DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on September 29th, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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
A copy of foreign patent document citation no. 10 was not found in the file wrapper. The document has been included in the PTO-892 herein.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
Line 5 before “system” delete “They” and substitute –The—
Abstract is broader version of parent 18/376,561; it is recommended to eventually include content related to allowable subject matter
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 6, 13 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the determining" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the allocation" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the determining of the allocation of the plurality of knit structures” in Claim 6 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. These terms were utilized in Claim 3, but Claim 6 currently depends on Claim 4 on Claim 1. It is unclear whether the dependency of Claim 6 is incorrect or if there are missing limitations. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 6 will be interpreted as depending on Claim 3.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the design input data" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the design input data” in Claim 13 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the term should read “a design input data”, or if there are missing limitations. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “a design input data.”
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: Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US Publication 2007/0088453).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as such, see [0001] "invention relates to a device for performing a realistic loop simulation of a knitting fabric, as well as a loop simulation method and a loop simulation program"), comprising:
predicting, by a computing device and based on a simulation model for a plurality of knit structures of a knit design, a deformation of a knit structure of the plurality of knit structures (see Fig. 1; for simulation model and computing device-- [0039] "12 is a loop simulation program storage unit for storing programs required for the loop simulation, and is shown in detail in Fig. 2"; see Fig. 2; [0050] "Fig. 2 shows an example of a loop simulation program..."movement amount calculation command 42"; [0054] "Fig. 5 shows a model of a stitch used during movement amount calculation", wherein calculation indicates predicting and computing; for plurality of structures-- abstract "movement amount is determined for each of a plurality of stitches on a knitting fabric"; for predicting-- [0052] "FIG. 7 shows a knitting fabric constituted by a plain knitting fabric 50 and a ribbed knitting fabric 51. The number of stitches in the course direction is the same, but in the ribbed knitting fabric, the purl stitches tend to burrow under the knit stitches, and therefore the knitting width decreases"; [0053] "A stitch movement starting point is selected, the default value thereof being the stitch in the lower left corner of the knitting fabric, for example. Next, the X, Y, Z direction movement amount of each stitch is determined in accordance with the relationships with the stitches on the upper, lower, left, and right sides"; [0054] "Fig. 5 shows a model of a stitch used during movement amount calculation", wherein calculations predict the deformation)
modifying, by the computing device, one or more portions of the knit structure to compensate for the deformation associated with the knit design (see Fig. 4; [0053] "To prevent illogical movement amounts, the movement amount range is provided with a limitation, and movement amounts exceeding the limitation are corrected"; wherein correction is compensation; wherein the computing device performs the movement as a result of the calculation/computing); and
sending, to a knitting machine, knitting instructions associated with the one or more modified portions of the knit structure ([0049] "34 is a knitting data conversion unit for converting the knitting fabric design data designed by the painting unit 6 into knitting data for a knitting machine…the data which form the basis of the loop simulation are constituted by design data created by the painting unit 6"; wherein the loop simulation results in modified portions).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the computing device and based on design input data associated with the knit design, an allocation of one more knitted structures of the knit design ([0049] "34 is a knitting data conversion unit for converting the knitting fabric design data designed by the painting unit 6 into knitting data for a knitting machine...the data which form the basis of the loop simulation are constituted by design data created by the painting unit 6 which are converted so as to describe the type of the subject stitch, the type of the upper, lower, left, and right side stitches, and the connection relationships therebetween"),
wherein each of the one or more knitted structures comprise a plurality of needle operation commands (see [0049] at least for type of stitch and therefore needle operation commands when the data is sent to the knitting machine).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computing device and prior to fabricating a knitted component associated with the knit design, a visual representation of the deformation associated with the knit design (abstract "stitch is moved…stitch is then…displayed"; [0017] "in the invention, a loop simulation method determines and displays an image of a knitting fabric corresponding to knitting fabric design data such that a loop of each stitch is represented. The method comprises the steps of: moving each stitch of the knitting fabric on the basis of relative positions between the each stitch and upper, lower, left, and right stitches in accordance with a predetermined rule; repeating the movement of the each stitch until a position of the each stitch is converged on a converged value; and displaying the each stitch arranged in the converged value being set as a stitch position"; [0039] "8 is a display unit for displaying design data, loop simulation images of the knitting fabric, and so on"; see [0049], wherein knitting fabric design data is for conversion, prior to fabricating; see [0053], [0054] from Claim 1, indicating that [0039] loop simulation images would therefore include that of the deformation and correction).
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the deformation comprises a deformation of a knitted component, associated with the knit design, under a resting condition (see Fig. 7 for at rest; [0052] "FIG. 7 shows a knitting fabric constituted by a plain knitting fabric 50 and a ribbed knitting fabric 51. The number of stitches in the course direction is the same, but in the ribbed knitting fabric, the purl stitches tend to burrow under the knit stitches, and therefore the knitting width decreases").
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the determining of the allocation of the plurality of knit structures further comprises (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—see rejection of claim 3):
generating, by the computing device, a data structure indicating the knitting instructions for the knitting machine (see rejection of claim 3; [0049] "34 is a knitting data conversion unit for converting the knitting fabric design data designed by the painting unit 6 into knitting data for a knitting machine...the data which form the basis of the loop simulation are constituted by design data created by the painting unit 6 which are converted so as to describe the type of the subject stitch, the type of the upper, lower, left, and right side stitches, and the connection relationships therebetween", wherein data structure is data structure is fabric design data); and
distributing, to the data structure, a plurality of rubrics associated with the plurality of knit structures (inasmuch as the term "rubrics" is defined, the type of subject stitch, type of upper/lower/left/right side stitches, and/or the connection relationships therebetween).
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: recommending, based on a difference between the predicted deformation of the knit structure and a desired shape of the knit structure, a design modification for the knit design (wherein the prediction/calculation and resulting modification/movement indicates an accepted recommendation as the data is sent to a knitting machine).
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the modifying the one or more portions of the knit structure further comprises adjusting a stitch density associated with one or more knit structures, of the plurality of knit structures, of the knit design (see Fig. 4; wherein moving stitch in x, y, z directions indicates a change in stitch density).
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki teaches an apparatus (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; see Fig. 1; [0039] "12 is a loop simulation program storage unit for storing programs required for the loop simulation, and is shown in detail in Fig. 2"; see Fig. 2; [0050] "Fig. 2 shows an example of a loop simulation program..."movement amount calculation command 42"; [0054] "Fig. 5 shows a model of a stitch used during movement amount calculation") comprising:
one or more processors (see Fig. 1; [0037] "23 initial value calculation processing unit; 24 movement amount calculation processing unit"); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the apparatus to (see Fig. 1; [0001] "invention relates to a device for performing a realistic loop simulation of a knitting fabric, as well as a loop simulation method and a loop simulation program"; [0039] "12 is a loop simulation program storage unit for storing programs required for the loop simulation, and is shown in detail in Fig. 2", wherein storing indicates memory and program indicates instructions; [0050] "loop simulation program...performing the required processing of the movement amount calculation processing unit 24"):
predict, based on a simulation model for a plurality of knit structures of a knit design, a deformation of a knit structure of the plurality of knit structures (see Fig. 1; for simulation model and computing device-- [0039] "12 is a loop simulation program storage unit for storing programs required for the loop simulation, and is shown in detail in Fig. 2"; see Fig. 2; [0050] "Fig. 2 shows an example of a loop simulation program..."movement amount calculation command 42"; [0054] "Fig. 5 shows a model of a stitch used during movement amount calculation", wherein calculation indicates predicting and computing; for plurality of structures-- abstract "movement amount is determined for each of a plurality of stitches on a knitting fabric"; for predicting-- [0052] "FIG. 7 shows a knitting fabric constituted by a plain knitting fabric 50 and a ribbed knitting fabric 51. The number of stitches in the course direction is the same, but in the ribbed knitting fabric, the purl stitches tend to burrow under the knit stitches, and therefore the knitting width decreases"; [0053] "A stitch movement starting point is selected, the default value thereof being the stitch in the lower left corner of the knitting fabric, for example. Next, the X, Y, Z direction movement amount of each stitch is determined in accordance with the relationships with the stitches on the upper, lower, left, and right sides"; [0054] "Fig. 5 shows a model of a stitch used during movement amount calculation", wherein calculations predict the deformation);
modify one or more portions of the knit structure to compensate for the deformation associated with the knit design (see Fig. 4; [0053] "To prevent illogical movement amounts, the movement amount range is provided with a limitation, and movement amounts exceeding the limitation are corrected"; wherein correction is compensation; wherein the computing device performs the movement as a result of the calculation/computing); and
send, to a knitting machine, knitting instructions associated with the one or more modified portions of the knit structure ([0049] "34 is a knitting data conversion unit for converting the knitting fabric design data designed by the painting unit 6 into knitting data for a knitting machine…the data which form the basis of the loop simulation are constituted by design data created by the painting unit 6"; wherein the loop simulation results in modified portions).
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the apparatus to:
generate, prior to fabricating a knitted component associated with the knit design, a visual representation of the deformation associated with the knit design (see rejection of Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the apparatus to determine an allocation of the plurality of knit structures of the knit design by (see rejection of Claim 6):
generating a data structure indicating the knitting instructions for the knitting machine (see rejection of Claim 6); and
distributing, to the data structure, a plurality of rubrics associated with the plurality of knit structures (see rejection of Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the apparatus to:
determine, based on the design input data, an allocation of one or more knitted structures of the knit design (see rejection of claim 3),
wherein each of the one or more knitted structures comprise a plurality of needle operation commands (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the apparatus to:
recommend, based on a difference between the predicted deformation of the knit structure and a desired shape of the knit structure, a design modification for the knit design (see rejection of claim 8).
Regarding Claim 15, Suzuki teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the apparatus to modify the one or more portions of the knit structure by:
adjusting a stitch density associated with one or more knit structures, of the plurality of knit structures, of the knit design (see rejection of Claim 9).
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.
SECOND REJECTION: Claim(s) 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US Publication 2007/0088453) in view of Terai (US Publication 2010/0145495).
Regarding Claim 16, Suzuki teaches a machine readable medium storing instructions that when executed, cause a computing device to (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; for medium storing instructions--see Fig. 1; [0001] "invention relates to a device for performing a realistic loop simulation of a knitting fabric, as well as a loop simulation method and a loop simulation program"; [0039] "12 is a loop simulation program storage unit for storing programs required for the loop simulation, and is shown in detail in Fig. 2"; for computing device -- [0039] "12 is a loop simulation program storage unit for storing programs required for the loop simulation, and is shown in detail in Fig. 2"; see Fig. 2; [0050] "Fig. 2 shows an example of a loop simulation program..."movement amount calculation command 42"; [0054] "Fig. 5 shows a model of a stitch used during movement amount calculation", wherein calculation indicates computing; wherein the medium is machine readable inasmuch as its functions are related to a computing device):
predict, based on a simulation model for a plurality of knit structures of a knit design, a deformation of a knit structure of the plurality of knit structures (see Fig. 1; for simulation model and computing device-- [0039] "12 is a loop simulation program storage unit for storing programs required for the loop simulation, and is shown in detail in Fig. 2"; see Fig. 2; [0050] "Fig. 2 shows an example of a loop simulation program..."movement amount calculation command 42"; [0054] "Fig. 5 shows a model of a stitch used during movement amount calculation", wherein calculation indicates predicting and computing; for plurality of structures-- abstract "movement amount is determined for each of a plurality of stitches on a knitting fabric"; for predicting-- [0052] "FIG. 7 shows a knitting fabric constituted by a plain knitting fabric 50 and a ribbed knitting fabric 51. The number of stitches in the course direction is the same, but in the ribbed knitting fabric, the purl stitches tend to burrow under the knit stitches, and therefore the knitting width decreases"; [0053] "A stitch movement starting point is selected, the default value thereof being the stitch in the lower left corner of the knitting fabric, for example. Next, the X, Y, Z direction movement amount of each stitch is determined in accordance with the relationships with the stitches on the upper, lower, left, and right sides"; [0054] "Fig. 5 shows a model of a stitch used during movement amount calculation", wherein calculations predict the deformation);
modify one or more portions of the knit structure to compensate for the deformation associated with the knit design (see Fig. 4; [0053] "To prevent illogical movement amounts, the movement amount range is provided with a limitation, and movement amounts exceeding the limitation are corrected"; wherein correction is compensation; wherein the computing device performs the movement as a result of the calculation/computing); and
send, to a knitting machine, knitting instructions associated with the one or more modified portions of the knit structure ([0049] "34 is a knitting data conversion unit for converting the knitting fabric design data designed by the painting unit 6 into knitting data for a knitting machine…the data which form the basis of the loop simulation are constituted by design data created by the painting unit 6"; wherein the loop simulation results in modified portions).
Suzuki does not explicitly teach that the medium is non-transitory.
Terai teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a computing device to (see Figs. 1-3; Col. 4 Line 12 “Fig. 1 is…loop simulation apparatus”; Col. 5 Lines 20-21 “2 denotes a loop simulation apparatus”; Col. 8 Lines 1-3 “Fig. 3 shows an algorithm of a loop simulation method…the algorithm executes the operation of the apparatus 2 shown in Fig. 1 unless otherwise specified”; Col. 10 Lines 44-45 “loop simulation apparatus comprising a computer processor”; Col. 4 Line 14 “Fig. 2 is…loop simulation program”; Claim 5 in Col. 12 Lines 11-17, 40 "loop simulation program for creating a knitted fabric image corresponding to design data of a knitted fabric such that a loop of each individual stitch is represented embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium that when executed causes the computer to perform…determining…shifting"; as such, processes of structures in Fig. 2 are carried out by the algorithm/program, indicating executable instructions on a processor of the non-transitory machine readable medium; as such, as long Terai’s disclosed figures meet the claims, then the executed instructions are causing the methods to be met; examiner notes that, although shorter summary excerpts of the passage have been written out for succinctness, oftentimes the entire passage indicated is applicable, furthermore in the context of the rest of the reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki’s medium to be non-transitory as taught by Terai as a known arrangement for mediums for loop simulation programs (Col. 4 Line 14), which Suzuki is as well ([0039]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Suzuki teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Suzuki further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing device to:
generate, prior to fabricating a knitted component associated with the knit design, a visual representation of the deformation associated with the knit design (see rejection of Claim 4 or Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Suzuki teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Suzuki further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing device to:
recommend, based on a difference between the predicted deformation of the knit structure and a desired shape of the knit structure, a design modification for the knit design (see rejection of claim 8 or claim 14).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Suzuki teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Suzuki further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing device to modify the one or more portions of the knit structure by:
adjusting a stitch density associated with the plurality of knit structures of the knit design (see rejection of claim 9 or claim 15).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US Publication 2007/0088453) in view of Terai (US Publication 2010/0145495), further in view of deGuzman et al (USPN 10351982), herein deGuzman.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Suzuki teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing device to:
obtain, from a database storing the plurality of knit structures, the knit structure of the plurality of knit structures.
deGuzman teaches obtain, from a database storing the plurality of knit structures, the knit structure of the plurality of knit structures (Col. 6 Lines 42-45 "custom apparel pattern database is useful for storing apparel patterns that custom apparel module 216 can refer to in order to produce a knitted article based on such stored apparel patterns").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki’s instructions for knit structure to be of a database as taught by deGuzman as a known method of design input, such as for processing speed (Col. 6 Lines 46-51).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 19, 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17 of Karmon et al, U.S. Patent No. 12454776, herein Karmon. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are anticipated by claims of the reference patent. Every limitation in the application under examination claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims as indicated below. As an example for Claim 1 and its dependents, the differences between the claims are highlighted below bolding all limitations that differ that will be addressed below:
Instant Application
Karmon et al 12454776
1. A method, comprising:
1. A method, comprising:
predicting, by a computing device and based on a simulation model for a plurality of knit structures of a knit design,
predicting, by a computing device and based on a simulation model for a plurality of knit structures of a knit design,
(predicting) a deformation of a knit structure of the plurality of knit structures;
a deformation of a knit structure of the plurality of knit structures;
modifying, by the computing device, one or more portions of the knit structure to compensate for the deformation associated with the knit design; and
modifying, by the computing device, the knit design to compensate for the deformation associated with the knit design, wherein the modifying comprises duplication of one or more portions of the knit structure; and
sending, to a knitting machine, knitting instructions associated with the one or more modified portions of the knit structure
sending, to a knitting machine, knitting instructions associated with the modified knit design
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the modifying comprises duplicating one or more portions of the knit structure
Claim 1
4. The method of claim 1, generating, by the computing device and prior to fabricating a knitted component associated with the knit design, a visual representation of the deformation associated with the knit design
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computing device and prior to fabricating a knitted component associated with the knit design, a visual representation of the deformation associated with the knit design
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the deformation comprises a deformation of a knitted component, associated with the knit design, under a resting condition
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the deformation comprises a deformation of a knitted component, associated with the knit design, under a resting condition
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the determining of the allocation of the plurality of knit structures further comprises:
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the determining of the allocation of the plurality of knit structures further comprises:
generating, by the computing device, a data structure indicating the knitting instructions for the knitting machine; and
generating, by the computing device, a data structure indicating the knitting instructions for the knitting machine; and
distributing, to the data structure, a plurality of rubrics associated with the plurality of knit structures
distributing, to the data structure, a plurality of rubrics associated with the plurality of knit structures
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the modifying the knit design further comprises:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the modifying the knit design further comprises:
determining, based on one or more compensation routines, a plurality of predicted compensation results corresponding to the knit design; and
determining, based on one or more compensation routines, a plurality of predicted compensation results corresponding to the knit design; and
determining, based on scores associated with the plurality of predicted compensation results, a compensation routine, of the one or more compensation routines, to compensate for the deformation
determining, based on scores associated with the plurality of predicted compensation results, a compensation routine, of the one or more compensation routines, to compensate for the deformation
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the modifying the one or more portions of the knit structure further comprises adjusting a stitch density associated with one or more knit structures, of the plurality of knit structures, of the knit design
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the modifying of the knit design further comprises adjusting a stitch density associated with one or more knit structures, of the plurality of knit structures, of the knit designClaim 1 already indicated that the modifying is of the one or more portions
As shown in the mapping above, claim 1 of the reference patent includes all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, while differing in the bold. However, claim 1 of the reference patent indicates “modifying …the knit design, wherein the modifying comprises duplication of one or more portions of the knit structure”, which anticipated claim 1 of the reference patent “modifying one or more portions of the knit structure to compensate for the deformation associated with the knit design.” Similarly, though Claim 8 of the reference patent indicates “modifying of the knit design” while the instant application in claim 9 indicates “modifying the one or more portions of the knit structure”, Claim 1 of the reference patent as indicated above already established that the knit structure is of the knit design, and that modifying is of one or more portions. As such, Claim 8 of the reference patent anticipates Claim 9 of the instant application.
The double patenting of all claims between the instant application and the reference patent is summarized below:
Instant Application
Karmon et al 12454776
1
1
2
1
4
2
5
3
6
5
7
6
9
8
10
9
11
10
12
11
15
13
16
14
17
15
19
16
20
17
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim(s) 2, 7 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and after overcoming the double patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2, none of the prior art of record discloses a method comprising: predicting deformation of a knit structure by a computing device and based on a simulation model, and modifying by the computing device, one or more portions of the knit structure to compensate for the deformation associated with the knit design, wherein the modifying comprises duplicating one or more portions of the knit structure, in conjunction with the other structural limitations, as set forth in the claim. The use of simulating by computing device a deformation of a knit structure and compensating for the deformation is known in the art of textile data processing, but the specific modification by duplicating one or more portions of the knit structure, in conjunction with the other structural limitations, as claimed by the applicant is novel. Specifically, prior art Suzuki (US Publication 2007/0088453) discloses predicting deformation as recited in the application. Prior art Suzuki also discloses modifying to compensate for the deformation. However, none of the prior art discloses, teaches, or suggests that the modification/compensation is that of duplicating the one or more portions of the knit structure. To modify Suzuki’s compensation to be duplication merely to be as recited in the current application would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the applicant’s invention without any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion from the prior art of record, as is presently the case, as Suzuki only refers to correcting a position ([0108]).
Regarding Claim 7, none of the prior art of record discloses a method comprising: predicting deformation of a knit structure by a computing device and based on a simulation model, and modifying by the computing device, one or more portions of the knit structure to compensate for the deformation associated with the knit design, while also determining, based on scores associated with the plurality of predicted compensation results, a compensation routine, of the one or more compensation routines, to compensate for the deformation, in conjunction with the other structural limitations, as set forth in the claim. The use of a compensation routine to compensate for deformation by a computing device and simulation model is known in the art of textile data processing, but the specific determination of the compensation routine to be based on scores associated with predicted compensation results, in conjunction with the other structural limitations, as claimed by the applicant is novel. Specifically, prior art Suzuki discloses determining predicted compensation results corresponding to the knit design based on one or more compensation results ([0052], [0053] wherein the compensation routine are the movement amount calculations and the predicted results are the final movement amounts) as recited in the application. Prior art Suzuki also discloses performing this determination via computing device and based on simulation model. However, none of the prior art discloses, teaches, or suggests that the determination of the compensation routine is based on scores associated with the predicted compensation results. To modify Suzuki’s compensation to be based on scores merely to be as recited in the current application would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the applicant’s invention without any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion from the prior art of record, as is presently the case.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Nakashima et al (KR 2015/0108770), Okazaki (JP 2012/255240), Suzuki (USPN 7330772) directed to a method of simulating deformation and providing correction, Roell (EP 3024349) directed to allocating knit structures.
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