DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-34 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of MK Eco Tube – Crochet Stores Inc. (hereinafter MK Eco Tube).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 13 and 17, Woobles FAQ discloses a kit for making a crochet piece of a character (e.g. a penguin – see page 3), the kit including a length of yarn (see “What comes with a kit? – bottom page 2–page 3) formed into a pre-started piece (middle page 2); and an article (postcard) including a link to an electronic address with instructions for forming the crochet piece using the length of yarn (top of page 4), the instructions comprising a series of videos (quick start and tutorial videos, – page 4 under “Why don’t your kits come with a printed pattern”?).
To the extent that Woobles FAQ does not explicitly disclose the yarn is tubular yarn having a tubular shape, MK Eco Tube discloses that the concept and advantages of tubular yarn were well known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (see page 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Woobles FAQ by utilizing tubular yarn, as suggested by MK Eco Tube. Such a modification would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 14 and 25, Woobles FAQ further discloses the link is a URL (link to be typed into web browser - top page 4) (as per claim 4),
the article is a tangible instruction card (postcard – top page 4) (as per claim 5),
an electronic address for accessing the instructions (top page 4) (as per claim 14), and
the character includes an animal (penguin) (as per claim 25).
6. Claims 3 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of MK Eco Tube, and further in view of Rohlf’s et al. (US 2019/0279527 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 19-23, the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube does not explicitly disclose, but Rohlf’s does disclose, in a similar system for providing instructions and a series of videos to a user for performing handcrafts, wherein the instructions include a series of steps, selection of each step via a user device causing a video to be displayed in the user device for the selected step (Par’s. 71, 287) (as per claims 3 and 19), each of the videos includes an audio-visual tutorial for completing the selected step of the crochet piece (Par. 287) (as per claim 20), the series of steps are organized by different features of the crochet piece (Par’s. 284-287) (as per claim 21), each step of the series of steps is linked to a previous step and a subsequent step (Par’s. 284-287) (as per claim 22), and each step of the series of steps is linked to a help section with additional information about the step (Par’s. 284-287) (as per claim 23). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube by including these features for providing video instructions as a series of steps, as taught by Rohlf’s, to obtain predictable results of helping guide the user through the steps of making the crochet piece.
7. Claims 6, 9, 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of MK Eco Tube, and further in view of Leinicke (US 2012/0292383 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 9, 18 and 28, the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube does not explicitly disclose the article further includes a code for accessing the instructions, the code being a QR code. However, Leinicke discloses providing instructional packaging (Fig. 1, 4) comprising an article with a QR code that provides a link to instructions for using a product (see Par’s. 19-21, 29). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube by providing a QR code on the postcard, to obtain predictable results of allowing the user to more quickly reach the instructions.
8. Claims 7, 11, 15, 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of MK Eco Tube, and further in view of Woobles - Crocket kits for beginners (hereinafter Woobles Kits).
Regarding claims 7, 11, 15, 16 and 26, Woobles FAQ further discloses a hook, tapestry needle and stuffing (top page 3) (as per claim 7). Woobles FAQ does not appear to disclose, but Woobles Kits does disclose in a visual illustration of the kit (see page 2): facial hardware (as per claim 7), the pre-started piece includes a stitch marker or working loop (as per claims 11 and 15), the piece is formed using a magic loop crochet technique (as per claim 16), and plastic or embroidered eyes (as per claim 26). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube by utilizing a kit with these features described by Woobles Kits. Such a modification would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
9. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of MK Eco Tube, and further in view of Mrs. Micawber – Keep Your WIPs from Unravelling – A Crochet Tip (hereinafter Micawber).
To the extent that the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube does not explicitly disclose a plurality of crochet stitches and a knot to prevent unraveling of the pre-started piece, wherein the knot prevents unraveling of the working loop, Micawber discloses that such a feature of placing a knot on a plurality of stitches of a pre-started piece and a working loop to prevent unraveling of a pre-started piece was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (see pages 2-3 – Micawber discloses creating this knot by chaining together several extra stiches, reaching through the working loop, and pulling the extra chains through and tightening the loop around the chains). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube by including this feature of a working loop and knot to prevent unraveling of the loop as taught by Micawber. Such a modification would constitute a use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
10. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of MK Eco Tube, and further in view of Grafman et al. (US 2015/0059556 A1).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube does not appear to disclose options for left-handed and right-handed instructions, and the user selection of instructions includes options to display left-handed or right-handed instructions. However, Grafman discloses an electronic guitar tutorial with modes for left-handed and right-handed players (Par. 41). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube by including an option for left or right-handed instructions, as suggested by Grafman. Such a modification would be a use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
11. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of MK Eco Tube, and further in view of Bungee Mini Yarn (hereinafter Bungee).
Regarding claim 27, to the extent that Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube do not explicitly disclose the tubular yarn includes an external casing with a hollow interior and an internal material configured to configured to fill the hollow interior of the external casing, Bungee discloses that this type of tubular yarn was well known before the effective filing date of the invention (cotton tube with filling – page 23). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube by utilizing this type of yarn. Such a modification would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
12. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of MK Eco Tube, and further in view of Debbie Bliss Dulcie (hereinafter Debbie).
Regarding claim 29, to the extent that Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube do not explicitly disclose the tubular yarn comprises a combination of cotton and nylon, Debbie discloses that this type of tubular yarn was well known before the effective filing date of the invention (see top of page 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the combination of Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube by utilizing this type of yarn. Such a modification would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to predictable results.
13. Claims 30 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of Woobles Kits.
Regarding claim 30, Woobles FAQ discloses a kit for making a crochet piece, the kit including:
a length of yarn, a first end of the yarn formed into a pre-started piece and extending from the pre-started piece as working yarn, the pre-started piece including a plurality of crochet stitches (pre-started crochet piece – page 2) ;
at least one stitch marker (top of page 3); and
an article including a link to an electronic address with instructions for forming the crochet piece using the length of yarn and the pre-started piece (postcard – top page 4).
To the extent that Woobles FAQ does not explicitly disclose the stitch marker “in at least one of the crochet stitches”, Woobles Kits discloses this feature of placing the stitch marker in at least one of the stitches in the piece (see picture on page 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the teaching of Woobles FAQ by placing the marker in the stitch, to obtain predictable results of utilizing the marker to mark a stitch.
To the extent that the combination of Woobles FAQ and Woobles Kits may not explicitly disclose wherein pulling on the working yarn does not unravel the pre-started piece, this is purely a functional limitation setting forth an intended result, and does not serve to further limit the structure or arrangement of the kit, the length of yarn or pre-started piece. Accordingly, this limitation does not distinguish from Woobles FAQ and Woobles Kits in terms of patentability.
Regarding claims 32-33, Woobles Kit further discloses the pre-started piece is formed using a magic loop crochet technique (see page 2), and Woobles FAQ further discloses the instructions include a series of videos (quick start and tutorial videos – page 4).
Regarding claim 34, to the extent that the combination of Woobles FAQ and Woobles Kits may not explicitly disclose the pre-started piece includes two or more stitch markers, this is represents a mere duplication of parts (the one stitch disclosed by Woobles FAQ and Woobles Kits). This does not appear to provide any unexpected result, and therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Woobles FAQ and Woobles Kits by including two or more stitch markers, to obtain predictable results associated with the use of stitch markers in a crochet piece. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
14. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woobles FAQ in view of Woobles Kits, and further in view of MK Eco.
Regarding claim 31, to the extent that the combination of Woobles FAQ and Woobles Kits may not explicitly disclose tubular yarn, MK Eco does disclose tubular yarn (page 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Woobles FAQ and Woobles Kits by utilizing tubular yarn. Such a modification would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the Woobles FAQ and MK Eco Tube references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, with respect to the size of the yarn (Woobles FAQ discloses an optional 4 mm hook, while MK Eco Tube discloses compatibility with a 7-9 mm hook), it is noted that Applicant previously amended the claims (09 July 2025) to recite yarn compatible with a less than 10 mm crochet hook. MK Eco Tube’s yarn falls within this range. Therefore, according to the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art (via Applicant’s own amendment), the yarn of MK Eco Tube may be combined with the kit of Woobles FAQ to provide yarn capable of making a crochet piece of a character.
Applicant further argues the proposed combination of Woobles FAQ to utilize the MK Eco Tube yarn would change the principle of operation of Woobles FAQ, which utilizes100% cotton or 100% acrylic, while MK Eco Tube comprises 80% cotton and 20% polyester. This is not persuasive. It is again noted that Applicant’s own claims (e.g. claim 29) recite utilizing a combination of materials, and therefore MK Eco Tube does not teach away from the claimed invention and would not change the principle of operation of the prior art.
Applicant argues regarding claim 30 that the limitation of “wherein pulling on the working yarn does not unravel the pre-started piece” is not a functional limitation because it requires structure. This is not persuasive. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. See MPEP 2111.04.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715