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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “the steps” is read as “steps”.
In claim 1, line 10, “the length” is read as “a length”.
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.
Claims 5, 7-8, 13-14 and 18-20 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 5 recites “the noble-metal-free support thread” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear “the noble-metal-free support thread” in claim 5 is the same or different from “at least one noble-metal-free support thread” in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “the length of the distance up to a knitted fabric take-up device further away than distance D”. It is unclear “the length of the distance” is the same or different from “the length of the distance D” in claim 1. For the purpose of applying art, “the length of the distance” in claim 7 is different from “the length of the distance D” in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “the knitted fabric take-up device” in line 8. It is unclear “the knitted fabric take-up device” is the same as “at least one knitted fabric take-up device spaced apart at a distance D” in claim 1 or not.
Claim 13 recites “the distance D2” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “the knitted fabric take-up device at the distance D” and “the knitted fabric take-up device at the distance D2”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because claim 1 only recites “at least one knitted fabric take-up device spaced apart at a distance D…”.
Claim 13 recites “in particular”. It is unclear limitations following the term “in particular” is required by the claim or not. For the purpose of applying art, the limitations following the term “in particular” is not required by the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the knitted fabric take-up device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear “the knitted fabric take-up device” in claim 14 is the same or different from “at least one knitted fabric take-up device” in claim 1.
Claims 18-20 recite “the noble-metal-free support thread” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear “the noble-metal-free support thread” in claims 18-20 is the same or different from “at least one noble-metal-free support thread” in claim 1.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending on 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 1-2, 4-14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Born (US 2022/0323947) in view of Goller (US 4481795).
Regarding claim 1, Born teaches a method for producing a noble metal mesh on a flatbed knitting machine (abstract), wherein the flatbed knitting machine comprises at least one needle bed (implicit structures of the flatbed knitting machine), comprising the steps:
providing at least one noble-metal-free support thread (fig. 1, para. [0030], a combustible yarn selected from the group consisting of chemical fibers, plant fibers and animal fibers in zone 9),
providing at least one noble-metal-containing wire (fig. 1, para. [0033], zone 7 comprises noble metal or noble metal alloy wire),
knitting a support mesh using the at least one noble-metal free support thread (fig. 1, zone 9),
knitting the noble metal mesh using the at least one noble-metal-containing wire (fig. 1, zone 7), wherein at least a portion of the support mesh is first knitted over at least the length of a distance D (fig. 1).
Born does not clearly teach at least one knitted fabric take-up device spaced apart at a distance D from the at least one needle bed.
However, in the same field of flatbed knitting machines, Goller teaches at least one knitted fabric take-up device (figs. 1, 3-4, take-down roller 18) spaced apart at a distance D from the at least one needle bed (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the flatbed knitting machine of Born with the take-up device of Goller so that the take-down strain is distributed over the full width of the oncoming knitted piece even in cases where there are large jumps between succeeding knitted pieces a the transition between them (Goller, col. 1, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the at least one noble-metal-containing wire consists of platinum, a platinum alloy, palladium or a palladium alloy (Born, para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method Born-Goller teaches two or more noble-metal-containing wires are knitted in parallel (annotated Born fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
189
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the noble-metal-free support thread comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyamides, polyester, cellulose fibers, cotton, acrylic-styrene polymers, nylon, vinyl polymers, alginate, copper, aluminum, tin alloys, and lead alloys (Born, para. [0037], cotton is used for the offcut zone).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method Born-Goller does not teach the flatbed knitting machine comprises a plurality of knitted fabric take-up devices.
However, Goller teaches the flatbed knitting machine comprises a plurality of knitted fabric take-up devices (figs. 1 and 3-4, take-down rollers 18, 16).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Born-Goller with a plurality of knitted fabric take-up devices as taught by Goller so that the take-down strain is distributed over the full width of the oncoming knitted piece even in cases where there are large jumps between succeeding knitted pieces a the transition between them (Goller, col. 1, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method Born-Goller does not clearly teach at least a portion of the support mesh is knitted over at least the length of the distance up to a knitted fabric take-up device further away than distance D.
However, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the support mesh surrounds the noble metal net (Born, fig. 1).
Further, Goller teaches in fig. 1 the knitted fabric is knitted over a distance from needle beds over the third roller 17, which is further than the distance from the needle beds to the first roller 18.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Born-Goller with the teaching that at least a portion of the support mesh is knitted over at least the length of the distance up to a knitted fabric take-up device further away than distance D as suggested by Goller for the benefit of the take-down strain is distributed over the full width of the oncoming knitted piece even in cases where there are large jumps between succeeding knitted pieces a the transition between them (Goller, col. 1, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the knitted fabric take-up device further away than distance D is arranged at a distance D2 and at least a portion of the support mesh is knitted over at least the length D2 (Goller, fig. 1 with the same reasoning as in the rejection of claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the support mesh comprises a plurality of regions (Born, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the support mesh surrounds at least 50% of the noble metal mesh (Born, fig. 1, the support mesh 9 surrounds the nobler metal mesh).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the support mesh comprises a region that is knitted after the noble metal mesh is knitted (Born, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method Born-Goller teaches a further step in which the support mesh is removed (Born, para. [0012], after the knitting process has ended, the net of the offcut zone is no longer required and can be removed).
Regarding claim 13, the modified method Born-Goller does not teach the knitted fabric take-up device at the distance D and/or the knitted fabric take-up device at the distance D2 exerts a pulling force on the support mesh and/or the noble metal mesh, wherein the exerted pulling force is at least 5N/m, in particular at least 10N/m.
However, the pull force varies depending on the width of the knitted fabric at the needle bed, and the specification does not provide criticality that the exerted pulling force is at least 5N/m, in particular at least 10N/m (see specification, page 9, lines 4-18, the pulling force can be adjusted at the knitted fabric take-up device by a person skilled in the art).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the exerted pulling force of the modified method Born-Goller at least 5N/m for the benefit maintaining the quality of the knitted fabric.
Regarding claim 14, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the knitted fabric take-up device comprises at least one roller or cylinder (Goller, roller 18/16).
Regarding claim 16, the modified method Born-Goller teaches two or more noble-metal-containing wires are knitted in parallel (annotated Born fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the noble-metal-free support thread comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyamides, polyester, cellulose fibers, cotton, acrylic-styrene polymers, nylon, vinyl polymers, alginate, copper, aluminum, tin alloys, and lead alloys (Born, para. [0037], cotton is used for the offcut zone).
Regarding claim 20, the modified method Born-Goller teaches the noble-metal-free support thread comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyamides, polyester, cellulose fibers, cotton, acrylic-styrene polymers, nylon, vinyl polymers, alginate, copper, aluminum, tin alloys, and lead alloys (Born, para. [0037], cotton is used for the offcut zone).
Claims 3, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Born (US 2022/0323947) and Goller (US 4481795), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Born (US 2018/0029014)(hereinafter Born’014).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method Born-Goller does not teach the at least one noble-metal-containing wire has a diameter of 40-150 µm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Born’014 teaches the at least one noble-metal-containing wire has a diameter of 40-150 µm (para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Born-Goller with a wire diameter of 40-150 µm as suggested by Born’014 for the benefit of providing optimum gauze strength and amount of material used for catalytic activity (Born’014, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, the modified method Born-Goller does not teach the at least one noble-metal-containing wire has a diameter of 40-150 µm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Born’014 teaches the at least one noble-metal-containing wire has a diameter of 40-150 µm (para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Born-Goller with a wire diameter of 40-150 µm as suggested by Born’014 for the benefit of providing optimum gauze strength and amount of material used for catalytic activity (Born’014, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, the modified method Born-Goller-Born’014 teaches two or more noble-metal-containing wires are knitted in parallel (annotated Born fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 19, the modified method Born-Goller-Born’014 teaches the noble-metal-free support thread comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyamides, polyester, cellulose fibers, cotton, acrylic-styrene polymers, nylon, vinyl polymers, alginate, copper, aluminum, tin alloys, and lead alloys (Born, para. [0037], cotton is used for the offcut zone).
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 9 AM-6 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
