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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/10/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 6/3/26.
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 Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 3-- the recitations are being treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art; more specifically, the structure of Claim(s) 3 Line 6 is a knit garment.
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.
FIRST REJECTION: Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuypers et al (USPN 10081889), herein Cuypers, in view of Canvas (NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, Cuypers teaches a knitted garment in which a natural fiber is used (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; however, see Fig. 1; Col. 7 Lines 1-9 "Suitable structural fibers for use in the hybrid fabric of this invention include ...natural or regenerated fibers such as cotton and flax...with a melting temperature-range that is substantially above the melting temperature range of the thermo-formable fibers such as...polyamide"; for knit -- Col. 4 Lines 49-56 "hybrid fabric...can be produced by different methods as long as they provide...fibers of the first and second network connected to each other...include knitting"; for garment -- Col. 10 Lines 39-43 "the hybrid fabric of this invention is suitable for use in a wide variety of applications, for example immobilization devices, sports dresses, and for use in sports applications such as for example protective plates or parts or shoe insole and gloves"), the knitted garment comprising:
a ground yarn (see Fig. 1; Col. 10 Lines 59-63 "network of structural fibers 1, which interpenetrates the second network of thermo-formable fibers 2…connected to each other at the position of loops 3"); and
a heat-fusible yarn (Col. 10 Line 61 "thermo-formable fibers 2"; Col. 7 Lines 7-9 "thermo-formable fibers such as...polyamide"), wherein
the knitted garment does not include an elastic yarn (Col. 7 Lines 1-9),
the garment is formed by a flat knitting machine (see claim interpretation; the recitation “formed by a flat knitting machine” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if “flat knitting” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other knit methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the knitting method with the Cuypers reference above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; in other words, the knit garment of Cuypers teaches the knit garment of this limitation of Claim 3 because it has the structure of Claim 3),
the ground yarn includes the natural fiber yarn (Col. 7 Lines 1-9), and
the heat-fusible yarn that melts at 105°C or less (Col. 8 Lines 36, 42-43 "hybrid fabric of this invention…after thermoforming at a temperature of between 60-65° C")
is fused with a whole or a part of a ground yarn (see Fig. 1; Col. 7 Lines 1-9; Col. 10 Lines 39-43),
thereby preventing shrinkage and stretching of the ground yarn (Cuypers teaches the fusing which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of preventing shrinkage and stretching of the ground yarn as recited).
Cuypers does not explicitly teach the heat-fusible yarn has fineness of 30 deniers or more and 150 deniers or less.
However, Canvas teaches a reason for variability of denier (“higher denier count indicates a thicker, heavier individual fiber. This thickness generally results in a heavier, thicker, and potentially stronger, more durable fabric”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cuypers’ denier to be in the range of 30-150 denier depending on the desired weight and durability desired.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuypers et al (USPN 10081889), herein Cuypers, in view of Canvas (NPL), as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Yoshida et al (USPN 4517715), herein Yoshida.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Cuypers teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Cuypers already teaches wherein the heat-fusible yarn is a nylon heat-fusible yarn (Col. 7 Lines 7-9 "thermo-formable fibers such as...polyamide").
Cuypers does not explicitly teach the nylon heat-fusible yarn having a melting point of 75°C or more and 90°C or less.
Yoshida teaches a nylon heat-fusible yarn having a melting point of 75°C or more and 90°C or less (the actual embodiment utilized is Fig. 10, but materials are explained in Fig. 1; Col. 2 Lines 30-35 "Figs. 1 and 2...raised fibers 1 are firmly held by twisted core yarns 2a, 2b, whereby a filament yarn or a spun yarn 3 having a low melting point...is utilized to fuse the raised fibers to the core yarns 2a, 2b, is also held"; Col. 2 Lines 40-44 "an effect yarn formed by...raised fibers are sheared...then trapped...by the two core yarns 2a 2b", as such the effect yarn is 1; see Fig. 10; Col. 10 Lines 50-51, 62-63 "Example 1: 18S spun yarn with island-in-sea composite fiber...used as an effect yarn to form a chenille yarn" (this is 1); Col. 10 Lines 63-65 "spun yarn composed of...polyethylene terephthalate fiber was used as the core yarn" (this is 2a, 2b); Col. 10 Lines 65-68 "chenille yarn-forming operation was carried out while simultaneously feeding...low-melting-point polyamide with one of the two core yarns to create a chenille yarn" (polyamide is 3); Col. 11 Lines 8-10 "chenille yarn was steam-set at 85° C …to melt the low-melting-point polyamide yarn and...bond the fancy yarn and the core yarn").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cuypers’ nylon heat-fusible yarn’s melting point to be that of Yoshida’s as a simple substitution of one nylon for another for effective heat-fusing in immobilization devices (Col. 4 Lines 14-19), which Cuypers is directed to as well (Col. 10 Lines 39-43), wherein it is known in the art that Cuypers’ cotton withstands the melting point taught by Yoshida (see extrinsic evidence Nishida et al US Publication 2012/0219751, [0037]).
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuypers et al (USPN 10081889), herein Cuypers, in view of Schoppel et al (USPN 11453964), herein Schoppel, Yonezawa (JP 2022/007889), and Canvas (NPL).
Regarding Claim 5, Cuypers teaches a method for producing a knitted garment in which a natural fiber yarn is used (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as such, for structure for the method, see Fig. 1; Col. 7 Lines 1-9 "Suitable structural fibers for use in the hybrid fabric of this invention include ...natural or regenerated fibers such as cotton and flax...with a melting temperature-range that is substantially above the melting temperature range of the thermo-formable fibers such as...polyamide"; for knit -- Col. 4 Lines 49-56 "hybrid fabric...can be produced by different methods as long as they provide...fibers of the first and second network connected to each other...include knitting"; for garment -- Col. 10 Lines 39-43 "the hybrid fabric of this invention is suitable for use in a wide variety of applications, for example immobilization devices, sports dresses, and for use in sports applications such as for example protective plates or parts or shoe insole and gloves"), the knitted garment including:
a ground yarn (see Fig. 1; Col. 10 Lines 59-63 "network of structural fibers 1, which interpenetrates the second network of thermo-formable fibers 2…connected to each other at the position of loops 3"); and
a heat-fusible yarn (Col. 10 Line 61 "thermo-formable fibers 2"; Col. 7 Lines 7-9 "thermo-formable fibers such as...polyamide"),
the knitted garment not including an elastic yarn (Col. 7 Lines 1-9),
and the ground yarn including the natural fiber yarn (Col. 7 Lines 1-9),
the method comprising:
a first step in which, the heat-fusible yarn is knitted into a whole or a part of the ground yarn (see Fig. 1; Col. 7 Lines 1-9; Col. 10 Lines 59-63),
to produce the knitted garment including the heat-fusible yarn in an unmelted state (Col. 8 Lines 36, 42-43 "hybrid fabric of this invention…after thermoforming at a temperature of between 60-65° C" indicates knit before melted); and
a second step in which the heat-fusible yarn in the knitted garment that has undergone the first step is melted to cause the heat-fusible yarn to be fused with the ground yarn (Col. 8 Lines 36, 42-43; Col. 10 Lines 59-63),
wherein the heat-fusible yarn melts at 105°C or less (Col. 8 Lines 36, 42-43), and
shrinkage and stretching of the ground yarn is prevented in the knitted garment that has undergone the second step (Cuypers teaches the second step which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of preventing shrinkage and stretching).
Cuypers does not explicitly teach the knitting is via flat knitting machine.
Schoppel teaches the knitting for a fusible knit is via flat knitting machine (Col. 8 Lines 6-8 "knitting at least a portion of the knitted component 100 on a flat knitting machine with two needle beds"; see Fig. 2A; Col. 5 Lines 3-10 "first yarn 110 may be a fusible yarn comprised of a polyester substrate with poly block amide resin…and a melting temperature within the range of 55-65° C…herein as 'Grilon KE60'"; for fused with—Col. 7 Lines 17-19 “first yarn 110…at least partially fusing to…second yarn 120 in the curling region 104”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cuypers’ knit to be flat knit as taught by Schoppel as a known arrangement for fusible knits.
Cuypers does not explicitly teach a second step in the melting is via steam iron.
Yonezawa teaches a melting via steam iron for fusible threads such as nylon ([0064] "mask 1 may be partially made of fusible thread…in several rows from the area corresponding to the nose to the chin of the mask wearer...allows the central portion of the mask 1 to be linearly hardened from the nose to the area corresponding to the chin...possible to prevent the shape...from changing...and a gap...is maintained...easier to breathe...and reduce the feeling of heat buildup"; [0065] "used in any part of the mask that needs to be made hard and maintain its shape"; [0066] "type of fusible yarn...include...polyester...nylon...polyethylene"; [0067] "as a method for fusing the heat-fusible yarn…heat treatment can be performed at 70 to 200 °C …using…an iron…in combination with…steam").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cuypers’ melting process to be with a steam iron as taught by Yonezawa as an effective method to be applied to fusible threads such as nylon (provided by Cuypers), in order to maintain and/or achieve a desired shape ([0065]).
Cuypers does not explicitly teach the heat-fusible yarn has a fineness of 30 deniers or more and 150 deniers or less.
However, Canvas teaches a reason for variability of denier (“higher denier count indicates a thicker, heavier individual fiber. This thickness generally results in a heavier, thicker, and potentially stronger, more durable fabric”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cuypers’ denier to be in the range of 30-150 denier depending on the desired weight and durability desired.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuypers et al (USPN 10081889), herein Cuypers, in view of Schoppel et al (USPN 11453964), herein Schoppel, Yonezawa (JP 2022/007889), and Canvas (NPL), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, further in view of Yoshida et al (USPN 4517715), herein Yoshida.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Cuypers teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Cuypers already teaches wherein the heat-fusible yarn is a nylon heat-fusible yarn (Col. 7 Lines 7-9 "thermo-formable fibers such as...polyamide").
Cuypers does not explicitly teach the nylon heat-fusible yarn having a melting point of 75°C or more and 90°C or less.
Yoshida teaches a nylon heat-fusible yarn having a melting point of 75°C or more and 90°C or less (the actual embodiment utilized is Fig. 10, but materials are explained in Fig. 1; Col. 2 Lines 30-35 "Figs. 1 and 2...raised fibers 1 are firmly held by twisted core yarns 2a, 2b, whereby a filament yarn or a spun yarn 3 having a low melting point...is utilized to fuse the raised fibers to the core yarns 2a, 2b, is also held"; Col. 2 Lines 40-44 "an effect yarn formed by...raised fibers are sheared...then trapped...by the two core yarns 2a 2b", as such the effect yarn is 1; see Fig. 10; Col. 10 Lines 50-51, 62-63 "Example 1: 18S spun yarn with island-in-sea composite fiber...used as an effect yarn to form a chenille yarn" (this is 1); Col. 10 Lines 63-65 "spun yarn composed of...polyethylene terephthalate fiber was used as the core yarn" (this is 2a, 2b); Col. 10 Lines 65-68 "chenille yarn-forming operation was carried out while simultaneously feeding...low-melting-point polyamide with one of the two core yarns to create a chenille yarn" (polyamide is 3); Col. 11 Lines 8-10 "chenille yarn was steam-set at 85° C …to melt the low-melting-point polyamide yarn and...bond the fancy yarn and the core yarn").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cuypers’ nylon heat-fusible yarn’s melting point to be that of Yoshida’s as a simple substitution of one nylon for another for effective heat-fusing via steam in immobilization devices (Col. 4 Lines 14-19), which Cuypers is directed to as well (Col. 10 Lines 39-43), wherein it is known in the art that Cuypers’ cotton withstands the melting point taught by Yoshida (see extrinsic evidence Nishida et al US Publication 2012/0219751, [0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pertaining to remarks on pages 6-7 that Cuypers cannot be utilized because it is contrary to the claims, teaching an elastic yarn based on Col. 1 Lines 34-39 “material…sufficiently elastic and flexible during molding in order to…provide the right amount of…compression”—examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike Liao which explicitly taught an elastic fiber (and has been withdrawn as such), Cuypers does not teach as such. In fact, Cuypers teaches the materials of applicant’s disclosure (see office action 6/3/26 pages 3, 4 for cotton as ground yarn and polyamide for the heat-fusible yarn in Fig. 1; which is the same as applicant’s disclosure in [0011] natural/synthetic fibers and [0022] cotton as natural; [0017] nylon heat-fusible yarn, wherein it known in the art that nylon is polyamide); as such, for remarks to indicate that Cuypers teaches an elastic yarn while applicant does not is to introduce indefiniteness into the term “elastic yarn”; based on remarks, the term may be relative, and introduces issues with interpreting the metes and bounds of the term, if somehow the same materials/structure are somehow elastic in the remarks and not elastic in the application, and somehow result in different functions. If the functions are not from the lack of elastic yarn, there may be written description issues as well, as there seems to be some other undisclosed non-material specific structure that results in the function of preventing shrinkage and stretching of the ground yarn. In other words, Cuypers and modified Cuypers, teaches the same structure and therefore is capable of the same function of preventing shrinkage and stretching of the ground yarn, regardless of whether or not it is explicitly stated in Cuypers. The fact the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In other words, claims have yet to structurally differentiate from the prior art. There is no structural evidence that Cuypers does not perform the same functions as argued. Inasmuch as the original disclosure has defined the term “elastic’, modified Cuypers teaches the claims. Furthermore, Cuyper’s elastic is recited during molding, which does not prevent it to still perform the same function of preventing shrinkage and stretching of a ground yarn in the final product, especially as Cuyper’s does not recite any yarn material that would teach away.
Pertaining to remarks on pages 8-9 that Canvas does not explicitly teach the range of fineness for a non-elastic yarn and therefore cannot be utilized— examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is unclear where remarks are getting the page numbers 3 and 4 of Canvas—Canvas is a non-patent literature (NPL) provided on 12/22/25 with relevant section highlighted on page 2 of 2 of the NPL, and with URL provided in the PTO-892. Even assuming Canvas teaches what is in the remarks, the remarks are still not persuasive. Remarks seem to indicate that as Canvas teaches nylon possessing noticeable stretch, it is again contrary to the claims of not including an elastic yarn—this is not persuasive, similar to reasons aforementioned. Remarks again seem to indicate that nylon is elastic, while remarks argue that, despite disclosing [0022] nylon, the disclosure has no elastic yarn, introducing indefiniteness and possibly written description issues. Furthermore, the office action on page 5 indicated that Canvas teaches a reason for variability in denier ranges, and indicated the motivation to do so (desired weight and durability). Especially as both Canvas and Cuypers are directed to the same material (nylon), there is no evidence as to why Canvas’ reason to vary denier ranges would not apply to Cuypers. The actual motivation for combining has not been addressed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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
