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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhawan et al., US 7,348,285.
With regard to claims 1, 3 and 4, the patent issued to Dhawan et al., teach forming a weft knitted fabric (figure 17 and column 13, 15-20) comprising conductive and non-conductive filaments (column 13, 15-20). With regard to the claimed floats, Dhawan et al., also teach a woven fabric comprising floats (figure 13 and column 12, 1-20). Said fabric is also made with conductive and non-conductive filaments (column 12, 1-20). Said floats are made from conductive filaments (1302, 1304, 1306) (figure 13, column 12, 1-20) and span across at least two stitches as claimed. Dhawan et al., teach that an electrical device can be connected to the floats (column 12, 1-20). Based on the teachings both a weft knitted fabric and a woven fabric comprising floats wherein an electrical device can be attached is within the scope of Dhawan et al. As such, the Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to form the woven fabric comprising the floats as a weft knitted fabric as claimed. Such a modification is matter of design choice based on desired end use. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
With regard to claim 2, Dhawan et al., does not specifically teach the claimed “tuck” stitches; however, the Examiner is of the position that it is known in the textile arts that “tuck” stitches are used to provide design features and/or add durability. Tuck stitches are also used to trap long floats from getting caught on objects. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/tuck-stitch and https://www.purlsoho.com/create/trapping-floats/ As such, since the cited prior art of Dhawan et al., teach several knitted fabric embodiments and specifically a weft knitted fabric the Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to use “tuck” stitches as function of desired design features and/or to trap the floats.
3. Claim(s) 5-8, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhawan et al., US 7,348,285 as applied to claim 1 above and further Hill et al., US 7,144,830 B2.
Dhawan et al., is set forth above.
Dhawan et al., does no teach a multi-layer conductive type fabric.
The patent issued to Hill et al., also teach plural woven conductive fabrics (title and abstract). Said fabrics are connected with a strand (140b) that is interwoven between the layers such that the layers are connected (figure 1b, column 5, 1-10).
Based on the combination of teachings it would be obvious to form the conductive weft knitted fabric of Dhawan et al., as a multi-layer fabric wherein a strand or filament is used to connect or interwoven such that the individual layers are connected as taught by Hill et al. Motivation to form a multi-layer fabric is found in the desired end use, conductivity features, fabrics properties (e.g., thermal, breathability, wicking etc).
With specific regard to claims 7-8, the Examiner is of the position that a pocket and/or pockets would naturally from when the layers are interwoven and/or connected via the connecting strand. The pocket or pockets would be located between the connecting strands as claimed. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
With regard to claims 11 and 14, based on the combination of teachings a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an electronic device can be connected to the floats of a multi-layer weft knitted fabric that is interwoven and/or connected with a strand.
4. Claim(s) 9, 10, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhawan et al., US 7,348,285 and/or Dhawan et al., 7,348,285 as applied to claim 1 above and further Hill et al., US 7144830 B2 and further in view of Hill et al., US 7,592,276.
The combination of cited prior art does not specifically teach the claimed type. Structure and or attachment means of electronic device.
The patent issued to Hill et al., ‘276 teach a woven electronic device comprising electronic devices attached to the woven substrate surface (title, abstract, column 3, 50-60 and figure 1). Said electronic devices are connected/attached as “flip-chip” or through solder or conductive adhesive (column 11, 20-40). The Examiner is of the position that a “flip-chip” device would have the claimed first and second portions. In addition, since the fabrics of the prior art are made with conductive filaments it is reasonable to presume that the “flip-chip” devices would be connected to the conductive filaments. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
Based on the combined teachings of analogous prior art it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to connect the fabrics provided by Dhawan et al., and/ or Dhawan et al., in view of Hill et al., ‘285 to the electronic devices as taught by Hill et al., ‘276.
With regard to claims 12-13, Hill et al., ‘276 does not specifically teach the design of the claimed electronic device; however absent unexpected results and/or the criticality of the specifically claimed design of the electronic device it would be within the skill of a worker in the art to select a suitable electronic device that would be compatible with the conductive fabrics of the cited prior art. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 16-20 are considered allowable. The search conducted did not produce any substantial prior art for which to base a rejection and presently there is no known motivation to combine references to form an obviousness type rejection.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789