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 .
Duty to Disclose
It is noted that CN115305621 and CN108035048 were not cited in an IDS even though the documents are clearly material to the current application. Both documents share the same assignee and multiple same inventors as the current application. 37 CFR 1.56(a) states that the "duty of candor and good faith" is owed "in dealing with the Office" and that all associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application have a "duty to disclose to the Office" material information.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1, the recitation “reinforcing one interlacing point upward/downward in a warp direction” and the parallel “downward/upward” recitation do not clearly indicate whether these are independent alternative selections or a coupled pair of opposite directions, rendering it unclear what structure results from performing the step.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115305621 to Zhou (hereinafter referred to as Zhou '621) in view of CN108035048 to Zhou (hereinafter referred to as Zhou '048).
Claim 1, Zhou '621's title and disclosure are directed to a "double-warp four-weft jacquard fabric" weaving method, teaching the "double-warp and quadruple-weft" portion of the preamble. Zhou '048's title and disclosure are directed to a double-warp jacquard fabric with double-weft gradient color development, teaching the “double-weft color gradient expression” portion of the preamble, albeit on a three-weft rather than four-weft platform.
Step 1 — constructing a structure model
Zhou '621 discloses a warp combination of exactly two groups, denoted J1 and J2 (the identical designators used in the claim), and a weft combination of exactly four groups, denoted W1–W4 (again the identical designators), arranged 1:1 (warp) and 1:1:1:1 (weft) (see entire translation document including the establishing a structural model section). This teaches every structural element of step 1 except the two-groups-of-wefts-on-the-face limitation: in Zhou '621, only one weft group plus one warp group interweaves on the face for color, while the other three weft groups plus the remaining warp group back the fabric.
Zhou '048 discloses, on its three-weft platform, that any two groups of weft yarns together with one warp group interweave on the fabric surface for color development, while the remaining weft group and remaining warp group back the fabric (see entire translation document including the abstract). This teaches the "two wefts + one warp on face / remainder on back" architecture recited in step 1, and Zhou '048 further states this arrangement produces double weft gradual change color development — i.e., the double-weft color gradient result step 1 requires.
Zhou '621 itself identifies as a problem in the art that unidirectional/limited weft-group color development schemes suffer from a constrained color gamut (see Background section), which is the same problem Zhou '048 addresses by using two weft groups (rather than one) to jointly and gradually develop color on the fabric face. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to enrich the color gamut of Zhou '621's double-warp, quadruple-weft platform would have been motivated to apply Zhou '048's known double-weft face-coloring technique — including its basic weave I/II and full-color-technical-point design methodology — to Zhou '621's four-weft structure, simply designating any two (rather than one) of the four available weft groups as face wefts and the remaining two as back wefts. This is a straightforward substitution/extension of a known coloring technique (Zhou '048) onto a structurally compatible known platform (Zhou '621) from the same design tradition and common inventive entity, yielding the predictable result of a double-weft gradient effect on a four-weft fabric, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The resulting combination would necessarily produce two back weaves (back weave I and II) for the two remaining weft groups — mirroring the back weave I/II design already taught in Zhou '621 for its three back-weft groups, merely reduced from three groups to two — and twelve structural models (2 warp assignments × 6 weft-pair combinations of 4 wefts taken 2 at a time), consistent with the coefficient "12" appearing in claim 1's step 6 maximum color-level formula. This numerical outcome follows automatically and predictably from the combinatorics of the combined structure and does not, by itself, evidence any additional inventive contribution beyond what the combination of Zhou '621 and Zhou '048 already renders obvious.
A person of ordinary skill would have combined Zhou '048's two-weft-on-face architecture with Zhou '621's four-weft platform by designating any two of the four available weft groups (e.g., W1 and W2) as face wefts and the remaining two (W3, W4) as back wefts, with one warp group on the face and the other on the back — precisely the structure recited in step 1, including forming a plurality of double-warp and quadruple-weft jacquard structure models. Zhou '621 already forms a plurality of structural models (eight, from its 4-weft × 2-warp combinatorics) using single-weft-on-face selection; substituting Zhou '048's two-weft selection rule simply changes which and how many weft groups are chosen per model, a predictable combinatorial variation using known techniques for their known purpose.
Step 2 — designing a face coloring compound weave
Zhou '048 (see designing developing organization section) is directed to this task for a two-weft-on-face configuration and provides the near-identical methodology.
Step 2(i) — selecting basic weave I and II, same weave repeat number N and step number S, different starting points.
Zhou '048 discloses selecting basic organization I and basic organization II from twill or satin, with the same weave-repeat cycle number N, where N is between 5 and 48. Zhou '048 does not use the label "step number S" verbatim, but its embodiment (both basic weaves formed from the same 8-pick satin, differentiated only by which is inverted/reinforced relative to the other) inherently uses weaves of the same step number, since basic weave I and basic weave II are generated from one another by point-inversion and single-point reinforcement — an operation that preserves step number while shifting the effective starting point. To the extent Zhou '048 does not expressly recite "same step number S, different starting points" as a distinct design parameter, the examiner takes official notice that selecting two basic weaves of the same weave family, same repeat, and same step number but offset starting points is a routine, well-understood design choice in jacquard/satin weave construction (needed simply to obtain two distinguishable but compatible basic weaves), and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill implementing Zhou '048's own basic-weave-I/II scheme.
Step 2(ii) — deriving the full-color technical point weave of each basic weave from the other by reversal and single-point reinforcement in the warp direction
Zhou '048 discloses this step in language and mathematics that map essentially one-to-one onto the claim: the full-color technical point of basic weave I is set by inverting the interlacing points of basic weave II and reinforcing one point upward along the warp direction from the inverted point, and the full-color technical point of basic weave II is set by inverting the interlacing points of basic weave I and reinforcing one point downward along the warp direction from the inverted point.
Step 2(iii) — building shaded weave-databases I and II from the basic weaves without disturbing the full-color point, and combining one weave from each database weft-by-weft to form the face coloring compound weave
Zhou '048 discloses designing a group of basic tissues with the shadow effect based on the basic tissue I and, correspondingly, a group of matching tissues with the shadow effect based on basic weave II, in each case without destroying the respective full-color technical point, and then combining the basic weave and matching weave according to the ratio of 1:1 from top to bottom to form the color-developing (face coloring) weave. Zhou '048 also discloses the identical governing formula: the minimum number of shaded weaves is (N−2) when the reinforcement step M equals N, and the maximum is [(N−2)+(N−3)×(N−1)] when M=1 — the same formula recited in claim step 2(iii)/step 6 and dependent claim 2 (designing developing organization section of Zhou ‘048).
Step 3 — designing a back weave (back weave I and back weave II, same or integral-multiple repeat number as the face coloring weave)
Zhou '621 discloses designing back (inner backing) weaves with a repeat number equal to or an integral multiple of the face coloring weave's repeat number, and — because Zhou '621's structure leaves three weft groups for backing — discloses forming three mutually-covering back weaves (I, II, and III) via a weft triple structure design method, where back weave I covers back weave II and III, and back weave II covers back weave III (see Zhou ‘621inner layer backing tissue design). This teaches the core requirement of step 3 (a same/integral-multiple repeat-number relationship between back and face weaves, and the design of multiple, mutually-covering back weaves) but for three back wefts rather than two.
Once the combination reduces the number of back weft groups from three (Zhou '621) to two (per Zhou '048's two-on-face/remainder-on-back split applied to a four-weft platform), Zhou '621's own weft triple structure design method reduces, in predictable and mechanical fashion, to a two-weft version — i.e., back weave I and back weave II with the same repeat-number relationship already taught by Zhou '621 (and independently by Zhou '048's own single back-weave design, which uses the identical same-or-integral-multiple rule). This is a routine, predictable simplification of a technique both references already teach, not an inventive leap.
Step 4 — designing the relationship between the face layer and back layer (stitched and not-stitched)
Both references disclose both alternatives. For the not-stitched case, Zhou '621 discloses that at face-warp/back-weft interweaving positions the warp is fully lifted (i.e., configured as a warp interlacing point, meaning the face warp rides above the back weft) and at back-warp/face-weft interweaving positions the warp is fully submerged (i.e., a weft interlacing point, meaning the back warp lies below the face weft) — this is the same face-warp-above-back-weft / back-warp-below-face-weft relationship recited in claim step 4. Zhou '048 discloses the same warp-lifted/warp-submerged configuration in its own process design step (see stitching sections of each reference).
For the stitched case, both references disclose a self-stitching-type binding/joint method with a repeat-number relationship to the face coloring weave that is the same or an integral multiple, in which the binding/joint interlacing points are always covered by adjacent face-warp (or face-weft) interlacing points (see stitching sections of each reference).
Step 5 — designing a compound weave process
Step 5(a) — setting arrangement ratios and horizontally/vertically arranging the warp and weft groups
Zhou '621 discloses arranging J1 and J2 left-to-right at a 1:1 ratio and W1–W4 top-to-bottom at a 1:1:1:1 ratio (Zhou '621 combined organization flow design section) — using the identical designators and identical ratios recited in step 5(a). Zhou '048 discloses the analogous arrangement for its warp A/B (1:1) and weft A/B/C (1:1:1) (Zhou '048 colour tissue flow design section).
Step 5(b) — configuring face and back weaves at the corresponding interweaving positions; lifting warps at face-warp/back-weft positions to form warp interlacing points; sinking warps at back-warp/face-weft positions to form weft interlacing points
Both references disclose this in near-identical terms: drawing the color-developing (face) weave at the face-warp/face-weft position, drawing the back/inner weave at the back-warp/back-weft position, fully lifting the warp at face-warp/back-weft positions (configuring warp interlacing points), and fully sinking the warp at back-warp/face-weft positions (configuring weft interlacing points) (Zhou '621 and Zhou '048 flow sections).
Step 5(c) — matching the relationship between the face layer and back layer
Both references disclose incorporating the binding/joint weave selected in their respective step 4 analog at the appropriate interweaving position as part of the same process-design step (Zhou '621 and Zhou '048 flow sections).
Step 5(d) — designing a compound weave for each structure model according to the structure models' characteristics
Zhou '621 discloses completing the combined tissue design of each structural model in turn according to the characteristics of its eight structure models and Zhou '048 discloses completing the organization combination design of six kinds of interweaving structures and building corresponding weave (Zhou '621 and Zhou '048 flow sections). Applying the same technique to the combined (twelve-model) structure resulting from the step 1 combination is a predictable, mechanical extension.
Step 6 — designing a digital pattern (gradient grade ≤ max shaded-weave count; non-overlapping series; max color level = 12×[(N−2)+(N−3)×(N−1)]²)
Zhou '048 discloses a bitmap digital pattern with gradient color series whose grade count is bounded by the maximum number of shaded weaves, with non-overlapping series, and a maximum color-level formula of [(N−2)+(N−3)×(N−1)]² multiplied by six — six being the number of structural models arising from its three-weft, two-on-face combinatorics (Zhou '048 designing digital pattern section). Zhou '621 discloses the same type of bounded, non-overlapping gradient-series design, with a maximum color-level formula of (R−1)² multiplied by eight — eight being the number of structural models arising from its four-weft, one-on-face combinatorics (Zhou '621 Design of Digital Pattern section).
Both references thus already teach the identical formula template: (max shaded-weave count)² × (number of structural models). Combining the references per step 1 yields a structure with C(4,2) × 2 = 12 structural models (two of four weft groups on the face, times two possible warp assignments) rather than six or eight. Substituting 12 for the model-count coefficient in the already-taught formula template — using Zhou '048's bracketed shaded-weave-count expression, since the combined structure retains Zhou '048's two-weft/basic-weave-I-and-II shading scheme — predictably and mechanically yields exactly 12×[(N−2)+(N−3)×(N−1)]², the formula recited in step 6. This is a routine mathematical consequence of the combination already rendered obvious under step 1, not an additional inventive contribution.
Step 7 — designing a compound structure diagram
Both references disclose combining the face-coloring weave library/libraries (from face-warp/face-weft interweaving), the back weave(s) (from back-warp/back-weft interweaving), and the warp float, weft float, and/or stitching weave (from the face/back relationship of step 4) according to each structure model, with each gradient color in the digital pattern replaced one-to-one by the corresponding shaded weave (see combined structure design sections). Zhou '048's version already uses two face-coloring databases (from its basic weave I and II) exactly as claim step 7 requires (shaded weaves in the face coloring weave I and the face coloring weave II, respectively); applying that same combination logic to the combined structure's two back weaves (per step 3 above) is a direct, predictable extension of both references' own disclosed methodology.
Step 8 — weaving
Zhou '621 discloses adding warp/weft selection information to the compound structure diagram, setting warp and weft densities, and selecting two groups of warps and four groups of wefts, then weaving per the compound structure diagram (Zhou '621 Fabric section) — this already recites the two groups of warp threads and four groups of weft threads language of step 8. Zhou '048 discloses the analogous weaving step for its two-warp/three-weft platform (Zhou '048 producing the woven application section). Step 8 is thus taught directly by Zhou '621 alone, and independently corroborated by Zhou '048.
Claim 2, Zhou '048 discloses the N range (5–48), the M range (1≤M≤N), and — in language and formula essentially identical to the claim — the minimum count (N−2) at M=N and the maximum count [(N−2)+(N−3)×(N−1)] at M=1 (Zhou '048 designing and developing section). The QBI = N×QNSN, QBII = (N−2), QB = QBI×QBII bookkeeping formulas quantify the total number of selectable basic-weave-I/basic-weave-II combinations already permitted by Zhou '048's own selection freedom (any twill/satin, any step number, any starting point, within repeat N) — i.e., N possible starting points times QNSN available step numbers for basic weave I, and (N−2) possible complementary basic weave IIs. This is routine combinatorial counting of design options that Zhou '048 already discloses as available, not an additional technical teaching, and would have been an obvious bookkeeping exercise for a person of ordinary skill quantifying Zhou '048's own disclosed design freedom.
Claim 3, both references disclose the underlying design freedom this formula quantifies: a back weave repeat number that is the same or an integral multiple of the face coloring weave repeat (Zhou '621 inner layer backing tissue design section and Zhou '048 weave design section), selectable among various step numbers within that family. The Qb formula is a combinatorial count of that already-disclosed selection space (summed across all eligible repeat lengths Ni with QSi available step numbers each, then squared because two back weaves — back weave I and II — are independently selected from that space). This is routine mathematical bookkeeping of an already-taught design freedom and would have been obvious to quantify.
Claim 4, alternative (a) is directly taught by both references: Zhou '621 discloses a back warp, surface weft binding method in which the stitch point is a warp point and is covered by adjacent face-warp interlacing points (Zhou '621 Designing the junction tissue section); Zhou '048 discloses the same inner warp and surface weft bonding method with the identical warp-point/coverage requirement (Zhou '048 stitching weave design section). Alternative (b) is not separately spelled out in either reference's extracted text, but it is the straightforward symmetric counterpart of alternative (a): both references already establish a warp-interlacing-point / weft-interlacing-point duality in their compound-weave-process step (lifting warps at face-warp/back-weft positions vs. sinking warps at back-warp/face-weft positions (Zhou '621 The combined organization flow design section and Zhou '048 colour tissue flow design section), so a person of ordinary skill would recognize that binding could equally be implemented by making the back-weft/face-warp crossing the stitch point (covered by face weft) rather than the back-warp/face-weft crossing — a routine, interchangeable design choice in double-layer weave binding. Alternative (c) is simply the combination of (a) and (b), an obvious combination of two already-obvious individual techniques for the predictable, cumulative purpose of stronger/more thorough binding.
Claim 5, this formula is a routine mathematical enumeration of the stitching options already established (obvious) under claim 4 — unstitched (1 way), back-warp/face-weft only, face-warp/back-weft only, or combined — counted according to how many stitch points of each type (QFSP, QBSP) are available and how they may be selected in combination. Once the four qualitative stitching configurations of claim 4 are in hand, exhaustively counting the number of ways to instantiate them is ordinary combinatorial bookkeeping and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, particularly one with the mathematical/statistical background typically brought to bear on the weave-counting formulas already pervasive in both references.
Claim 6, this is directly taught by Zhou '621's own dependent claim 2, which recites the identical arrangement using the identical designators J1, J2, W1–W4 (Zhou '621, claim 2). It is also taught by Zhou '048's analogous ratio disclosure for its warp A/B and weft A/B/C groups (Zhou '048 construction of tissue structure model section and colour tissue flow design section).
Claim 7, obvious as the straightforward combination of claim 2's obviousness rationale (above) with claim 6's directly-taught ratio limitation (above).
Claim 8, obvious as the combination of claim 3's obviousness rationale (Qb counting formula) with claim 6's directly-taught ratio limitation.
Claim 9, obvious as the combination of claim 4's obviousness rationale (stitching alternatives) with claim 6's directly-taught ratio limitation.
Claim 10, obvious as the combination of claim 5's obviousness rationale (QS counting formula) with claim 6's directly-taught ratio limitation.
Claim 11, Zhou '621's dependent claim 3 explicitly enumerates eight structure models on this pattern, but for a single weft group (plus one warp group) on the face (Zhou '621, claim 3). Zhou '048's embodiment explicitly enumerates six structure models on the same pattern, for two of its three weft groups (plus one warp group) on the face (Zhou '048 construction of tissue structure model section). Once Zhou '048's any two weft groups on the face rule is applied to Zhou '621's four-weft platform (per the claim 1 combination rationale), exhaustively enumerating every possible combination — C(4,2) = 6 weft pairs × 2 warp assignments = 12 models — is the mechanical, predictable result of applying the same enumeration technique both references already use for their own weft/warp counts. This exhaustive listing adds no new inventive content beyond what is already obvious from the combination underlying claim 1.
Claim 12, Zhou '048 explicitly builds one separate weave library per structure model — six libraries for its six models (Zhou '048 colour tissue flow design section). Zhou '621 explicitly builds one separate weave library per structure model — eight libraries for its eight models (Zhou '621 page 4). Building one face-coloring weave-database per structure model is thus a technique both references already practice; applying it to the twelve models resulting from the claim-1 combination (in place of six or eight) is a direct, predictable extension using the same, already-disclosed one-database-per-model principle.
Claim 13, Zhou '621 discloses the directly analogous ordering enumeration for its own structure: for each of its eight models, the three remaining back-weft groups interweave with the back warp according to back-lining structure I, II, or III, with the specific ordering/assignment spelled out model-by-model (Zhou '621 see claim 3). When the claim 1 combination reduces the number of back-weft groups from three (Zhou '621) to two (because two of the four available weft groups are now used on the face, per Zhou '048's two-weft-face rule), Zhou '621's own already-disclosed model-by-model back-weave-ordering technique mechanically simplifies from a three-weave (I/II/III) permutation scheme to a two-weave (I/II) permutation scheme — yielding exactly the back weave I or back weave II, correspondingly the other weft according to back weave II or I rule recited for each of the twelve models in claim 13. This is a direct, predictable simplification of Zhou '621's own disclosed enumeration methodology once the back-weft count is adjusted to two, not a separate inventive contribution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights