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application, filed on July 23, 2025, in which claims 1-8 were presented for examination, of which claims 1-2 were withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species V, in the reply filed on May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Species II-V merely represent different variations derived from the same knitting mechanism and should be regarded as obvious variants of one another, rather than patentably distinct species. Further, Species VI can be regarded as a variation derived from Species IV by removing one of the color yarns (e.g., the color yarn 33). That is, Species VI can be understood as being obtained by first modifying the color configuration of the front yarn loops of Species II, III, or V to arrive at Species IV, and then removing one of the color yarns to obtain Species VI. Conversely, the steps can be reversed, such that Species II-V can be derived from Species VI by adding or modifying the color yarns. Accordingly, Species VI and any one of Species II-V are interchangeable variations of one another and do not recite mutually exclusive characteristics.” This is not found persuasive because Applicant contends that Species II-V and Species VI merely represent obvious variations of one another because one species can allegedly be derived from another by adding, removing, or modifying one or more color yarns. However, the issue in a restriction requirement is not whether one embodiment could be modified to arrive at another, but whether the claimed inventions are independent or distinct as set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 121 and the applicable restriction practice. The ability to conceptually derive one embodiment from another through modification does not, by itself, establish that the inventions are not patentably distinct for purposes of restriction. As previously explained in the requirement, the elected and nonelected species are drawn to different combinations of structural features that define different species, and examination of one species would not necessarily result in examination of the others. Even if the species share a common knitting mechanism, the claimed species are directed to different structural configurations requiring separate consideration during examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 6 is 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 6, it recites the limitation "each of the two adjacent front yarn loops" in lines: 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “The two adjacent front yarn loops” was not previously claimed in claim 3, which claim 6 depends directly from. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to appropriately claim the two adjacent front yarn loops for the first time.
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Montgomery (US Patent 11,819,064).
Regarding claim 3, Montgomery discloses a double-sided yarn-dyed fabric (invention as shown in Fig. 4, Col. 5, lines: 52-60) comprising a plurality of front yarn loops (120, shown within annotated “yarn set with 1 color” in annotated Fig. 4 below) and a plurality of back yarn loops (130), characterized in that: the double-sided yarn-dyed fabric is knitted by a plurality of color yarns (102 and 104, Col. 5, lines: 55-62), the plurality of color yarns are divided into at least two yarn sets (see annotated Fig. 4 below), one of the at least two yarn sets comprises two of the color yarns (see annotated Fig. 4 below), the other of the at least two yarn sets comprises at least one of the color yarns (see annotated Fig. 4 below), each of the plurality of front yarn loops (120, shown within annotated “yarn set with 1 color” in annotated Fig. 4 below) is respectively formed by one of the color yarns of one of the at least two yarn sets to enable each of the front yarn loops only comprises one of the plurality of color yarns (as shown in annotated Fig. 4 below), each of the plurality of back yarn loops (130) is respectively knitted by all the color yarns of one of the at least two yarn sets (examiner notes as shown in annotated Fig. 4 below, where back yarn loops 130 comprise the color yarns 102 and 104), one of two adjacent back yarn loops is knitted by one of the at least two yarn sets (as shown in annotated Fig. 4 below), the other of the two adjacent back yarn loops is knitted by the other of the at least two yarn sets (see annotated Fig. 4 below), and a front side of the double-sided yarn-dyed fabric (122) is changed by the color yarns (Col. 5, lines: 22-27, as shown in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
799
1236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 4, Montgomery discloses wherein the color yarns have different colors (Col. 5, lines: 55-60).
Regarding claim 5, Montgomery discloses wherein one of two adjacent front yarn loops is knitted by one of the color yarns included in one of the at least two yarn sets, and the other of the two adjacent front yarn loops is knitted by one of the color yarns included in one of the at least two yarn sets (examiner notes in the front side, 122, there are yarns adjacent to one another, where they include color yarns 102 and 104, as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Montgomery discloses wherein each of the two adjacent front yarn loops is knitted by one of the color yarns included in the same one of the at least two yarn sets (examiner notes the front yarn loops is knitted by the color yarn 102, which is also included in the at least two yarn sets).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery in view of Li Zhiqiang “Zhiqiang” (JP7408872B1).
Regarding claim 7, Montgomery discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Montgomery does not explicitly disclose wherein a quantity of the color yarns is four, and quantities of yarns included in the at least two yarn sets are equal.
However, Zhiqiang teaches yet another double-sided yarn-dyed fabric, wherein Zhiqiang teaches a quantity of the color yarns is four (Par. 0015, examiner notes yarns 23, 24, 25, and 26 are different colors from each other) and quantities of yarns included in the at least two yarn sets (31) are equal (as shown in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quantity of the color yarns as disclosed by Montgomery, by having a quantity of the color yarns being four, and quantities of yarns included in the at least two yarn sets as being equal as taught by Zhiqiang, in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the fabric.
Regarding claim 8, Montgomery in view of Zhiqiang disclose wherein the color yarns have different colors (Par. 0015, lines: 1-4, examiner notes yarns 23, 24, 25, and 26 are different colors from each other).
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 on (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
Prosecution Insights