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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) specifying a program for a knitting machine and providing the program as input. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because creating a program as inputting it is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “ inputting a program” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, creating a program which specifies yarns encompasses the user mentally creating the program. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within he “mental processes” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional component, inputting the program which is a generic computer function and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional element of inputting a program amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim includes generating a 3D scan of an object and printing a 3D model. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the manufacturing arts and thus does not render the claim patent eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poegl et al.(US Publication 2022/0074091).
Poegl et al. discloses a method of making a knitted item comprising executing a knitting program[0042] which can place functional yarns in desired locations[0062] to create a desired shape[0060]. The functional yarns can be conductive.[0062] Thread of different types can be used to impart different properties.[0164] While the reference does not explicitly state a program is created to input to do this, one in the art would understand that executing a knitting program would require creating the program and inputting into the knitting machine. While the reference does not explicitly state that non-functional yarns are used in combination with the functional yarn, one in the art appreciate that since multiple different threads[0053] can be used and different properties created in different locations in the article[0081] that a nonfunctional yard would be used in combination with the functional yarn.
Regarding claim 2, Poegl et al. discloses that the functional yarns can be piezoelectric[0193] or TPU.[0170] Combinations of the functional yarns can be used.[0162]
Regarding claim 3, Poegl et al. discloses using different color yarns.[0077]
Regarding claim 4, Poegl et al. discloses the yarn can be polyester or cotton.[0163]
Regarding claim 5, one in the art would appreciate that since the pattern can use threads of different properties, some of them could be conductive while others are not as the reference states that combinations of threads can be used.[0162].
Regarding claim 6, one in the art would appreciate that any type of pattern such as stripes could be made of the different materials absent unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, Poegl et al. discloses a circular knitting machine can be used.[0259]
Regarding claim 9, Poegl et al. discloses a flat knitting machine can be used.[0258]
Regarding claim 12, Poegl et al. discloses making a shoe upper.(Abstract)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poegl et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paradiso(US Publication 2007/0083096).
Poegl et al. does not disclose some of the yarns being piezoresistive though it does disclose they can be piezoelectric[0193] or nanotech yarns.[0189] Paradiso discloses using piezoresistive yarns in knitted garments to allow medical monitoring.(Abstract) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use piezoresistive yarns in Poegl et al. to allow medical monitoring of people wearing the garment as taught by Paradiso.(Abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights