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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed April 23, 2026 has been received, Claims 22-41 are currently pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claim(s) 22-26, 29-33, and 37-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepfinger (US 5,916,273) in view of Jeong (KR 20050022785 A).
Regarding Claims 22, 29-30, and 41, Hepfinger discloses a method of producing a laminar velour knitted fabric comprising the steps of: - Providing at least one pile yarn (4) made of a pile material consisting only of polyester (Col.2, lines 49-51) and at least one base yarn (14,24) made of a base material consisting only of polyester (Col.2, lines 55-58), wherein the at least one pile material comprises individual filaments with a fineness of at most 2 dtex per fibril (Col.2, lines 49-55; i.e. 1.1 denier=1.2222 dtex); - Knitting the pile yarn and the base yarn with a knitting machine to form a raw knitted fabric of pile yarn and base yarn (Col.3, lines 1-56), wherein the raw knitted fabric has a top side (i.e. side with pile 4) and a bottom side (i.e. side with 14,24) and wherein the top side comprises the pile yarn; and - Forming a raised pile in the absence of alkaline dissolution, wherein forming the raised pile comprises napping the top side of the raw knitted fabric, whereby the pile yarn at the top side of the knitted fabric is cut and a pile is formed and raising the pile to form the laminar velour knitted fabric (Col.3, lines 48-56; i.e. the use of an alkaline dissolution is not disclosed by Hepfinger); and wherein the at least one base yarn has a fineness (Col.2, lines 55-67). Hepfinger does not disclose wherein the at least one base yarn has a fineness of at most 5 dtex per fibril. However, Jeong teaches a laminar velour knitted fabric with a base yarn having a fineness of at most 5 dtex per fibril (Pg.2, lines 71-74 & Pg.4, lines 1-5; i.e. 0.05 denier=0.055 dtex).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the base yarn of Hepfinger for the base yarn of Jeong, as a simple substitution of one well known base yarn of a knit material for another, in order to yield the predictable result of a knit material with a good hand. It is noted that the base yarns of Hepfinger and Jeong are art equivalents as Hepfinger teaches the monofilament base yarn having a total fineness of at least 10 denier (i.e. 11.1 dtex; Col.2, lines 55-67) and Jeong teaches the base yarn with a total fineness of 30 denier (i.e. 33.3 dtex) formed of fibrils of at most 5 detex (Jeong: Pg.2, lines 71-74 & Pg.4, lines 1-5; i.e. 0.05 denier=0.055 dtex).
Regarding Claims 23 and 31, Hepfinger discloses a method according to claim 22, wherein the at least one base yarn has a fineness of at most 5 dtex and/or the pile yarn has a fineness of at most 1 dtex (Col.2, lines 49-55; i.e. 0.8 denier=0.8889 dtex the pile yarn “has” a fineness of at most 1dtex, as it contains filaments less than 1.1 denier).
Regarding Claims 24 and 32, Hepfinger discloses a method according to claim 22/29, wherein the knitting is performed with a combined lapping comprising at least two lappings of the base yarn and one lapping of the pile yarn (as seen in Fig.1; Col.3, lines 1-56).
Regarding Claim 25 and 39, Hepfinger and Jeong disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Hepfinger does not explicitly disclose wherein knitting is performed such that the raw knitted fabric and/or the laminar velour knitted fabric has a stich density of 400 to 800 mesh/cm2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the knit fabric of Hepfinger to have a stitch density being 400 to 800 mesh/cm2, in order to provide the optimum stitch density for durability and comfort to the user. Further, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 26 and 40, Hepfinger discloses a method according to claim 22/29, wherein the bottom side of the raw knitted fabric is free of an adhesive (i.e. the use of an adhesive is not disclosed by Hepfinger).
Regarding Claim 33, Hepfinger discloses a method according to claim 32, wherein at least one lapping of the base yarn consists of a satin lapping and/or wherein at least one lapping of the base yarn consists of a fringe lapping and/or wherein the lapping of the pile yarn (4) consists of a satin lapping or a velvet lapping (A as seen in Fig.1 shows a three needle satin lapping).
Regarding Claim 37, Hepfinger discloses a method according to claim 29, wherein the knitting is performed with a combined lapping wherein the combined lapping comprises one lapping (A) of the pile yarn (4) and at least two lappings (B & C) of the base yarn (14,24)(as seen in Fig.1; Col.3, lines 1-56).
Regarding Claim 38, Hepfinger and Jeong disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Hepfinger discloses a combined lapping of three different lapping arrangements; one of the lappings being a satin lapping (as seen in Fig.1; A as seen in Fig.1 shows a three needle satin lapping). Hepfinger does not explicitly disclose wherein the combined lapping consists of a satin-fringe-satin lapping or a satin-fringe-velvet lapping. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined lapping of Hepfinger to be a satin-fringe-satin lapping or a satin-fringe-velvet lapping, in order to provide the desired aesthetic appearance to the pile material for its intended purpose. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the pile material of Hepfinger with a different combined lapping arrangement, since applicant has not disclosed that this solves any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a combined lapping arrangement. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
2. Claim(s) 27-28 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepfinger (US 5,916,273) and Jeong (KR 20050022785 A) in view of Scherbel (US 2010/0088805).
Regarding Claim 27-28 and 35-36, Hepfinger and Jeong disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Hepfinger does not explicitly disclose wherein the knitting is performed with a knitting machine having a fineness of E20 to E32 or a fineness of E28 to E32. However, Scherbel teaches knitting a pile material (para.30) with a knitting machine having a fineness of E20 to E32 or a fineness of E28 to E32 (para.19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the knitting machine of Hepfinger to have a fineness of E20 to E32 or a fineness of E28 to E32, as taught by Scherbel, in order to provide a pile material with the desired pile density for a soft surface.
3. Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepfinger (US 5,916,273) and Jeong (KR 20050022785 A) in view of Krawczyk (US 4,567,075).
Regarding Claim 34, Hepfinger and Jeong disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Hepfinger does not explicitly disclose wherein the raw knitted fabric is dyed by strand dyeing prior to raising the pile. However, Krawczyk teaches a knit pile material in which the raw knitted fabric is dyed by strand dyeing prior to raising the pile (Col.3, lines 30-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the yarn of Hepfinger to be dyed by strand dyeing prior to raising the pile, as taught by Krawczyk, in order to provide the desired aesthetic appearance to the knit material. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the yarn of Hepfinger to have decorative colors, since applicant has not disclosed that such solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than aesthetics.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm 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 at 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights