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 . Claims 1-19 are being treated on the merits.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 121 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of priority application CN20221022065.5 (filed 03/07/2022) fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for the limitation "the inelastic yarn comprises short-staple yarn and long-staple yarn, and the elastic yarn comprises polyurethane yarn and polyolefin yarn" in claim 2 of the instant application. Therefore, the limitation "the inelastic yarn comprises short-staple yarn and long-staple yarn, and the elastic yarn comprises polyurethane yarn and polyolefin yarn" does not meet the priority claim.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract repeats the title and exceeds 150 words; and the abstract recites phrases "The present invention discloses" which can be implied. In addition, the abstract includes a plurality of phrases such as "warp plain weave structure", "empty through structure", which are unclear as to what are being referred to.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
In this case, the abstract recites "achieve good breathability and anti-see-through effects", which is referring to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under PCT Rule 11.13(a) and (e). PCT Rule 11.13(a) and (e) require that drawings shall be executed in durable, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined, lines and strokes without colorings; and all numbers, letters and reference lines, appearing on the drawings, shall be simple and clear. However, Figs. 1-5 of the instant application comprise lines that do not meet the above requirement and do not have sufficient quality for examination and satisfactory reproduction. Replacement drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: "warp plain structure", "empty threading structure", "empty needles", "threading needles", "warp flat cross needles", "warp flat structure", "relative needle-matching manner", "empty matching structure", "loom needles" and "comb bars".
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is 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:
In claim 2, there is no antecedent basis in the specification for "the inelastic yarn comprises short-staple yarn and long-staple yarn, and the elastic yarn comprises polyurethane yarn and polyolefin yarn"
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to as it sets forth a plurality of elements; however, the plurality of elements are not separated by a line indentation. 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP 608.01(m) require each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, "the inelastic yarn is a first warp plain structure" appears to read "the inelastic yarn forms a first warp plain structure";
In claim 1, lines 5-6, "the elastic yarn is second first warp plain structure" appears to read "the elastic yarn forms a second warp plain structure";
In claim 3, line 4, "i is not equal to 0 needles" appears to read "i is not equal to 0";
In claim 5, lines 5-6, "comb bars" appears to read "guide bars";
In claim 5, line 3, there is a redundant space after "gauge";
In claim 7, line 4, "i=0 needles" appears to read "i=0";
In claim 12, line 4, "i is not equal to 0 needles" appears to read "i is not equal to 0";
In claim 13, lines 3-4, "i=0 needles" appears to read "i=0".
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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "warp plain structure" with multiple instances, which renders the claim indefinite. The term "warp plain structure" is not a common term in the knitting field. It is unclear what a "warp plain structure" is. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, based on the instant drawings, the examiner has interpreted that a warp plain structure is a tricot structure or any variation of a tricot structure.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inelastic yarn is a first warp plain structure of more than or equal to three needles", which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a warp structure is "of more than or equal to three needles". For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the warp structure is knitted by more than or equal to three needles.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "empty threading structure", which renders the claim indefinite. The term "empty threading structure" is not a common term in the knitting field. It is unclear what an "empty threading structure" is. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. As no reasonable interpretation can be made, no prior art rejection is attempted to this limitation in this Office action.
Claim 1 recites two instances of "a warp knitting threading manner". It is unclear whether they are referring to the same warp knitting threading manner or different. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the two instances are referring to the same warp knitting threading manner.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn are knitted in a warp knitting threading manner of 0≤i≤10 needles to form the knitting structure, i is the number of empty needles", which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation appears to be claiming that the yarns are knitted by a warp knitting threading manner of empty needles. First, it is unclear what is being referred to by "empty needles". Second, it is unclear whether Applicants means that during a knitting process, the yarns may or may not thread on some knitting needles. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, "empty needles" has been construed to be needles which are not threaded with a yarn.
Claim 2 recites the relative term "short", which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. It is unclear what is included or excluded by "short". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 2 recites the relative term "long", which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. It is unclear what is included or excluded by "short". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 3 and 12 each recite the limitation "warp flat cross needles", which renders the claims indefinite. "warp flat cross needle" is not a common term in the knitting area, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the feature, and it is unclear what is being referred. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. As no reasonable interpretation can be made, no prior art rejection is attempted to the recited formula requiring the limitation in this Office action.
Similarly, the only limitation in claim 4 includes "warp flat cross needles", which is unclear and cannot be reasonably interpreted. Therefore, no prior art rejection has been attempted to claim 4 in this Office action. In addition, as claims 5-6 each depend from claim 4, no prior art rejection has been attempted to claims 5-6 in this Office action either.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn in the knitting structure are also arranged in a warp flat structure with the same needle gauge, the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn are threaded in a same way, and the comb bars used for the inelastic yarn and the comb bars used for the elastic yarn are arranged in a relative needle-matching manner", which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear what is being referred to by the term "also". Second, the term "warp flat structure" is not a common term in the knitting area, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the feature, and it is unclear what is being referred. Third, the limitation appears to be claiming a process of producing the fabric. It is noted that the claims have been set forth as apparatus claims. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the coarse yarn and the fine yarn in the knitting structure are in an empty matching structure", which renders the claim indefinite. the term "empty matching structure" is not a common term in the knitting area, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the feature, and it is unclear what is being referred. As no reasonable interpretation can be made, no prior art rejection is attempted to the limitation in this Office action.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ratio of the yarn feed amount of the thick yarn to the thin yarn", which renders the claim indefinite. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the ratio of the yarn feed amount" in the claim, and it is unclear where the amount of yarn feed is supplied to. Second, the limitation appears to be claiming a process of producing the fabric in a product claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 8-9 recite the limitations "the thick yarn and "the thin yarn", which render the claims indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the thick yarn" and "the thin yarn" in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitations have been construed to be the coarse yarn and the fine yarn respectively.
Claims 10 and 14 each recite the limitation "wherein D is the minimum yarn fineness required to achieve the function", which renders the claims indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the function" in the claims. It is also unclear how "the minimum yarn fineness" is determined. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 10 and 14 each recite the limitation "G is the number of loom needles", which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear what is being referred to by "loom needles". Knitting needles used to produce the fabric? If that is the case, the number of knitting needles would be related to the size of the fabric; for example, knitting a fabric of 1 ft wide in a course direction requires fewer knitting needles than knitting a fabric of 2 ft wide in the course direction. It is unclear how and why the number of knitting needles is correlated with a minimum yarn fineness required to achieve a function. In addition, it is also unclear what the function is as discussed above. As no reasonable interpretation can be made, no prior art rejection is attempted to claims 10 and 12 in this Office action.
Claims 11 and 15 each recite the limitations "fully open warp knit structure", "fully closed warp knit structure" and "open-closed warp knit structure", which render the claims indefinite. Each of the above terms is not a common term in the knitting area, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the features. It is unclear what warp knit structure is being considered as "fully open", "fully closed" or "open-closed". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
The examiner respectfully notes that the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. Effort has been made to identify all the indefinite issues; however, the above list is not necessarily to be comprehensive, especially in light of the plethora of potential inconsistencies and indefiniteness throughout the claims, but are merely examples to indicate particular instances could be clarified. In addition, the interpretations aforementioned do not necessarily constitute suggestions. Applicant is recommended to review the claims in full and make proper amendments in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure.
Note
At the outset, the claims define a significant number of limitations that are not clear, and the original disclosure does not provide a standard to ascertaining the features. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is not able to understand the claim subject matter or what is being disclosed. See the above 112(b) rejections. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-13 and 15 have been interpreted as best understood.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3/1, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 212404414 U).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric (a warp-knitted fabric with openings therefore being breathable and also non-transparent from certain angles; fig.1; para. 0002; claim 1), characterized in that it includes a fabric body (inherent feature), wherein
the fabric body comprises an inelastic yarn and an elastic yarn (inelastic yarn Y1 and elastic yarn Y2; see English translation; paras. 0009, 0012; claim 1),
the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn are knitted in a warp knitting threading manner to form a knitting structure (as being a warp knitted fabric),
the inelastic yarn is a first warp plain structure (a tricot structure; figs. 2-13; paras. 0031-0053) of more than or equal to three needles within the knitting structure (figs. 2-13; paras. 0031-0053) while the elastic yarn is a second warp plain structure (a tricot structure; figs. 2-13; paras. 0031-0053) within in the knitting structure (figs. 2-13; paras. 0031-0053),
the first warp plain structure and the second warp plain structure are arranged in a same direction (see figs. 2-13);
the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn are knitted in a warp knitting threading manner of 0≤i≤10 needles to form the knitting structure, i is the number of empty needles (i=1, 2 or 3; figs. 2-13).
