DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-7 and 14-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, on line 6 and in claim 14, on
line 9, each occurrence of “ manage material variance” is indefinite since it is unclear what
parameters define the material variance in order to determine individual piles heights within the
pattern design.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Morgante et al. (US 6,877,449). Morgante et al. (hereinafter Morgante) discloses a method of
accessing an electronic representation (80) of a pattern design for controlling a carpet tufting
operation by selecting pattern parameters, col. 9, lines 53-55. The pattern design including a pile
height per tuft; determining ranges of a plurality of pile heights (87) identified in the pattern
design; determining individual pile heights (89) of the plurality of pile heights (87) of the pattern
design using the ranges of the plurality of pile heights (87), col. 9, line 54- col. 10, line 10 and as
shown in figure 8. Furthermore, the operator can modify the pattern design with individual pile
heights, col. 10, lines 5-9 and as shown in figure 11. The modified pattern design is made by
controlling the carpet tufting operation to make many variations, col. 9, lines 47-63. Further, the
ranges of the plurality of pile heights of the pattern design comprise at least three non-
overlapping ranges of pile heights including a first range having a larger range of pile heights
than a second range formed within the pattern as shown in figure 11. However, Mongante does
not show using the ranges of the plurality of piles heights to manage material variance.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the
claimed invention that the method feed step (108) as shown in figure 12F of Morgante will
substantially allow the range of the plurality of pile heights to manage different varying
characteristics of different yarns and yarn elasticity in tufted carpet as known in the textile art.
With regard to claim 2, col. 16, lines 40-42 includes pattern control attachment (211) to
permit exact length of yarns to be fed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the machine logic (263) of
Morgante can include but not limited to optimization algorithm, etc. so that the individual pile
heights has an even take of yarn packages in order to optimally feed yarn to form an even finish
on the carpet or depending on end use thereof.
With regard to claim 14, col. 6, lines 23-36 and col. 9, lines 46-63 discloses the computer
(60) is used to create, modify, display and install and select patterns parameters to be used in the
tufting machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
effective date of the claimed invention that the computer (60) of Morgante includes but not
limited to a memory device having program instructing executable by a processor, etc. to
perform pattern design with the range of the plurality of pile heights selected and controlled by
method feed step (108) to manage different varying characteristics of different yarns and yarn
elasticity in tufted carpet as known in the textile art or as required for a particular application
thereof.
With regard to claims 4 and 18, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
before the effective date of the claimed invention that the electronic representation (80) on the
computer (80) of Morgante determines the individual pile heights includes identifying a first pile
from the pattern design having a first assigned pile height and identifying a second pile from
the pattern design including the first assigned pile height by assigning a first modified pile height
to the first pile within a first range of the ranges of the plurality of pile heights and assigning a
second modified pile height that is different from the first modified pile height to the second pile,
the second modified pile height within the first range of the ranges of the plurality of pile heights
as shown in figure 11 creating the modified pattern design.
Additionally, with regard to claim 16, col. 16, lines 40-42 includes pattern control
attachment (211) to permit exact length of yarns to be fed. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the
machine logic (263) connected to the computer (60), figure 20 of Morgante can include but not
limited to optimization algorithm, etc. so that the individual pile heights has an even take of yarn
packages in order to optimally feed yarn to form an even finish on the carpet or depending on
end use thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 7 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35
U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to
include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
6. Claim 8 with its respective dependents are allowable because the prior art does not teach
or suggest the recitation therein including a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having
program instructions that are executable by a processor for controlling a carpet tufting operation
by accessing update data from prior updates to prior pattern designs and using the update data
by training a machine-learning model to generate updated pattern designs; accessing an
electronic representation of a new pattern design including a pile height per tuft and generating
an updated new pattern design by applying the trained machine-learning model to the new
pattern design to form an updated pile height per tuft in an efficient manner.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Each of the prior art references cited on PTO-892 discloses carpet tufted backing
having a plurality of piles height defining a pattern design.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJASH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am -5pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
December 19, 2025
/TAJASH D PATEL/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3732