Tatler et al USPN 8448474), and as Gaither of modified Harris also is directed to a desired stretch.
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Jr et al (USPN 4216662), herein Harris, in view of Gaither (USPN 8973411), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Fray (USPN 6257025).
Regarding Claim 7, Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Harris further teaches wherein the at least one dense zone creates uniform geometric shapes evenly dispersed over the surface of the knit (see Fig. 1).
Harris does not explicitly teach and whose total surface area of the dense zones is less than 10% of a total surface area of the knit.
However, Harris teaches a sock (Col. 1 Line 62).
Fray at least suggests a total surface area of the dense zones is less than 10% of the total surface area of the knit (Col. 2 Lines 63-67 "hose 10 is knitted, preferably on a circular knitting machine, and may be a sock, a women’s stocking...a leg of panty hose, a leotard, a body suit").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ sock to be a knit as taught by Fray, such as a pantyhose, especially as Fray shows it is known in art that designs for socks can also be applied to panty hose depending on the aesthetic design choice.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Harris teaches the recitation (modified Harris discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the surface area comparisons. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris such that the zone is less than 10% of the total surface area, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, especially depending on the size of the intended user (see extrinsic evidence North USPN 0405903, which clearly shows that modified Harris can be obviously modified to meet the recitation based on size of user). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 10.
Harris further teaches wherein the dense zones creating uniform geometric shapes evenly dispersed over the surface of the knit (see Fig. 1).
Harris does not explicitly teach and whose total surface area of the dense zones is less than 10% of the total surface area of the knit.
However, Harris teaches a sock (Col. 1 Line 62).
Fray at least suggests a total surface area of the dense zones is less than 10% of the total surface area of the knit (Col. 2 Lines 63-67 "hose 10 is knitted, preferably on a circular knitting machine, and may be a sock, a women’s stocking...a leg of panty hose, a leotard, a body suit").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ sock to be a knit as taught by Fray, such as a pantyhose, especially as Fray shows it is known in art that designs for socks can also be applied to panty hose depending on the aesthetic design choice.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Harris teaches the recitation (modified Harris discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the surface area comparisons. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris such that the zone is less than 10% since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, especially depending on the size of the intended user (see extrinsic evidence North USPN 0405903, which clearly shows that modified Harris can be obviously modified to meet the recitation based on size of user). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Jr et al (USPN 4216662), herein Harris, in view of Gaither (USPN 8973411) and Imboden et al (USPN 7155940), herein Imboden.
Regarding Claim 23, Harris teaches a method for circular knitting by using a knitting machine (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; see Figs. 1, 2; Col. 4 Lines 24-25 "sock 10 be knitted on…circular knitting machine")
wherein the knit is formed from a plurality of rows of stitches knitted with a ground yarn (see Fig. 2, wherein the ground yarn is in white), and comprises
at least one dense zone (see Fig. 2 illustrating the at least one dense zone)
the dense zone or zones are produced by knitting alternately, on each row of stitches, a first row (C-1) of jersey stitches and a second row (C-3) of jersey stitches (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Line 6 "alternating courses C-1 and C-3"), such that:
-the first row of jersey stitches is knitted on a first selection of needles, and includes at least one tuck stitch within the first row of jersey stitches, so as to form binding points with the loops of the second row of stitches (see Fig. 2),
the knitting of the at least one tuck stitch is performed one stitch in two, one stitch in three or one stitch in four or one stitch in five, within the first row of stitches (see Fig. 2 for one stitch in two),
-the second row of jersey stitches is knitted with a second selection of needles and includes knitting with a reinforcing yarn in addition to the ground yarn (see Fig. 2; Col. 4 Lines 7-8 "reinforcing yarn R").
Harris does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises the knitting of an inlay yarn between each row of stitches by creating one or two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles which have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches,
the inlay yarn being picked only every second needle or every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively,
and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next.
Gaither teaches wherein the method further comprises the knitting of an inlay yarn between each row of stitches by creating one or two or three or four consecutive floats which correspond to the needles which have knitted a stitch on the first row of stitches (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Figs. 1, 7, 8; Col. 5 Lines 34-38 "the targeted compression zone 30 of sock 10 is formed …with the elastic yarn (E) laid-in the plaited body yarn (B)…in each course C1-C12 by tuck and float stitches in needle loops of wales W1-W8"; see Figs. 7, 8 for one float corresponding to stitch, such as at C1-W3),
the inlay yarn being picked only every second needle or every third needle or every fourth needle or every fifth needle respectively (see Figs. 7, 8 for only every second needle),
the floats being in inlay rows (see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ knit with the elastic inlay yarn of Gaither in order to provide the desired level of compression in a sock (abstract), which Harris is directed to as well.
Modified Harris does not explicitly teach and wherein the floats of the inlay yarn are staggered relative to the next inlay row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one inlay row to the next.
Imboden teaches wherein floats are staggered relative to those of the next row, such that the floats are offset relative to each other from one row to the next (Col. 7 Lines 61-67 "alternate courses of the crotch portion 27 may float across several loops, and the floats may be in line with one another to form a ribbed look, be uniformly staggered in a zig-zag pattern to produce a waffle effect, or the floats may be in a random pattern, depending upon the look to be achieved at the crotch portion 27”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harris’ floats as provided by Gaither to be staggered/offset as taught in Imboden depending on the desired aesthetic effect (Col. 7 Lines 61-67).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Harris teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 23.
Gaither further teaches wherein the inlay yarn is elastic (see rejection of Claim 23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-26 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. However, for clarification—
Pertaining to remarks on page 13 that Danaher cannot be utilized because it is not directed to textiles for socks, stocking or tights or for compression devices—examiner respectfully disagrees. Danaher is in the same art of endeavor as Harris as knitted textiles, and Danaher does refer to knitted stretch properties ([0071], [0077]), which one of ordinary skill in the art understands affects compression.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Atmanspacher (DE 102015/110313) directed to elastic inlay weft yarn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights