DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are amended.
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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on May 14, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application with claims 17-20 being withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the specification objection.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has not overcome the claim objections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the 35 USC §102(a)(1) and §103 rejections, however all claims remain rejected under §102(a)(1) or §103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The amendments to Claims 2-8 and 10- 16 attempt to delete "A" through the use of single brackets; however double brackets are required. See 37 CFR 1.121 for appropriate manner of making amendments. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TL Yarn Crafts (“TL”) (URL in PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, TL describes a yarn comprising a first leading portion of loopy yarn including a number of substantially equally spaced pre-formed loops that are present on the yarn prior to knitting or engagement with knitting needles and a trailing portion of straight yarn joined to said first leading portion at a transition point. (TL yarn crafts @ 7:46).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
420
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
317
485
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
485
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
689
1339
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
514
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
420
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
317
485
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
485
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
689
1339
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
689
1339
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
514
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
420
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
317
485
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
485
639
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
689
1339
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, TL describes [A] The yarn as defined in claim 1, wherein said first leading portion has a predetermined length formed with "x" number of loops (has a predetermined number of loops).
Regarding claim 3, TL describes [A] The yarn as defined in claim 2, wherein said predetermined length is within an approximate range of 35 - 42 inches (is any desired length).
Regarding claim 8, TL describes [A] The yarn as defined in claim 3, wherein said loops have a height greater than 13mm in height for use with knitting needles US 17 (12mm) or larger (see TL video, the loops are clearly greater than 13mm in height).
Regarding claim 9, TL describes A method of producing a yarn by forming a first leading portion of loopy yarn including a number of substantially equally spaced pre-formed loops that are present on the yarn prior to knitting or engagement with knitting needles and forming a second trailing portion of straight yarn joined to said first leading portion at a transition point (TL crafts @ 7:46).
Regarding claim 10, TL describes [A] the method as defined in claim 9, wherein said first leading portion has a predetermined length formed with "x" number of loops (has a predetermined number of loops).
Regarding claim 11, TL describes [A] The method as defined in claim 10, wherein said predetermined length is within an approximate range of 35 - 42 inches (is any desired length).
Regarding claim 16, TL describes [A] The method as defined in claim 9, wherein said loops have a height greater than 13mm in height for use with knitting needles US 17 (12mm) or larger (see TL video, the loops are clearly greater than 13mm in height).
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.
Claim 4, 6, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TL in view of I Love My Blanket (“Blanket”).
Regarding claim 4, TL describes [A] The yarn as defined in claim 3, but does not explicitly describe wherein x is selected to be within the approximate range of 49-62 loops.
In related art, Blanket describes that the spacing between loops is between 0.4 and 0.8 inches. Thus, for 0.8 inch spacing there is a loop approximately every 0.8 inches. Therefore, every 35-42 inches there are 43.75-52.5 loops which overlaps the claimed range and is thus prima facie obvious.
Blanket sets forth that loop spacing is a result effective variable, wherein increasing the spacing will increase the width of the blanket, while reducing the width will reduce the width of your blanket (see fourth paragraph, Blanket). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the spacing of the yarn in order to adjust the size of the blanket or garment being made (see Blanket stating that the space between the loops will impact the width of your blanket), since 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 6, TL describes [A] The yarn as defined in claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein said loops are spaced approximately 1.5 inches apart.
In related art, Blanket describes that the spacing between loops is between 0.4 and 0.8 inches. 0.8 inches is considered “approximately” 1.5 inches, inasmuch as claimed.
Blanket sets forth that loop spacing is a result effective variable, wherein increasing the spacing will increase the width of the blanket, while reducing the width will reduce the width of your blanket (see fourth paragraph, Blanket). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the spacing of the yarn in order to adjust the size of the blanket or garment being made (see Blanket stating that the space between the loops will impact the width of your blanket), since 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 12, TL describes [A] The method as defined in claim 10, but does not explicitly describe wherein x is selected to be within the approximate range of 49-62 loops.
In related art, Blanket describes that the spacing between loops is between 0.4 and 0.8 inches. Thus, for 0.8 inch spacing there is a loop approximately every 0.8 inches. Therefore, every 35-42 inches there are 43.75-52.5 loops which overlaps the claimed range and is thus prima facie obvious.
Blanket sets forth that loop spacing is a result effective variable, wherein increasing the spacing will increase the width of the blanket, while reducing the width will reduce the width of your blanket (see fourth paragraph, Blanket). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the spacing of the yarn in order to adjust the size of the blanket or garment being made (see Blanke stating that the space between the loops will impact the width of your blanket), since 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 14, TL describes [A] The method as defined in claim 9, but does not explicitly describe wherein said loops are spaced approximately 1.5 inches apart.
In related art, Blanket describes that the spacing between loops is between 0.4 and 0.8 inches. 0.8 inches is considered “approximately” 1.5 inches, inasmuch as claimed.
Blanket sets forth that loop spacing is a result effective variable, wherein increasing the spacing will increase the width of the blanket, while reducing the width will reduce the width of your blanket (see fourth paragraph, Blanket). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the spacing of the yarn in order to adjust the size of the blanket or garment being made (see Blanket stating that the space between the loops will impact the width of your blanket), since 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TL Yarn Crafts (“TL”) in view of Blumenthal (US 20200318265).
Regarding claim 5, TL describes [A] The yarn as defined in claim 3, but does not explicitly describe wherein said loops have a height selected to be within the range of 5mm - 13 mm in height for use with knitting needles US 11(8mm), US13 (9mm) and US15 (10mm).
TL discloses the claimed invention except for the size of the loops. Blumenthal sets forth that loop size is a result effective variable, wherein making smaller loops provide greater “resolution” to the knitted design (para. 0030). Blumenthal specifically recites that the size of the loops can be made to be such that the yarn is typically knit with hooks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the size of the loops to be 5mm-13 mm, for the purpose of increasing the possible resolution of the knitted component, since 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, TL describes [A] The yarn as defined in claim 3, but does not explicitly describe wherein said loops have a height less than 5mm for use with knitting needles US 10 (6mm) or smaller.
TL discloses the claimed invention except for the size of the loops. Blumenthal sets forth that loop size is a result effective variable, wherein making smaller loops provide greater “resolution” to the knitted design (para. 0030). Blumenthal specifically recites that the size of the loops can be made to be such that the yarn is typically knit with hooks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the size of the loops to be less than 5 mm , for the purpose of increasing the possible resolution of the knitted component, since 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 13, TL describes [A] The method as defined in claim 9, but does not explicitly describe wherein said loops have a height selected to be within the range of 5mm - 13 mm in height for use with knitting needles US 11(8mm), US13 (9mm) and US15 (10mm).
TL discloses the claimed invention except for the size of the loops. Blumenthal sets forth that loop size is a result effective variable, wherein making smaller loops provide greater “resolution” to the knitted design (para. 0030). Blumenthal specifically recites that the size of the loops can be made to be such that the yarn is typically knit with hooks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the size of the loops to be 5mm-13 mm , for the purpose of increasing the possible resolution of the knitted component, since 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 15, TL describes [A] The yarn as defined in claim 9, but does not explicitly describe wherein said loops have a height less than 5mm for use with knitting needles US 10 (6mm) or smaller.
TL discloses the claimed invention except for the size of the loops. Blumenthal sets forth that loop size is a result effective variable, wherein making smaller loops provide greater “resolution” to the knitted design (para. 0030). Blumenthal specifically recites that the size of the loops can be made to be such that the yarn is typically knit with hooks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the size of the loops to be less than 5 mm , for the purpose of increasing the possible resolution of the knitted component, since 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Conclusion
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 PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights