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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on February 10, 2025, in which claims 1-16 were presented for examination, of which claim 9 was amended, claims 3-4, 7, 11-13, and 15 are withdrawn due to being drawn to a non-elected embodiment, and claims 10-16 were added as new, are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I (Figs. 1, 8 and 18-23, Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 14 and 16) in the reply filed on January 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “the plurality of non-elastic yarns conforming to one of the pair of repeating patterns” (line: 8) and “the plurality of non-elastic yarns conforming to the other of the pair of repeating patterns” (lines: 11-12) are indefinite because it is unclear if the plurality of non-elastic yarns conforms to two different pair of repeating patterns. Is it conforming to a pair of non-elastic yarns or to the pair of elastic yarns? Examiner assumes the non-elastic yarns only conform to a repeated pattern of non-elastic yarns.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a plurality of non-elastic yarns are knitted in conformance to a pair of repeating patterns opposed to each other (regarded as an identical repeating pattern when being different only in closed lap and open lap)” (lines 3-5) is in indefinite because it is unclear how patterns are “opposed” to each other, while simultaneously being “identical”, and the patterns being “identical” to each other, while being “different”? By “opposed”, is the Applicant stating the pairs are mirrored from each other, the opposite of each other, or adjacent? Furthermore, it is also unclear what makes the patterns different on the closed lap and open lap. Examiner assumes opposed to each other, to be adjacent to each other. Examiner assumes the pattern are different only in the closed and open lap during their formation. Examiner assumes the pair of repeating patterns are similar, only to a degree.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “grade 3 or higher one-way transport capability under AATCC (the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists) standard 195” is indefinite because it is unclear which year of the AATCC Standard 195 the Applicant is referring to.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9-10, 14 and 16 are rejected for depending directly/indirectly from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takashima (JP2019135336A) as best understood.
Regarding claim 1, Takashima discloses a mesh warp knitted fabric knitted with non-elastic yarns (31 and 32) and elastic yarns (35, Examiner notes more than one elastic yarn is shown in Fig. 4b, Abstract, Par. 0034) and at least partially comprising a mesh texture (Par. 0009), wherein
in the mesh texture, a plurality of non-elastic yarns (31 and 32) are knitted in conformance to a pair of repeating patterns opposed to each other (regarded as an identical repeating pattern when being different only in closed lap and open lap) (Examiner notes, as shown in Fig. 4a and 4b, yarns 31 and 32, are laid by separate guide bars GB1 and GB2 in sequential knitting cycles. In the course diagram of Fig. 4(b), yarn 31 is laid prior to the formation of subsequent loops, such that the yarn is positioned on the needle before overlap occurs, corresponding to an “open lap”. Yarn 32 is laid in later guide bar movements, after needle overlap, thereby forming “closed laps”), and a plurality of elastic yarns (35) are knitted in conformance to the pair of repeating patterns so as to be overlapped on the plurality of non- elastic yarns (as shown in Fig. 4b), and
the plurality of non-elastic yarns (31 and 32) conforming to one of the pair of repeating patterns (Examiner notes non-elastic yarns, 31 and 32, conforms to the repeating pattern of more non-elastic yarns, as shown in Fig. 4b), the elastic yarns (35) overlapped on the plurality of non-elastic yarns conforming to the one of the pair of repeating patterns (Examiner notes Fig. 4b shows elastic yarns overlapping the non-elastic yarns, 31 and 32), and the plurality of elastic yarns conforming to the other of the pair of repeating patterns include a non-threaded position (Examiner notes as shown in Fig. 4b where the stitches aren’t threaded between element 35, and, Examiner notes elastic yarns, 35, conform to the repeating pattern of more elastic yarns, as shown in Fig. 4b), and the plurality of non-elastic yarns (31 and 32) conforming to the other of the pair of repeating patterns do not include a non-threaded position (as shown in Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 2, Takashima discloses wherein the pair of repeating patterns have three to twelve courses as a repeating unit and are swung to right and left in a range of three to five wales (examiner notes Fig. 4b shows a portion of the knitted fabric, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize can encompass the course and wales range when viewed in an expanded view).
Regarding claim 5, Takashima discloses wherein the plurality of non-elastic yarns (31 and 32, Fig. 3b) conforming to the one of the pair of repeating patterns are a plurality of half- set non-elastic yarns (Par. 0034).
Regarding claim 6, Takashima discloses wherein the plurality of non-elastic yarns (31 and 32) conforming to the other of the pair of repeating patterns are composed of a combination of a plurality of half-set non-elastic yarns and a plurality of half-set non- elastic yarns (Par. 0034) that fill up a non-threaded position of the plurality of half-set non-elastic yarns (as shown in Fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 9, Takashima discloses A textile product made of the mesh warp knitted fabric according to claim 1 (Par. 0034).
Regarding claim 10, Takashima discloses A textile product made of the mesh warp knitted fabric according to claim 2 (Par. 0034).
Regarding claim 14, Takashima discloses A textile product made of the mesh warp knitted fabric according to claim 6 (Par. 0034).
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.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima.
Regarding claim 8, Takashima discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Takashima does not explicitly disclose the mesh warp knitted fabric has a grade 3 or higher one-way transport capability under AATCC (the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists) standard 195.
However, Takashima does disclose the Applicants structure, as claimed, and
structural features in accordance with common textiles, as described in AATCC standard 195. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the resultant product to provide the same test results because it satisfies the AATCC standard 195 limitation the applicant has posed.
Regarding claim 16, Takashima discloses A textile product made of the mesh warp knitted fabric according to claim 8 (Par. 0034).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732