DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on August 20th, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III (Claims 14-20) in the reply filed on 2/10/26 is acknowledged.
Upon further review of the case, a corrected restriction (one that includes Species restriction) was required. For the purposes of compact prosecution, a telephone call was made to William Nelson on 2/25/26 with the corrected restriction herein:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim(s) 1-7, drawn to an adapter, classified in B65H 59/02.
II. Claim(s) 8-13, drawn to a method of mounting an adapter to a machine, classified in D04B 15/48.
III. Claim(s) 14-20, drawn to a device with an adapter and tensioning device, classified in B65H 59/04.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions Group I and Group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the method of Group II requires a circular knitting machine, especially one with a sliding mechanism that opens and closes, which the adapter product of Group I does not require.
Inventions Group I and Group III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case for the inventions as claimed, the device of Group III requires three tabs and a generic base plate, while the adapter product of Group I requires two tabs and a specific base plate with top surface and front, right ,and rear edges; furthermore, the adapter product comprises a mechanical tensioning device while the device requires a mechanical tensioning device separate from an adapter. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions Group III and Group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the method requires a circular knitting machine, especially one with a sliding mechanism that opens and closes, which the device of Group III does not.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Furthermore, this application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A—directed to Figs. 1-6, 26A-27B
Species B—directed to Figs. 7-25C
The species are independent or distinct because:
Species A is directed to a first type of tension adapter (using a carriage)
Species B is directed to a second type of tension adapter (without a carriage, and a modification of the second type with a fourth tab)
In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, Claims 8-16, 19, 20 is/are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with William Nelson on 2/25/26 a provisional election was made with traverse (for reasons similar to that indicated in the response of 2/10/26) to prosecute the invention of Group III, claim(s) 14-20, and Species B (Figs. 7-25C), as indicated in the corrected restriction. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/10/26.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the corrected restriction requirements fails to meet the burden to establish a proper restriction requirement by 1) indicating how claims are independent and distinct, 2) indicating how the claims are independent, 3) indicating how the claims are distinct (specifically, patentable), and 4) explaining beyond boiler plate explanations of the burden. This is not found persuasive because:
Pertaining to Remark #3: traversal is allegedly based on MPEP § 802.01 requiring patentability. However, the proper consideration is whether the claims are distinct enough from the other claimed inventions to warrant separate patents if eventually found allowable. Allowability in and of itself is a latter consideration and is not taken into account with restriction. MPEP § 802.01 explicitly indicates that each distinct invention “may each be unpatentable over the prior art.” Patentability is a many faceted consideration, and prior art is considered after restriction requirement.
Pertaining to Remark #1: traversal is that requirements did not show both distinctness and independence. However, attention is directed to MPEP § 806 in which requirements are for distinctness or independence. Specifically, the tests for independence or distinctness utilized in the restriction requirement are from MPEP § 806.05(h) (product and process of using between Group I and II, and also between Group II and III) and MPEP § 806.05(j) (related products between Group I and Group III), as outlined in the restriction requirement. Per the outline from the MPEP, the requirements for showing distinctness or independence were properly followed, and no remarks have been directed towards the explanations in the requirement.
Pertaining to Remark #2: traversal is allegedly based on MPEP § 802.01 that definitions of independence and distinctness have not been met. However, though definitions are laid out in MPEP § 802.01, the actual test(s) for the definitions to be considered between groups is in MPEP § 806. As such, see aforementioned response pertaining to MPEP § 806, where only one of independence or distinctness needs to be met, and tests have been properly performed.
Pertaining to Remark #4: traversal is allegedly based on boiler plate explanations for burden. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the requirement outlined the various classifications (listed in the explanations for burden), and outlined what the various claims were directed to and therefore requiring different search terms directed to differing subject matter (listed in the explanations for burden).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
See notes on rejoinder below.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
All currently withdrawn claims will be considered for rejoinder (especially in light of the indicated allowable subject matter that follows herein). As such:
Claim 1 should remove unnecessary periods; for example, amend “a.” to “a)”
Claim 1 should either remove the limitation of the mechanical tensioning device, such that the preamble is properly directed to an adapter, or Claim 1 should be re-written similarly to Claim 14 such that a combination (device comprising an adapter and mechanical tensioning device) is claimed; otherwise, Claim 1 will still be directed to an indefinite embodiment not shown in drawings or disclosed in the details of the specification, distinct from the elected embodiment; attention was directed to this issue upon cursory review in the restriction requirement
Claim 8 should remove unnecessary periods
Claim 8 Line 4 should have a comma after “channel”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Figs. 2A, 2B needs review for the labeling of “31” mentioned in [0077], [0080], and [0081]; based on the specification objection below, comparing with the [0085] embodiment, the “hexagon” is an aperture while the “circle” is an opening; however, it is unclear if Figs. 2A, 2B is properly 31 (or should be 31a), and it is unclear if Fig. 2a is missing a label for the hexagon (that should properly be 31), and/or whether the issue is with the specification
[0080] “top surface 21 of the base plate” is not in Figures, such as Fig. 1; it is unclear whether it should be 21b; see specification objection
[0080] curved surface 32a is not in the drawings
[0080] rounded surface 32b is not in the drawings
[0080] apex 35 is not in the drawings
Beginning [0085] “base plate 220 may have an upper surface 221” is not in the drawings
[0085] “plurality of tabs 210” is not in the drawings
[0086] “smooth surface 213a” is not in the drawings, such as Fig. 7
Beginning [0086] “hook 240” is not in the drawings, such as Fig. 22
Beginning [0091] “tabs 310” is not in the drawings, such as Fig. 10
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0051] before “exploded” delete “a” and substitute –an—
[0067] before “second” delete “an” and substitute –a—
[0069] before “second” delete “an” and substitute –a—
[0077] “top surface 15 of the base plate 20” is incorrect; 15 is already used in [0078] for top surface 15 of carriage 10 and is properly illustrated as such in the drawings; [0080] indicates “top surface 21 of the base plate 20”; however, 21 is not in the drawings
[0078] “opening 14” should read “opening 14a”
[0078] “yarn guide 62 Tabs 15a, and 15b” should read “yarn guide 62. Tabs 15a and 15b”
Based on [0085] directed to embodiment illustrated in Fig. 18 with a [0085] polygonal aperture 231 (the hexagon) having opening 231a, all instances of “31” in the specification needs review; [0077] indicates “shaft receiver 31”, but then indicates [0080] “polygonal receptacle 31” and then indicates [0080], [0081] “polygonal aperture 31” and [0081] “aperture 31”; it is unclear which of these are incorrect (the term or drawing symbol) and/or which if any terms are synonymous (for example: “polygonal aperture/receptacle”) see related drawing objection
For example: [0081] “inserted within aperture 31 on the back surface 33 of flange 30”, should this be “opening 31a”, as compared to [0085]?
[0085] in “The flange 230 may have a inclined front surface 232” delete “a” and substitute –an—
[0085] before “opening 231a” delete “a” and substitute –an—
[0085] in “Extending upwards from the base plate 220 is a inclined front surface 232” delete “a” and substitute –an—
[0085] after “base plate” add –220— in “from the upper surface 221 of the base plate”
[0085] after “plurality of tabs” add –210—in “More specifically, the plurality of tabs may extend”
[0087] “yarn guide 62” should read “yarn guide 262” in the context of tabs 211-213 being in Fig. 24A, [0089]
[0090] “sliding mechanism 262a” should read “sliding mechanism 262b”
[0091] “lower surface 321” should read “lower surface 322” as in Fig. 16
[0091] “polygonal aperture 334 with a aperture 334a” should be “polygonal aperture 331 with an aperture 331a” based on Fig. 11
[0092] indicated 314a as “pivot arm” while [0093] indicates “right-angle mount”; as best understood, the terms are synonymous and [0092] should indicate “pivot arm/right-angle mount 314a” for clarity
[0095] “yarn guide 260” should read “yarn guide 262”
[0097]-[0102] has multiple terms that should have the drawing reference numerals
[0097] “securely lock the adapter 100 to the yarn guide 62”
[0097] “slots on the yarn guide 62”
[0097] “the guide 62 to lock the adapter 100 in place”
[0098] “channel 262a of the yarn guide 262”
[0098] “closed to secure the tab 212”
[0099] “tensioning device 50 may be assembled”
[099] “ensuring the shaft 51”
[0099] “device 50 may be secured”
[0099] “back surface 33 or 233 of the flange 30 or 230”
[0100] “the yarn 80 may be threaded”
[0100] “attached to the tensioning adapter 100 or 200. The yarn 80 may be guided”
[0100] “device 50, where eth spring tension”
[0100] “yarn 80 may be properly aligned”
[0100] “62a or 262a of the yarn guide 62 or 262”
[0100] “circular knitting machine 60 or 260”
[010] “yarn 80 may be adjusted”
[010] “device 50, which changes”
[0102] “device 50 is properly installed”
[0102] “machine 60 or 260 can be activated. The yarn 80 will be fed through the yarn guide 62 or 262 and tensioning device 50, ensuring”
Review is requested of [0097] “secure the first tensioning adapter by inserting the tabs 15a and 15b into the corresponding slots on the yarn guide”; based on tabs 15a, 15b and first tensioning adapter (100), the recitation is in the context of the embodiment in Fig. 27A; however, Fig. 27A shows no slots on the yarn guide, let alone tabs inserting any element such as a slot; as best understood, instead, the yarn guide inserts into a “slot”/(rectangular opening 14a as shown in Fig. 6)
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is further objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 17 “fourth tab below said base plate operable to lock said device to said yarn guide” is not in the specification
Claim 20 “tensioning adapter is constructed from polycarbonate…polypropylene” is not in the specification, such as [0025]
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 Lines 3, 5 is objected to for periods after a, b; examiner recommends a), b), as periods may only be in abbreviations and at the end of a claim (MPEP 608.01(m))
Claim 14 Line 7 after “device” delete the period and substitute a semicolon
Claim 14 Line 8 before “yarn guide” delete “a” and substitute –the—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 14 Line 1
Claim 14 Line 10 before “yarn” add –the— for proper antecedent basis with Claim 14 Line 1
Claim 14 Line 11 before “tension” add –the—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 14 Line 1
Claim 15 before “secured” add –configured to be—as the yarn guide is not positively claimed, as the preamble is directed only to a device, not a combination of a device and yarn guide and machine
Claim 16 should end in a period
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.
