DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on February 24 is acknowledged. Initially, applicant has not aligned the claims as present in the restriction. In the restriction, the groups are:
Claims 1-8 and 9-16
Claims 17-19
Claims 20
Applicant has stated that the restriction is:
Claims 1-8
Claims 17-19
Claims 9-15
The examiner is following the group election rather than the claims such that claims 1-16 are elected.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that between I and II the method can only be practiced with the yarn of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the examiner has not stated that the method can be practiced with a different yarn, but that the yarn can be used in a materially different process. Applicant argues against something the Examiner has not proposed. That crocheting or stitching may not encounter similar issues does not change that the product can be used in those methods.
Further the traversal between Groups II and III are on the grounds that neither is a product. The examiner disagrees. The ball of yarn is clearly a product. Applicant argues regarding claim 1, but simply fails to address the merits of the restriction, which is that the ball of yarn could be used in a different method.
Claims 17-20, directed to unelected inventions are withdrawn from consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
Para. 0002 recites “c of the yarn”. It is unclear what this means.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-8 and 10-16 recite “A yarn” and “A method” which should be “The yarn” and “The method” respectively. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “x” loops. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. It is unclear if it is an x number of loops, or if the loops are in an x shape. The examiner is interpreting this as referring to an x-number of loops.
Claim 5 recites that the loops “are approximately 5mm-13mm in height”. It is unclear if the loop heights are between 5 mm and 13 mm high or if the size of the loops is variable between 5 mm and 13 mm.
Claim 7 recites that the loops are less than 5 mm- 13 mm in height. It is unclear if the loops are required to be less than 5 mm, or if a loop less than 13 mm would read on the claim. The examiner is interpreting this as requiring the height to be less than 5 mm.
Claim 8 recites that the loops are greater than 5 mm- 13 mm in height. It is unclear if the loops are required to be less than 13 mm, or if a loop greater than 5 mm would read on the claim. The examiner is interpreting this as requiring the height to be greater than 13 mm.
Claim 11 recites “x” loops. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase. It is unclear if it is an x number of loops, or if the loops are in an x shape. The examiner is interpreting this as referring to an x-number of loops.
Claim 13 recites that the loops “are approximately 5mm-13mm in height”. It is unclear if the loop heights are between 5 mm and 13 mm high or if the size of the loops is variable between 5 mm and 13 mm.
Claim 15 recites that the loops are less than 5 mm- 13 mm in height. It is unclear if the loops are required to be less than 5 mm, or if a loop less than 13 mm would read on the claim. The examiner is interpreting this as requiring the height to be less than 5 mm.
Claim 16 recites that the loops are greater than 5 mm- 13 mm in height. It is unclear if the loops are required to be less than 13 mm, or if a loop greater than 5 mm would read on the claim. The examiner is interpreting this as requiring the height to be greater than 13 mm.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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, 2, 6, 9, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polle et al. (US 0167563).
Regarding claim 1 Polle describes a yarn comprising a first leading portion of loopy yarn including a number of substantially equally spaced loops and a trailing portion of straight yarn joined to said first leading portion at a transition point (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Polle describes the yarn as defined in claim 1, wherein said first leading portion has a predetermined length formed with "x" loops (the predetermined length is based on the length of the component that is being formed, that is, depending on the size of the garment the first row or casted on loops will be predetermined).
Regarding claim 6, Polle describes the yarn as defined in claim 1, wherein said loops are spaced approximately 1.5 inches apart (are spaced “approximately” 1.5 inches apart inasmuch as claimed).
Regarding claim 9 Polle describes a method of producing a yarn by forming a first leading portion of loopy yarn including a number of substantially equally spaced loops and forming a trailing portion of straight yarn joined to said first leading portion at a transition point (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Polle describes the method as defined in claim 9, wherein said first leading portion has a predetermined length formed with "x" loops (the predetermined length is based on the length of the component that is being formed, that is, depending on the size of the garment the first row or casted on loops will be predetermined).
Regarding claim 14, Polle describes a method as defined in claim 9, wherein said loops are spaced approximately 1.5 inches apart (are spaced “approximately” 1.5 inches apart inasmuch as claimed).
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.
Claims 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polle et al. (US 0167563).
Regarding claim 3, Polle describes a yarn as defined in claim 2, but does not explicitly describe wherein said predetermined length is within an approximate range of 35-42 inches.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify Polle to have the first row of yarn, and thus the yarn with loops, to be between 35-42 inches depending on the size of the garment to be formed. Furthermore, applicant has indicated that the predetermined length dimension is not critical (para. 0022).
Regarding claim 11, Polle describes a method as defined in claim 10, but does not explicitly describe wherein said predetermined length is within an approximate range of 35-42 inches.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify Polle to have the first row of yarn, and thus the yarn with loops, to be between 35-42 inches depending on the size of the garment to be formed).
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polle et al. (US 0167563) as evidenced by knittingharpy (URL in PTO-892).
Regarding claim 4, Polle describes a 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.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the number of loops to range between 49-62 as such a number of loops is a result effective variable depending on the thickness of the thread. That is, a thicker thread utilized will result in less loops along a given length and a thinner thread will result in a great number of loops along a given length. This is due to the amount of space that each thread takes up (see knittingharpy para. 6-7, 12). Furthermore, applicant has indicated that the number of loops is not critical (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 5, Polle describes a yarn as defined in claim 3, wherein said loops are approximately 5mm - 13 mm in height for use with knitting needles US 11(8mm), US13 (9mm) and US15 (10mm) (are “approximately” 5mm-13mm in height inasmuch as claimed).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the size of the loops to be between 5mm-13mm as such a modification is a result effective variable depending on the thickness of the thread which can be changed depending on the desired aesthetic and coverage of the garment. That is, the larger the thread, the larger the loops (see knittingharpy para. 6-7, 12).
Regarding claim 7, Polle describes the yarn as defined in claim 3, wherein said loops are less than 5mm - 13mmin height for use with knitting needles US 10 (6mm) or smaller (are “approximately” less than 5mm-13mm in height inasmuch as claimed).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the size of the loops to be less than 5mm-13mm as such a modification is a result effective variable depending on the thickness of the thread which can be changed depending on the desired aesthetic and coverage of the garment. That is, the larger the thread, the larger the loops (see knittingharpy para. 6-7, 12).
Regarding claim 8, Polle describes the yarn as defined in claim 3, wherein said loops are greater than 5mm - 13mm in height for use with knitting needles US 17 (12mm) or larger (are “approximately” greater than 5mm-13mm in height inasmuch as claimed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the size of the loops to be greater than 5mm-13mm as such a modification is a result effective variable depending on the thickness of the thread which can be changed depending on the desired aesthetic and coverage of the garment. That is, the larger the thread, the larger the loops (see knittingharpy para. 6-7, 12).
Regarding claim 12, Polle describes a 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.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the number of loops to range between 49-62 as such a number of loops is a result effective variable depending on the thickness of the thread. That is, a thicker thread utilized will result in less loops along a given length and a thinner thread will result in a great number of loops along a given length. This is due to the amount of space that each thread takes up (see knittingharpy para. 6-7, 12). Furthermore, applicant has indicated that the number of loops is not critical (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 13, Polle describes a method as defined in claim 9, wherein said loops are approximately 5mm - 13 mm in height for use with knitting needles US 11(8mm), US13 (9mm) and US15 (10mm) (are “approximately” 5mm-13mm in height inasmuch as claimed).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the size of the loops to be between 5mm-13mm as such a modification is a result effective variable depending on the thickness of the thread which can be changed depending on the desired aesthetic and coverage of the garment. That is, the larger the thread, the larger the loops (see knittingharpy para. 6-7, 12).
Regarding claim 15, Polle describes the method as defined in claim 9, wherein said loops are less than 5mm - 13mmin height for use with knitting needles US 10 (6mm) or smaller (are “approximately” less than 5mm-13mm in height inasmuch as claimed).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the size of the loops to be less than 5mm-13mm as such a modification is a result effective variable depending on the thickness of the thread which can be changed depending on the desired aesthetic and coverage of the garment. That is, the larger the thread, the larger the loops (see knittingharpy para. 6-7, 12).
Regarding claim 16, Polle describes the method as defined in claim 9, wherein said loops are greater than 5mm - 13mm in height for use with knitting needles US 17 (12mm) or larger (are “approximately” greater than 5mm-13mm in height inasmuch as claimed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the size of the loops to be greater than 5mm-13mm as such a modification is a result effective variable depending on the thickness of the thread which can be changed depending on the desired aesthetic and coverage of the garment. That is, the larger the thread, the larger the loops (see knittingharpy para. 6-7, 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. TL Yarn Crafts can be utilized for an anticipatory reference for at least the independent claims.
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