Regarding claim 3/1, Chen discloses the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn are knitted into the knitting structure in a warp knitting threading method in which i is not equal to 0 needles (i=1, 2 or 3; figs. 2-13).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first warp knit structure and the second warp knit structure are one of a fully open warp knit structure, a fully closed warp knit structure, an open-closed warp knit structure, or any combination thereof (the tricot structures zigzag in a knitting direction and forming open structures in the knitting direction; figs. 2-13).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the first warp knit structure and the second warp knit structure are one of a fully open warp knit structure, a fully closed warp knit structure, an open-closed warp knit structure, or any combination thereof (the tricot structures zigzag in a knitting direction and forming open structures in the knitting direction; figs. 2-13).
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 1-2, 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo (CN 206591239 U) in view of Chen (CN 212404414 U).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric (a warp knitted fabric being breathable with the diagram in fig. 1 is breathable and also non-transparent from certain angles; fig. 1; para. 0002; claim 1), characterized in that it includes a fabric body (inherent feature), wherein
the fabric body comprises a synthetic fiber yarn (synthetic fiber yarn; claims 2-3) and an elastic yarn (spandex yarn; claims 2-3),
the synthetic fiber yarn and the elastic yarn are knitted in a warp knitting threading manner to form a knitting structure (fig. 1; para. 0015),
the synthetic fiber yarn is a first warp plain structure of more than or equal to three needles within the knitting structure while the elastic yarn is a second warp plain structure within in the knitting structure (see fig. 1),
the first warp plain structure and the second warp plain structure are arranged in a same direction (see fig. 1);
the synthetic fiber yarn and the elastic yarn are knitted in a warp knitting threading manner of 0≤i≤10 needles to form the knitting structure, i is the number of empty needles (i=0; see fig. 1).
Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the synthetic fiber yarn is inelastic. However, Luo does indicate that the synthetic fiber yarn is inelastic as being recited in parallel with spandex yarn (claim 2). Further, Chen, in an analogous art, discloses a warp knitted fabric comprising an inelastic yarn and an elastic yarn (inelastic yarn Y1 and elastic yarn Y2; see English translation; paras. 0009, 0012; claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the synthetic fiber yarn as disclosed by Luo to be inelastic as taught by Chen, in order to form a warp knitted fabric with a moderate elasticity. Also, such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Luo and Chen, in combination, disclose the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 1. Luo discloses wherein the positions of the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn can be interchanged during knitting (can or cannot).
Luo does not disclose wherein the inelastic yarn comprises short-staple yarn and long-staple yarn. However, Applicant does not provide any criticality for wherein the inelastic yarn comprises both short-staple yarn and long-staple yarns, and the limitation does not appear to provide additional feature to the warp knitted fabric. One of ordinary skill of the art would understand that either long staple yarn or short staple yarn can be used in warp knitting to form different wales; and even if a short staple yarn is not long enough to complete a wale of a desired length, the short staple yarn can be joined with at least another staple yarn to complete the knitting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the yarn(s) with wherein the inelastic yarn comprises both short-staple yarn and long-staple yarn, in order to use any available yarn materials of the inelastic yarn in the warp-knitted fabric. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Luo does not disclose wherein the elastic yarn comprises polyurethane yarn and polyolefin yarn. However, Luo does disclose that the elastic yarn is polyurethane yarn or synthesized yarn, and a polyolefin yarn is a synthesized yarn. In addition, Applicant does not provide any criticality for wherein the elastic yarn comprises both polyurethane yarn and polyolefin yarn. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the elastic yarn as disclosed by Luo, with wherein the elastic yarn comprises both polyurethane yarn and polyolefin yarn, in order to use any available yarn materials which is suitable for the inelastic yarn in the warp-knitted fabric. Also, such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Luo and Chen, in combination, disclose the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 1, and Luo further discloses wherein the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn are knitted in a warp knitting threading method with i=0 needles to form the knitting structure (fig. 1).
Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the inelastic yarn includes coarse yarn and fine yarn, the coarse yarn and the fine yarn have different diameters, and the diameter of the coarse yarn is greater than the diameter of the fine yarn. However, Luo does disclose that the inelastic yarn has a linear density between 10-1000 deniers (claim 2). One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that in yarns of the same material, different linear density represents different thickness or different diameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the inelastic yarn, with wherein the inelastic yarn includes coarse yarn and fine yarn, the coarse yarn and the fine yarn have different diameters, and the diameter of the coarse yarn is greater than the diameter of the fine yarn, in order to provide a warp knitted jacquard fabric with desired knit patterns by varying the thickness of the inelastic yarns thereby enhancing the aesthetic appeal.
Regarding claim 8, Luo and Chen, in combination, disclose the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 7. With respect to the limitation "the ratio of the yarn feed amount of the coarse yarn to the fine yarn is α, 0.7≤α≤1.5," the limitation is deemed a product-by-process limitation in the claim, and determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113, I. In this case, the limitation does not appear to provide any further structure feature to the claimed fabric, as the limitation does not recite that the "yarn feed amount" is present in the warp knitted fabric. Even if the yarn feed amount is present in the warp knitted fabric, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made such configuration, in order to provide a suitable ratio of the coarse yarn and the fine yarn as the inelastic yarn in the warp knitted fabric for desired appearance. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 9, Luo and Chen, in combination, disclose the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 8. Luo does not explicitly disclose the number of the thin yarns between two adjacent thick yarns is A, A≤3; the diameter of the thick yarn is B, the diameter of the thin yarn is C, B:C≥1.1. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made such configuration, in order to provide a suitable ratio of the coarse yarn and the fine yarn as the inelastic yarn in the warp knitted fabric for desired appearance. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Regarding claim 13, Luo and Chen, in combination, disclose the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 2. Luo further discloses wherein the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn are knitted in a warp knitting threading method with i=0 needles to form the knitting structure (fig. 1).
Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the inelastic yarn includes coarse yarn and fine yarn, the coarse yarn and the fine yarn have different diameters, and the diameter of the coarse yarn is greater than the diameter of the fine yarn. However, Luo does disclose that the inelastic yarn has a linear density between 10-1000 deniers (claim 2). One of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that in yarns of the same material, different linear density represents different thickness or different diameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the inelastic yarn, with wherein the inelastic yarn includes coarse yarn and fine yarn, the coarse yarn and the fine yarn have different diameters, and the diameter of the coarse yarn is greater than the diameter of the fine yarn, in order to provide a warp knitted jacquard fabric with desired knit patterns by varying the thickness of the inelastic yarns thereby enhancing the aesthetic appeal.
Claims 2 and 3/2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 212404414 U).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the positions of the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn can be interchanged during knitting (see figs. 2-13).
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the inelastic yarn comprises short-staple yarn and long-staple yarn. However, Chen does disclose wherein the inelastic yarn comprises staple yarn(s) with a yarn count between 20 and 100 Ne (staple yarn(s); para. 0067; claim 2). In addition, Applicant does not provide any criticality for wherein the inelastic yarn comprises both short-staple yarn and long-staple yarns, and the limitation does not appear to provide additional feature to the warp knitted fabric. One of ordinary skill of the art would understand that either long staple yarn or short staple yarn can be used in warp knitting to form different wales; and even if a short staple yarn is not long enough to complete a wale of a desired length, the short staple yarn can be joined with at least another staple yarn to complete the knitting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the staple yarn(s) as disclosed by Chen, with wherein the inelastic yarn comprises both short-staple yarn and long-staple yarn, in order to use any available yarn materials of the inelastic yarn in the warp-knitted fabric. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the elastic yarn comprises polyurethane yarn and polyolefin yarn. However, Chen does disclose wherein the elastic yarn comprises polyurethane yarn or polyolefin yarn (spandex or polyolefin; para. 0067; claim 4). In addition, Applicant does not provide any criticality for wherein the elastic yarn comprises both polyurethane yarn and polyolefin yarn. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the elastic yarn as disclosed by Chen, with wherein the elastic yarn comprises both polyurethane yarn and polyolefin yarn, in order to use any available yarn materials which is suitable for the inelastic yarn in the warp-knitted fabric. Also, such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3/2, Chen discloses the breathable and non-transparent warp knitted fabric according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the inelastic yarn and the elastic yarn are knitted into the knitting structure in a warp knitting threading method in which i is not equal to 0 needles (i=1, 2 or 3; figs. 2-13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Peng (US 2021/0032786 A1) can also be used as a 102 reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732