Claim(s) 18, 20 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said distal edge of said fourth tab" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “a distal edge.”
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said distal edge of said second tab" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “a distal edge.”
The term “and other related materials” in Claim 20 Lines 2-3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term "other related" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term should be deleted.
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chungnam (KR 2004/14797).
Regarding Claim 14, Chungnam teaches a device operable to tension yarn within a yarn guide of a circular knitting machine (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 Fig. 3; "yarn tension retaining device 100"; Chungnam teaches a device which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being operable to tension yarn in light of the recitation, furthermore of being operable to do so within a yarn guide of a circular knitting machine, especially in light of "fixing piece 9 attached to the rear surface of the support 5 and the support table", such that the support table could be a machine with a guide; in other words, the machine and guide are not positively claimed but functional, and the structure has the capabilities for the function), said device comprising:
a tensioning adapter (see as follows: adapter being at least 2, 4, 5, 9) having
a first tab (see Fig. 3; "fixing piece 9 attached to the rear surface of the support 5 and the support table"),
a second tab (see Fig. 2 for second fixing piece 9),
a flange with aperture ("support 5", wherein aperture is illustrated in Fig. 3 (for 10)),
a hook ("upper bent part 4"),
and a base plate (“bottom bent portion 2); and
a mechanical tensioning device operably inserted into said aperture (see Fig. 3 for 10 being part of mechanical tensioning device that goes through the aperture),
said mechanical tensioning device (see Fig. 3 for mechanical device (30, 81, 82, 6, 7, 30, 10) as follows) having
a mounting bracket (see Fig. 3; "prevention pin fixing portion 30", wherein the bracket/portion 30 mounts inasmuch as it is part of what connects to 10 to mount the mechanical tensioning to the tensioning adapter being at least 2, 4, 5, 9)
a first disc (See Fig. 3; “inner plate 81”),
a second disc (see Fig. 3; “outer plate 82”),
a spring with spring retainer ("middle of the support (5) is elastically supported by the spring (6)"; for retainer --see Fig. 3; "fixing screw 10 for fixing and fixing the spring (6)"),
and an adjustment device ("adjustment screw portion 7").
wherein said tensioning adapter is operable to be mounted to a yarn guide of said circular knitting machine (see rejection of preamble and tensioning adapter; Chungnam teaches the tensioning adapter which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being mounted to a yarn guide of the machine as recited; the tensioning adapter is of the device and is capable of being mounted as recited, especially in light of see Fig. 3; "fixing piece 9 attached to the rear surface of the support 5 and the support table")),
and said mechanical tensioning device is operable to receive yarn between said first disc and said second disc ("inner plate 81 and the outer plate 82 through which the yarn passes") and
(said mechanical tensioning device is operable to) apply tension to said yarn using said adjustment device and said spring (Chungnam teaches the mechanical tensioning device which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of applying tension to the yarn using the adjustment device and spring, especially as the adjustment device and spring are part of the tensioning device of yarn and therefore apply tension to the yarn).
Chungnam does not explicitly teach the tensioning adapter having a third tab.
However, a mere duplication of parts is seen as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such duplication into a third tab would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, a mere duplication of parts of an element involves only routine skill in the art. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chungnam with a third tab to allow for mounting adjustability (whether mounting at a lower or higher point along a vertical axis-- the first/second tab being one point, the second/third tab being another point).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Chungnam teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Chungnam further teaches wherein said adapter is secured to said yarn guide by sliding said second tab within a channel of said yarn guide (Chungnam teaches a second tab on the adapter which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of securing by sliding within a channel of a yarn guide, especially as the tabs are for mounting to a surface and capable of sliding in light of Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Chungnam teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 15.
Modified Chungnam further teaches wherein said third tab includes a raised surface operably aligned to a sliding mechanism of said yarn guide (see Fig. 2 wherein the tabs have a raised surface and therefore so would the duplicated third tab which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of aligning to a sliding mechanism of a yarn guide).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chungnam (KR 2004/14797) in view of Pernick (USPN 6101849).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Chungnam teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 14.
Chungnam does not explicitly teach wherein said tensioning adapter is constructed from polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate glycol, polypropylene, and other related materials.
However, Chungnam teaches that the tensioning adapter is a yarn handling device (see rejection of Claim 14, being of the device to tension yarn).
Pernick teaches wherein a yarn handling device is constructed from polycarbonate, polyethylene terephthalate glycol, polypropylene, and other related materials (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 1; Col. 3 Lines 57-58 "yarn carrier 10 further includes a nonmetallic guard plate 16, which is operatively secured to the yarn guide"; Col. 3 Line 63-Col. 4 Line 10 "non-metallic guard plate 16…formed from…polypropylene…have sufficient rigidity and durability to withstand the physical rigors of a knitting operation such as contact with ...with fast-moving yarns").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chungnam’s tensioning adapter to be the material as taught by Pernick as a known material for a device handling yarn, such as for desired rigidity and/or durability (Col. 3 Line 63-Col. 4 Line 10).
Examiner Notes
Regarding Claim 18--Claim(s) 18, as best understood from the disclosure, is/are free of U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, but is/are currently questioned under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. After overcoming, Claim 18 may be indicated with allowable subject matter as it depends on Claim 17 which has been indicated allowable.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim(s) 17, 19 is/are further objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 17, none of the prior art of record discloses a tensioning adapter with a fourth tab below said base plate operable to lock said device to said yarn guide, in conjunction with the other structural limitations, as set forth in the claim. The use of a tensioning adapter with tabs is known in the art of knitting devices, but the specific tab being a fourth tab with specific location of being below said base plate while also with a specific operability of locking as claimed by the applicant is novel. Specifically, prior art Chungnam explicitly discloses a base plate, two tabs, and can be modified with the third tab as recited in the application. Prior art Kang et al (KR 2009/00004639), herein Kang, discloses four tabs on a sinker. However, none of the prior art discloses, teaches, or suggests that a fourth tab specifically below the base plate, further operable to lock the device such as to a yarn guide. To modify Chungnam to have a fourth tab in the specific location, let alone the functionality, merely to be as recited in the current application would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the applicant’s invention without any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion from the prior art of record, as is presently the case.
Regarding Claim 19, none of the prior art discloses wherein said first tab, said second tab, and said third tab each laterally extend horizontally outwards at different distances, in conjunction with the other structural limitations, as set forth in the claim. The use of a tensioning adapter with tabs is known in the art of knitting devices, but to have three tabs extending at different distances as claimed by the applicant is novel. Specifically, prior art Chungnam explicitly discloses two tabs with extending distances, and can be modified with the third tab as recited in the application. Prior art Savlabot (Youtube NPL in the IDS) also discloses three tabs. However, none of the prior art discloses, teaches, or suggests that a tensioning adapter would have three tabs each laterally extending horizontally outwards at differing distances. To modify Chungnam to have tabs extending at different distances or to modify Savlabot to have three tabs extending in the same direction at different directions merely to be as recited in the current application would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the applicant’s invention without any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion from the prior art of record, as is presently the case.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Mishcon (USPN 3922887) directed to a device operable to tension yarn within a yarn guide of a circular knitting machine and secured to the machine; Deniega (USPN 3789631), Kim (KR 2004/0038474), Hunter (USPN 6439488), Thurston et al (USPN 2192625), Horvath et al (USPN 5343983), Memminger et al (USPN 4752044), Lemasson (FR 2159806), Lemasson (FR 2168644), Mickeler et al (USPN 3975927) directed to device to tension yarn secured to a knitting machine; Abril (EP 0381908) directed to mechanical tensioning device; Lawson (USPN 3575360) directed to yarn tensioning device; Huffa et al (USPN 11828009), Kajiura et al (USPN 3955769) directed to materials of yarn handling device.
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