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 .
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thuasne (DE 20 2015 101 990) over Nebel et al. (US 3,729,956).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Thuasne teach the a tubular weft-knitted jersey-based fabric (1, par. [0082], [0091]) as claimed including a ground knit consisting of plain stitches over at least 60% of the circumference of the tubular weft-knitted jersey-based fabric and having a portion (7) of the size of at least six consecutive courses and at least six consecutive wales (fig. 3, par. [0115]), wherein at least two of the at least six courses are grip courses (fig. 3), wherein each grip course comprises - a ground yarn (B), - two laid-in yarns (H, I), namely a first laid-in yarn and a second laid-in yarn, - a high-friction yarn (J) having floats over two consecutive wales, wherein the first and the second laid-in yarns are tucked and missed in such a way that the first laid-in yarn is tucked whilst the second laid-in yarn is missed along a same wale to form crossover points between at most two consecutive wales (fig. 5C). However, Thuasne teaches the high friction yarn floating over two consecutive wales rather than at least three consecutive wales as claimed. Nebel teaches a similar stocking with a friction yarn that floats over at least 3 consecutive wales as seen in the embodiments of figures 4, 5 and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from different float lengths including at least 3 consecutive wales as shown by Nebel for the purpose of optimizing the contacting surface area of the fiction yarn against a wearer’s skin. Regarding claim 2, Thuasne teaches - an elastic bare silicone yarn, - a bare elastane yarn, - a bare natural rubber yarn, - an elastic yarn coated with silicone or with elastomer, - an elastic yarn covered with one covering yarn wherein the covering yarn is a bare silicone, a bare elastane yarn or a bare natural rubber yarn, - an elastic yarn covered with two covering yarns wherein the outer of the two covering yarns is a bare silicone, a bare elastane yarn or a bare natural rubber yarn, - an elastic yarn covered with one covering yarn wherein the covering yarn is coated with silicone or with elastomer, OR - an elastic yarn covered with two covering yarns wherein the outer of the two covering yarns is coated with silicone or with elastomer. Regarding claim 3, the high-friction yarn is floated over four to nine consecutive wales within the portion as seen in figures 4-6 or Nepel. Regarding claim 4, the first and the second laid-in yarns form alternatively single tuck stitches and single miss stitches within the portion. Regarding claim 5, the portion of the size of at least six consecutive courses and at least six consecutive wales comprises only grip courses. Regarding claim 6, the floats are aligned in wales direction over at least 10 consecutive courses creating a rib-effect. Regarding claim 7, the floats are de-aligned at least each 10 consecutive courses. Regarding claim 8, Thuasne’s grip course is not shown as a plating yarn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plating arrangement for the purpose of increasing the stitch density and thickness of the knitted stocking. Regarding claim 9, an article comprising a tubular weft-knitted jersey- based fabric according to claim 1. Regarding claim 10, the portion is integrally formed with the article. Regarding claim 11, the portion extends over the whole circumference of the article. Regarding claim 12, the article is a calf-high sock, a knee-high sock OR a thigh-high stocking. Regarding claim 13, the article comprises a welt arranged at one end of the article and the portion is arranged directly adjacent to the welt. Regarding claim 14, the article is a medical compression garment having a controlled pressure profile along its length. Regarding claim 16, the high- friction yarn is incorporated on a 1 X 3, 3 X 1, 1 X 4, 4 X 1, 1 X 5, 5 X 1, 1 X 6, 6 X 1, 1 X 7, 7 X 1, 1 X 8, 8 X 1, 1 X 9 or 9x 1 tuck-and-miss basis, on a 1 X 3, 1 X 4, 1 X 5, 1 X 6, 1 X 7, 1 X 8 or 1x 9 plain-and-miss basis or on a on a 3 X 1, 4 X 1, 5 x 1, 6 x 1, 7x1, 8x 1 or 9x 1 tuck-and-plain basis as seen at least in figures 5A-5E. Regarding claim 17, the floats of the high-friction yarn are de-aligned at least each 10 consecutive courses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant is reminded that all business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. 37 C.F.R. 1.2
Further it is noted that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111, including:
-The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.
-A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
-Moreover, The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06, MPEP 714.02. The "disclosure" includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY WORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4997. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANNY WORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
ldw
Prosecution Insights