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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I (claims 1-16), Species 1 (Figs. 1 and 8-14) and Subspecies 1 (Fig. 2 and 6) in the reply filed on 03/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-5 and 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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)).
Claims 1-2 and 6-11 are being treated on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed features "wherein the first region is formed by welding the linear bodies" in claim 7 and "wherein the first region is formed by embroidering using the linear bodies" in claim 8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because: Fig. 2 fails to show a warp knitted region 41 by a warp knitting machine as stated in the specification (para. 0016). It is noted that Fig. 2 depicts a weft-knitted region 41. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, "the first region are" should read "the first region is".
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.
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 1-2 and 6-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The preambles of the claims 1-2 and 6-11 recite "fiber structure". However, the instant disclosure does not define the term "fiber structure", and each of the claims does not recite any "fiber" in the claim body. It is unclear whether the claimed "linear bodies" are the fibers or different structures. In addition, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that a "fiber structure" commonly refers to a structure of a fiber. How can a structure of a fiber comprise linear bodies and have a first region and a second region each arranged in a lattice pattern? Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, "fiber structure" in the claims has been construed to be "fabric structure".
Claims 1-2 and 6-10 each recite the limitations "linear bodies" and/or "liner body". It is unclear what is being referred to by "linear body" in the claims. As any item having an elongate shape can be considered as a linear body, it is unclear what is included or excluded by "linear bodies" and/or "liner body". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, based on the specification, the examiner has interpreted "liner body" as a yarn portion that extends in a specific region of the fabric structure.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a density of the linear bodies included in the second region is smaller than a density of the linear bodies included in the first region", which renders the claim indefinite. First, the claim does not provide what the linear bodies are. Second, it is unclear how the density of the linear bodies is determined. The number of linear bodies? An occupancy ratio? A linear density? If the first region is fully occupied by two linear bodies, while the second region is half occupied by twenty linear bodies, should a density of the linear bodies included in the second region be considered greater or smaller than a density of the linear bodies included in the first region? The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining how the "density" is defined. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the density is an occupancy ratio of the linear body in a specific region.
Claims 1-2 recite the limitation "the first regions" and "the adjacent first regions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the first regions" in the claims. Claim 1 has previously set forth "a first region", not multiple first regions. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the fabric structure comprising at least two first regions.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second region is arranged between the first regions arranged in the lattice pattern". First, it is unclear which item being arranged in the lattice pattern, the second region or the first regions. Second, the claim has previously set forth a density of the linear bodies included in the second region being smaller than a density of the linear bodies included in the first region. It is unclear how the first and second regions are configured to have the same lattice pattern but with different densities, and how the lattice "pattern" is defined. For examination purposes, based on the instant drawings, the examiner has interpreted that the first region has a first lattice pattern and the second region has a second lattice pattern.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "adjacent in a direction". It is unclear what is being referred to by "adjacent" in the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "in a direction".
Claim 2 recites the first limitation "the second region arranged between the first regions adjacent in a knitting direction includes the plurality of first linear bodies extending along the knitting direction from the first region" AND the second limitation "the second region arranged between the first regions adjacent in a direction intersecting with the knitting direction includes a plurality of second linear bodies different from the plurality of first linear bodies", which render the claim indefinite. The first limitation appears to recite the first regions being arranged in a weft direction and the second region being arranged between the first regions in a weft direction, while the second limitation appears to recite the first regions being arranged in a warp direction and the second region being arranged between the first regions in a warp direction. It is unclear how the same second region is arranged in two different directions in relation to the same first regions in the same weft-knitted fabric. As such, the two limitations conflict with each other. It is unclear how the first regions and second region are actually arranged. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the second region, arranged between the first regions in a knitting direction, includes the plurality of first linear bodies extending along the knitting direction from the first region.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the linear body formed using the carbon fibers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim depends from claims 1 and 9, and claims 1 and 9 have set forth "linear bodies". In addition, the claims have not set forth the carbon fibers forming a linear body or linear bodies. As such, it is unclear what linear body is being referred to, whether the linear body is one of the previously defined linear bodies or different linear bodies. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the carbon fiber". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim depends from claim 9, and claim 9 has set forth "carbon fibers". It is unclear which carbon fiber is being referred to. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that each of the carbon fibers forming a linear body, the linear body being a covered yarn in which a carbon fiber is used as a core yarn.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
The examiner notes that the claims recite a plurality of unclear terms and include a plurality of antecedent issues and conflicts within the claims. The examiner's interpretations aforementioned do NOT necessarily constitute suggestions, especially in light of the plethora of inconsistencies and indefiniteness throughout the claims. Applicant is recommended to review the claims and make proper amendments in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure.
Note
At the outset, the claims recite a significant number of limitations that are not clear. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is not able to understand the claimed subject matter or what is being disclosed. See the above 112(b) rejections. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, claims 1-2 and 6-11 have been interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6 and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tinajero (US 2019/0223541 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tinajero discloses a fiber structure (a knit component 10; fig. 1; para. 0017; claim 1) formed of linear bodies (yarn portions; fig. 1; para. 0017) and having a first region (see annotated fig. 1) and a second region (see annotated fig. 1) adjacent to each other (see annotated fig. 1),
wherein a density of the linear bodies included in the second region is smaller than a density of the linear bodies included in the first region (see annotated fig. 1),
the first region are arranged in a lattice pattern (formed by knitted loops; see fig. 2 and annotated fig. 1),
the second region is arranged between the first regions arranged in the lattice pattern (formed by knitted loops; see fig. 2 and annotated fig. 1), and
the linear bodies included in the second region connect the adjacent first regions (see annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 from US 2019/0223541 A1
Regarding claim 2, Tinajero discloses the fiber structure according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first region includes a weft knitted structure (see annotated fig. 2; para. 0017) formed by a plurality of first linear bodies (see annotated fig. 2; para. 0017),
the second region arranged between the first regions adjacent in a direction (a warp direction; see annotated fig. 2) intersecting with the knitting direction (see annotated fig. 2) includes a plurality of second linear bodies (see annotated fig. 2) extending along the knitting direction from the first region (see annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Tinajero discloses the fiber structure according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the plurality of second linear bodies are arranged on a front surface or a rear surface of the knitted structure in the first region, or between the front surface and the rear surface (inherent feature; see annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Tinajero discloses the fiber structure according to claim 1, and further discloses a shoe comprising the fiber structure (para. 0019).
Claims 1 and 8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luedecke (US 2019/0017205 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luedecke discloses a fiber structure (continuous embroidered lattice structure 530; figs. 5-6; para. 0068, 0071) formed of linear bodies (tape segments 600 and ribbon segments 601; fig. 6; para. 0071) and having a first region (see annotated fig. 6) and a second region (see annotated fig. 6) adjacent to each other (see annotated fig. 6),
wherein a density of the linear bodies included in the second region is smaller than a density of the linear bodies included in the first region (see annotated fig. 6),
the first region are arranged in a lattice pattern (see annotated fig. 6),
the second region is arranged between the first regions arranged in the lattice pattern (see annotated fig. 6), and
the linear bodies included in the second region connect the adjacent first regions (see annotated fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
772
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 from US 2019/0017205 A1
Regarding claim 8, Luedecke discloses the fiber structure according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first region is formed by embroidering using the linear bodies (paras. 0071-0072).
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 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.
Claim 7, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luedecke (US 2019/0017205 A1) in view of Gaba (US 2020/0154816 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Luedecke discloses the fiber structure according to claim 1. Luedecke does not disclose wherein the first region is formed by welding the linear bodies. However, Gaba discloses a fiber structure (ribbon structure 200; figs. 1-2; paras. 0006, 0057) formed of linear bodies (ribbon sections; figs. 1-2; paras. 0006, 0057) and having a first region and a second region adjacent to each other (see annotated fig. 2), wherein the first region is formed by welding the linear bodies (the ribbon sections are fixedly attached to one another by welding; para. 0102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fiber structure as disclosed by Luedecke, with wherein the first region is formed by welding the linear bodies as taught by Gaba, in order to use another suitable approach to fixedly attach the linear bodies to one another.
PNG
media_image3.png
530
828
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 from US 2020/0154816 A1
Claims 9-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinajero (US 2019/0223541 A1) in view of Huffa (US 2019/0343216 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tinajero discloses the fiber structure according to claim 1. Tinajero does not disclose wherein carbon fibers are arranged along the linear bodies in at least one of the first region and the second region. However, Huffa, in an analogous art, teaches a fiber structure (a knitted shoe upper; fig. 3A; claim 1) comprising carbon fibers arranged along linear bodies of the fiber structure (paras. 0014-0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fiber structure as disclosed by Tinajero, with wherein carbon fibers are arranged along the linear bodies in at least one of the first region and the second region as taught by Huffa, in order to provide a knitted fabric comprising reinforcing carbon fibers for reducing stretch and improve stability and responsiveness thereby providing protective support in sport footwear applications (Huffa; para. 014).
Regarding claim 10, Tinajero and Huffa, in combination, disclose the fiber structure according to claim 9. Tinajero does not disclose wherein the linear body formed using the carbon fibers is a covered yarn in which the carbon fiber is used as a core yarn and the core yarn is covered with a material different from the carbon fiber. However, Huffa teaches wherein the linear body formed using the carbon fibers is a covered yarn in which the carbon fiber is used as a core yarn and the core yarn is covered with a material different from the carbon fiber (carbon fibers impregnated with resins or wrapped with binder yarns; para. 0164). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fiber structure, with wherein the linear body formed using the carbon fibers is a covered yarn in which the carbon fiber is used as a core yarn and the core yarn is covered with a material different from the carbon fiber as taught by Huffa, in order to reduce friction on machine parts and help keep the fibers together thereby minimizing breakage during the knitting process (Huffa; para. 0164).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Ellerhorst (US 2023/0064557 A1) and Lee (US 2023/0160114 A1) each can be another 102 reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 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 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.
/AIYING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights