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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2025, 10/02/2025, 04/24/2025 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 4-5 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 4 recites “the protuberance” in line 1; and claim 5 recites “the protuberance” in line 2. It is unclear which “protuberance” the Applicant refers to as there are two protuberances in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiken (US 0078506).
Regarding claim 1, Aiken teaches a knitting tool comprising:
a shank (fig. 1, element A) extending in a longitudinal direction between a proximal end and a distal end comprising a loop forming element (fig. 1, element C), the shank having a length between the proximal and distal ends and having a shank height in an elevational direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction between a top surface and a bottom surface of the shank; and
at least one functional portion (fig. 1, elements a, a, a) of the shank in which the top and bottom surfaces of the shank have a continuously varying height in the elevational direction along a length of the at least one functional portion such that the top surface and the bottom surface each have no portion that extends parallel to the longitudinal direction within the at least one functional portion.
Aiken does not explicitly teach the length of the at least one functional portion comprises at least 20% of the length of the shank.
However, Aiken shows in fig. 1, the projections extend about ½ of the a length of the shank A.
It is obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least one functional portion of Aiken having a length which is at least 20% of the length of the shank for the benefit of preventing the shank from bending out of place or being broken, which requires less material or stock in the shank’s construction (column 2, lines 6-10). It is noted that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the length of the corrugations relative to the shank’s length involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure Aiken teaches the top and bottom surfaces are parallel to one another within the at least one functional portion such that the shank height within the at least one functional portion is uniform (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure Aiken teaches a protuberance at a local height maximum of the top surface within the at least one functional portion and a protuberance at a local height minimum of the bottom surface within the at least one functional portion (annotated fig. 1 below).
It is noted that “configured for shifting dirt or debris proximally when the knitting tool is shifted proximally along the longitudinal direction” is an intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case the protuberances of Aiken are capable of shifting dirt or debris proximally when the knitting tool is shifted proximally along the longitudinal direction as the protuberances provide notches for shifting dirt or debris.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure Aiken teaches the protuberance comprises a distal surface portion and a proximal surface portion each having a gradient, wherein an absolute value of the gradient of the proximal surface portion is greater than an absolute value of the gradient of the distal surface portion (annotated fig. 1 below, as the proximal surface portion has a sudden change than the distal surface portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Aiken teaches a butt (fig. 1, element B) raised in a positive elevational direction, wherein the butt is distal to the at least one functional portion (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure Aiken does not explicitly teach the at least one functional portion comprises at least 25% of the length of the shank.
However, Aiken shows in fig. 1, the projections extend about ½ of the a length of the shank A.
It is obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least one functional portion of Aiken having a length which is at least 25% of the length of the shank for the benefit of preventing the shank from bending out of place or being broken, which requires less material or stock in the shank’s construction (column 2, lines 6-10). It is noted that discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the length of the corrugations relative to the shank’s length involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure Aiken teaches the shank comprises opposing lateral surfaces extending between the top and bottom surfaces and at least one of the lateral surfaces comprises a surface portion within the at least one functional portion that is raised laterally relative to a majority of the at least one functional portion (fig. 1, the lateral surface at the rear of the shank is raised relative to a majority of the at least one functional portion).
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure Aiken teaches within the at least one functional portion, the top surface comprises at least three local height maxima (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified structure Aiken teaches within the at least one functional portion, the bottom surface comprises at least three local height minima (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, the modified structure Aiken teaches the at least one functional portion comprises at least two sub-portions, wherein at least one sub-portion of the at least two sub-portions adjoins at least one butt directly (fig. 1) or is spaced apart from the at least one butt by a distance in the longitudinal direction which is less than or equal to 10% of the length of the shank.
Regarding claim 15, the modified structure Aiken teaches the at least one functional portion comprises a plurality of wavelike recesses formed by at least one of the top surface and the bottom surface (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the modified structure Aiken teaches a butt (fig. 1, element B) raised in a positive elevational direction, wherein a majority of the at least one functional portion is positioned proximal to the butt (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the modified structure Aiken teaches the shank has, at every point along its length, a cross-sectional surface which extends orthogonally with respect to the longitudinal direction, wherein each cross-sectional surface has a centroid through which an imaginary center of gravity line runs that interconnects the centroid of all the cross-sectional surfaces along the longitudinal direction; wherein in the at least one functional portion, the imaginary center-of-gravity line has a continuously varying height along the length of the at least one functional portion (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the modified structure Aiken teaches a height dimension of the cross-sectional surface in the elevation direction is smaller at every point along the length of the at least one function portion than a maximum height dimension of the shank within the at least one functional portion, wherein the maximum height dimension of the shank within the at least one functional portion is a distance in the elevational direction between a lower point of the shank in the elevational direction within the at least one functional portion and a highest point of the shank in the elevational direction within the at least one functional portion (fig. 1).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiken (US 0078506), as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Kopal (US 3875767).
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure Aiken does not teach an absolute value of the gradient of the proximal surface portion of the protuberance is between 0.57 and 2.75.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kopal teaches an absolute value of the gradient of the proximal surface portion of the protuberance is between 0.57 and 2.75 (fig. 5, column 4, lines 7-10, the angle alpha formed by slanted portion 25 and by the back edge 26 is 500 or the absolute value of the gradient is tan (500)=1.19).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Aiken with the teaching that an absolute value of the gradient of the proximal surface portion of the protuberance is between 0.57 and 2.75 as taught by Kopal so that the shank obtains a certain resiliency, which is capable of reducing the acceleration upon impact of the butt on a cam track face (Kopal, column 4, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 14, the modified structure Aiken does not teach the at least one functional portion comprises a plurality of triangular-shaped recesses formed by at least one of the top surface and the bottom surface.
However, Kopal teaches the at least one functional portion comprises a plurality of triangular-shaped recesses formed by at least one of the top surface and the bottom surface (figs. 5-6, triangular cutouts 23, 24).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wave shape of the corrugation portions of Aiken with triangular shape as taught by Kopal for the benefit of facilitating in manufacturing the knitting needles which provides better quality of the knitted fabric, and higher productivity of the knitting machine (Kopal, column 2, lines 13-20).
Claim 6, 8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiken (US 0078506), as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Sauter (US 2017/0029990).
Regarding claim 6, the modified structure Aiken teaches a butt (fig. 1, element B) raised in a positive elevational direction.
The modified structure Aiken does not teach the butt is proximal to the at least one functional portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sauter teaches the butt is proximal to the at least one functional portion (fig. 9D-E, foot 25 is in a position IV).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the position of the butt of Aiken to be proximal to the at least one functional portion as taught by Sauter so that the needle interacts with different paths of a knitting tappet and thus performs different working movements (Sauter, para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure Aiken teaches a butt raised in a positive elevational direction (fig. 1, element B) and the at least one functional portion comprises a first sub-portion (fig. 1, element a) and a second sub-portion (fig. 1, element a).
The modified structure Aiken does not teach the firs sub-portion proximal to the butt and the second sub-portion distal to the butt.
However, Sauter teaches the first sub-portion proximal to the butt and the second sub-portion distal to the butt (fig. 9B).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the positions of the first sub-portion, the second sub-portion and the butt of Aiken as taught by Sauter so that the needle interacts with different paths of a knitting tappet and thus performs different working movements (Sauter, para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 19, the modified structure Aiken does not clearly teach a proximal-most maximum of the imaginary center-of-gravity line of the at least one functional portion is a global maximum.
However, Aiken teaches there is an elevation at the rear of the shank (fig. 1).
Further, Sauter teaches the proximal-most maximum of the imaginary center-of-gravity line of the at least one functional portion is a global maximum (fig. 9A).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rear of the shank of Aiken comprising global maximum as taught by Sauter so that the needle interacts with different paths of a knitting tappet and thus performs different working movements (Sauter, para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified structure Aiken-Sauter teaches the proximal-most maximum of the imaginary center-of-gravity line of the at least one functional portion is spaced from the proximal end of the shank by 15 millimeters or less (Aiken, the proximal-most maximum is at the proximal end of the shank).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 9, 13 and 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8, 10-11 and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for instance, the difference between the patented claim 1 and the instant claim 1 are minor and obvious from each other. The instant claim 1 is a broader version of the patented claim (i.e. the instant claim 1 does not include the limitations “the knitting tool further comprising at least one butt”…as in the patented claim 1). Therefore, the patented claim 1 would read on the instant claim 1. Furthermore, in the instant claim 1, the claimed limitations can be found in the patented claim 1. Any infringement over the patented claim 1 would also infringe over the instant claim 1. Hence, the instant claim does not differ from the scope of the patented claim 1.
For the same reason, claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,312,719.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732