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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/2/26 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application, with Claim 3 remaining withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have almost overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/8/26.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 status identifier is incorrect and should read “(Withdrawn)”
Though currently withdrawn, the following is indicated for compact prosecution purposes (such as for potential rejoinder)—
The term “an inner side” in Claim 3 Line 2 needs review; As best understood, the term is referring to a “middle” of the fabric body as opposed to the top where the opening end portion is located
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “wherein each of the plurality of connection loops individually connects one loop and one adjacent loop in the specific course on a one-to-one basis for each pair of adjacent loops” in Claim 1 Lines 9-11 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis for the term, the term “one-to-one” is unclear whether reciting that there is one connection loop (Wc) to one loop (m), or whether there is one connection loop (Wc) to one pair of adjacent loops (m1, m2). Remarks argue both instances, but even with broadest reasonable interpretation, there is enough lack of clarity to merit indefiniteness pertaining to metes and bounds.
Claim 5 is rejected for including the content of Claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
Specific Definition
The term “specific course” beginning in Claim 1 Line 5 is the course in which edge processing portion is knitted ([0021], [0048]).
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.
FIRST REJECTION: as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yui (JP 2002/363841).
Regarding Claim 1, Yui teaches a knitted fabric (see Fig. 5; [0001] "present invention forms a bind-off loop following a loop located at a side end of a loop row of a final course of a knitted fabric") comprising:
a knitted fabric body having an opening end portion opened at one end thereof on a finishing side of knitting (see Figs. 1, 5, 7; [0009] "bind-off processing is applied to the loop group of the knitted fabric final course which is the knitting end edge 3”); and
an edge processing portion including a plurality of connection loops knitted along a specific course that is one course of a plurality of courses of the knitted fabric which are located on a side of the opening end portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below, wherein Fig. 5 shows plurality; for side opening end portion—see Figs. 1, 5, 7; [0009] "bind-off processing is applied to the loop group of the knitted fabric final course which is the knitting end edge 3”; [0009] "Fig. 1 shows a rib knitted fabric 1 for a collar to be knitted");
PNG
media_image1.png
326
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
326
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the edge processing portion connecting adjacent loops in the specific course to each other with use of a corresponding one of the plurality of connection loops (see Fig. 5),
wherein each of the plurality of connection loops individually connects one loop and one adjacent loop in the specific course on a one-to-one basis for each pair of adjacent loops (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 5, wherein there is one connection loop per “m” loop of 25, 26, 27, 28, wherein connection loop connects pairs).
Regarding Claim 4, Yui teaches the knitted fabric according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of courses are located within five courses from the opening end portion side (see Figs. 5, 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Yui teaches a wearable item (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, [0009] "Fig. 1 shows a rib knitted fabric 1 for a collar to be knitted"; Yui teaches the collar fabric which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being wearable) made of
the knitted fabric according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
SECOND REJECTION: as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shelton (USPN 0264349).
Regarding Claim 1, Shelton teaches a knitted fabric (see Figs. 1, 2) comprising:
a knitted fabric body having an opening end portion opened at one end thereof on a finishing side of knitting (see Figs. 1, 2); and
an edge processing portion including a plurality of connection loops knitted along a specific course that is one course of a plurality of courses of the knitted fabric which are located on a side of the opening end portion (edge processing portion-- see Fig. 1; Line 40 "top B"; connection loops (of B)-- see Fig. 1; Lines 41-42 "top B will consist of vertical rows of stitches"; plurality of courses (B+ at least some of A)-- see Fig. 2; Lines 36-40 "knit the leg of the sock or stocking plain, as usual, up to the line x x...before commencing to knit the top B"; wherein side can be of multiple courses of B, or the last course at the top of the fabric body),
the edge processing portion connecting adjacent loops in the specific course to each other with use of a corresponding one of the plurality of connection loops (see Fig. 2),
wherein each of the plurality of connection loops individually connects one loop and one adjacent loop in the specific course on a one-to-one basis for each pair of adjacent loops (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see Fig. 2; teaches one connection loop for pair of adjacent loops).
Regarding Claim 2, Shelton teaches the knitted fabric according to claim 1, wherein the edge processing portion is knitted over an entire periphery of the specific course (see Fig. 2; Line 46 "tube forming the top" indicates entirety periphery/circumference).
Regarding Claim 5, Shelton teaches a wearable item (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, Lines 8-9 "invention is to provide a sock or stocking with a top"; Shelton teaches the sock or stocking which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being a wearable item) made of
the knitted fabric according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton (USPN 0264349), as applied to the SECOND REJECTION above, in view of Vattes et al (USPN 7392601), herein Vattes.
Regarding Claim 4, Shelton teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Shelton does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of courses are located within five courses from the opening end portion side.
However, Shelton at least suggests wherein the plurality of courses are located within five courses from the opening end portion side (see Fig. 2, wherein it depends on the size of the top section B).
Vattes teaches varying the size of a top section (see Fig. 13A; Col. 24 Lines 33-38 "collar 724 includes an opening 734 at a first end thereof for receiving the foot…height of the collar 724…may vary depending on the type of sock or legging, e.g., crew sock, running sock, skiing sock, tube sock”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shelton’s size as taught by Vattes depending on aesthetic design choice (Col. 24 Lines 33-38).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shelton’s top, motivated by Vattes, such that the plurality of courses are located within five courses from the opening end portion side, depending on the aesthetic design choice of the sock.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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