DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 3/19/26 in which claims 1, 3, 5, 6 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 Line 6 before “ground” delete “a” and substitute –the—
Claim 6 Line 1 before “knitted” add –the--
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 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 with respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 6 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations.
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: Pan (US Publication 2022/0170190) directed to knitted garment with natural fiber, ground yarn, heat-fusible yarn, and without elastic yarn; Booth et al (USPN 10843600), Poole (USPN 5305813) directed to heat-fusible nylon in a knitted garment with natural fiber, ground yarn, and without elastic yarn; Schimko et al (USPN 5408849), Bendt et al (US Publication 2024/0110318) directed to flat-knitting pile fabric; Economy et al (USPN 4001477) directed to nylon 6 and nylon 6, 6 melting temperatures.
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
Prosecution Insights