DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on November 14th, 2025 in which claims 1-10 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference sign(s) not mentioned in the description:
Element 3 is not the description, such as in [0023] “elastic fiber 3”, as best understood
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claims 6, 7 “elastic fiber”
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0031] “Tissues” needs review as to whether there is a translation error
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8 is/are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m):
instances of “fiber 1” should read “fiber (1)”, should the drawing numeral be desired, based on MPEP 608.01(m); this is in Claims 1, 3, 8
instances of “fiber 2” should read “fiber (2)”, should the drawing numeral be desired, based on MPEP 608.01(m); this is in Claims 1, 5, 8
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Based on the instances of fiber 1 and fiber 2, all claim limitations referring to drawing reference numerals must recite the drawing reference numeral:
“knitted fabric (4)” in Claims 1-10
It is unclear where element (3) belongs in the claims; review is needed whether element (3) belongs in Claims 6, 7
Claim 3 before “total” delete “a” and substitute –the—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 1 Line 4
Claim 10 is missing a closing parenthesis after “Currently Amended”
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “fiber 1 made of a spun yarn and …fiber 2 made of a long fiber” in Claim 1 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term “fiber” is being defined, whether it inherently must be of a yarn. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term “fiber” will only be interpreted as requiring a yarn if explicitly claimed.
The term "long" in “long fiber” beginning claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "long" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term “long” will be considered met inasmuch as a filament is taught (as opposed to staple), and/or any recitation indicating that the fiber is longer relative to some other structure.
The term “the fiber 2” in Claim 1 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 608.01(m)—though drawing reference numerals may be utilized, the numerals do not add to the scope of the claim limitations. As such, it is unclear whether the term is referring to that of the spun yarn or that of the long fiber. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as that of the long fiber. Amendments can instead claim “long fiber” or establish “first fiber made of a spun yarn…second fiber made of a long fiber,” and therefore claim “the second fiber”.
The term “the fiber 1” in Claim 1 Line 4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 608.01(m)—though drawing reference numerals may be utilized, the numerals do not add to the scope of the claim limitations. As such, it is unclear whether the term is referring to that of the spun yarn or that of the long fiber. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as that of the spun yarn. Amendments can instead claim “spun yarn” or establish “first fiber made of a spun yarn…second fiber made of a long fiber,” and therefore claim “the first fiber”.
Similarly, the term “the fiber 2” in Claim 1 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite and will be similarly interpreted.
Similarly, the term “the fiber 1” in Claim 1 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite and will be similarly interpreted.
The term “elastic fiber” in Claims 6, 7 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite, especially in light of claim 1 indefiniteness for “fiber,” and will be similarly interpreted.
Similarly, the term “the fiber 1” in Claim 3 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite and will be similarly interpreted.
Similarly, the term “the fiber 2” in Claim 5 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite and will be similarly interpreted.
Similarly, the term “the fiber 2” in Claim 8 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite and will be similarly interpreted.
Similarly, the term “the fiber 1” in Claim 8 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite and will be similarly interpreted.
Claim 9 is rejected as indefinite for incorporating indefinite matter of Claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected as indefinite for incorporating indefinite matter of Claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
Specific Definition(s)
[0027] indicates that the fineness utilizes decitex as a unit, wherein decitex is 5910 divided by cotton count.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al (US Publication 2020/0048802), herein Abe, in view of Yamamoto (JP 3051128) and Yamaguchi (JP 6635972).
Regarding Claim 1, Abe teaches a knitted fabric having a single knit structure (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; abstract "a viscose rayon fiber in an amount of more than 15% by mass and less than 40% by mass; a cation dyeable polyester filament yarn in an amount of more than 10% by mass and less than 45% by mass; a polyacrylic synthetic fiber in an amount of more than 25% by mass and less than 60% by mass; and a spandex fiber in an amount of more than 3% by mass and less than 15% by mass"; [0054] "30% by mass of viscose rayon staple (1.4 dtex, 38 mm) and 70% by mass of polyacrylic fiber staple (1.0 dtex, 45 mm) were mixed by carding to obtain a spun yarn of 30s "; [0055] "the spun yarn thus obtained, cation dyeable polyester filament yarn (84 dtex-72 filaments), and a spandex fiber (44 dtex-2 filaments) were cross-knitted...to obtain a greige"; wherein cross-knitting results in a single knit structure),
wherein a course of a fiber (1) made of a spun yarn ([0054] "30% by mass of viscose rayon staple (1.4 dtex, 38 mm) and 70% by mass of polyacrylic fiber staple (1.0 dtex, 45 mm) were mixed by carding to obtain a spun yarn of 30s"; wherein [0055] cross-knitted and greige indicates course)
and a course of a fiber (2) made of a long fiber (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--[0055] "the spun yarn thus obtained, cation dyeable polyester filament yarn (84 dtex-72 filaments), and a spandex fiber (44 dtex-2 filaments) were cross-knitted...to obtain a greige”; wherein the polyester is long as a filament as opposed to [0054] staple; wherein [0055] cross-knitted and greige indicates course),
a ratio (D2/D1) of a total fineness D2 of the fiber (2) to a total fineness D1 of the fiber (1) is in a range of 0.50 to 0.90 (see Example 2: value to calculate D1: [0058] viscose rayon staple …and…polyacrylic fiber staple…mixed by carding to obtain a spun yarn of 40s"; value for D2= [0059] "Cation dyeable polyester filament yarn (84 dtex-96 filaments)…cross-knitted…to obtain a greige"; see claim interpretation; wherein [0027] of app indicates fineness with decitex as a unit, wherein dtex = 5910/cotton count; therefore the dtex for D1 = 147.75 (from 5910/40); and dtex for D2 = 84; therefore D2/D1 = 0.57).
Abe does not explicitly teach that the dual-material/mixed/spun yarn and long fiber are alternately and repeatedly present in a warp direction.
Yamamoto teaches that a dual-material/mixed yarn and a long fiber are alternately and repeatedly present in a warp direction (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 1 for dual-material/mixed element 3 repeatedly alternating with long elements 1, 2 in a warp direction; [0017] "ceramic-kneaded acrylate yarn containing zinc oxide as the thick count yarn 3...or the same blended yarn"; [0013] oxide…mixed into the fiber”; [0022] “rare earth element-added ceramic mixed yarn is used for the thick yarn count”; [0016] "courses C of…fine counts 1, 2…roughened…so that the loops of 1 and 2 become long...contributes to the 'thin knitted fabric'”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abe’s pattern to be alternating as taught by Yamamoto depending on the thinness/density desired ([0017]) and/or aesthetic design choice, especially as a known arrangement for dual-material/mixed yarn and long fibers.
Abe also does not explicitly teach and a ratio (L2/L1) of a yarn length L2 of the fiber (2) to a yarn length L1 of the fiber (1) per 100 wales is greater than 1.00 (Abe is silent as to the length of the cation dyeable polyester L2).
However, as aforementioned, Abe is a dual-material yarn with a long fiber, and so is Yamamoto.
Yamamoto teaches and a ratio (L2/L1) of a yarn length L2 of the long fiber (2) to a yarn length L1 of the dual-material fiber (1) is greater than 1.00, (see [0017], [0013], [0022] above for dual material/mixed for element 3; [0016] "courses C of…fine counts 1, 2…roughened…so that the loops of 1 and 2 become long"; as element 2 would have L2, and element 3 would have L1, and loops of L2 are long, which is not disclosed for yarn 3 in [0015], then the ratio of L2/L1 is greater than 1).
Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abe’s lengths to be as taught by Yamamoto depending on the thinness/density desired ([0017]) and/or aesthetic design choice, especially as a known arrangement for dual-material/mixed yarn and long fibers.
Modified Abe is silent that L1 is per 100 wales.
Yamaguchi teaches that a unit of length is per 100 wales (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Abe’s length(s) is per 100 wales as taught by Abe as a known standard unit of measurement in the art, especially regarding interknit alternating yarns.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Abe teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Abe further teaches wherein the spun yarn contains a cellulose fiber and an acrylic fiber ([0054] "30% by mass of viscose rayon staple (1.4 dtex, 38 mm) and 70% by mass of polyacrylic fiber staple (1.0 dtex, 45 mm) were mixed by carding to obtain a spun yarn of 30s").
Regarding Claim 3, modified Abe teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Abe further teaches wherein the total fineness D1 of the fiber 1 is 70 decitex to 150 decitex (dtex for D1 = 147.75).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Abe teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Abe further teaches wherein the long fiber is a cation-dyeable polyester long fiber ([0055] "the spun yarn thus obtained, cation dyeable polyester filament yarn (84 dtex-72 filaments)").
Regarding Claim 5, modified Abe teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Abe further teaches wherein the total fineness D2 of the fiber (2) is 33 decitex to 135 decitex (dtex for D2 = 84).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Abe teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Abe further teaches an elastic fiber ([0055] "and a spandex fiber (44 dtex-2 filaments) were cross-knitted...to obtain a greige").
Regarding Claim 7, modified Abe teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Abe further teaches a course of an elastic fiber ([0055] "and a spandex fiber (44 dtex-2 filaments) were cross-knitted...to obtain a greige"; wherein cross-knitted and greige indicates course).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Abe teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Abe at least suggests wherein the ratio (L2/L1) of the yarn length L2 of the fiber (2) to the yarn length L1 of the fiber (1) per 100 wales is in a range of 1.02 to 1.2 (see Yamamoto [0016] "courses C of both yarns of the fine counts 1, 2...become long...contributes to the 'thin knitted fabric'"; as 2 would have L2, and 3 would have L1, and loops of L2 are long (which is not disclosed for yarn 3 in [0015]), then ratio of L2/L1 is greater than 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the ratio and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Especially absent criticality ([0009], [0028]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abe’s ratio to be at least 1.02 in light of Yamamoto depending on the thinness and/or density desired ([0016]).
Regarding Claim 9, Abe teaches a clothing (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; abstract "a viscose rayon fiber in an amount of more than 15% by mass and less than 40% by mass; a cation dyeable polyester filament yarn in an amount of more than 10% by mass and less than 45% by mass; a polyacrylic synthetic fiber in an amount of more than 25% by mass and less than 60% by mass; and a spandex fiber in an amount of more than 3% by mass and less than 15% by mass"; [0054] "30% by mass of viscose rayon staple (1.4 dtex, 38 mm) and 70% by mass of polyacrylic fiber staple (1.0 dtex, 45 mm) were mixed by carding to obtain a spun yarn of 30s "; [0055] "the spun yarn thus obtained, cation dyeable polyester filament yarn (84 dtex-72 filaments), and a spandex fiber (44 dtex-2 filaments) were cross-knitted...to obtain a greige"; Abe teaches the knitted fabric which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being clothing, inasmuch as the structure/term of clothing has been defined) comprising
the knitted fabric according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Abe teaches an undergarment or underwear (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; abstract "a viscose rayon fiber in an amount of more than 15% by mass and less than 40% by mass; a cation dyeable polyester filament yarn in an amount of more than 10% by mass and less than 45% by mass; a polyacrylic synthetic fiber in an amount of more than 25% by mass and less than 60% by mass; and a spandex fiber in an amount of more than 3% by mass and less than 15% by mass"; [0054] "30% by mass of viscose rayon staple (1.4 dtex, 38 mm) and 70% by mass of polyacrylic fiber staple (1.0 dtex, 45 mm) were mixed by carding to obtain a spun yarn of 30s "; [0055] "the spun yarn thus obtained, cation dyeable polyester filament yarn (84 dtex-72 filaments), and a spandex fiber (44 dtex-2 filaments) were cross-knitted...to obtain a greige"; Abe teaches the knitted fabric which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being undergarment or underwear inasmuch as the structure/term of undergarment/underwear has been defined)
made of the knitted fabric according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
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: Matsumoto et al (US Publication 2016/0083878) directed to knitted fabric with spun yarn and long fiber; Michel (USPN 5687587), Bader et al (USPN 10145040), Litchfield et al (USPN 9188255), Black et al (USPN 895966), Menzies (USPN 7007517), Harada et al (US Publication 2019/0233988), Miller III et al (USPN 6986270), Anton (USPN 2254131), Lindner et al (USPN 2842947) directed to a pattern alternating and repeating in a wale direction; Britannica (NPL) directed to spandex as polyurethane.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
