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 .
This is in response to the Application filed April 24, 2026, in which Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claims 3-5 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.
Claims 3 and 5 recite the limitation "the two first starting points" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 5 recite “wherein, in the knitting gap, a position of the second starting point for narrowing is located between positions of the two first starting points for narrowing in the first needle track and the second needle track”. The claim limitation is indefinite as it is wholly unclear where the two first starting points are as the claim only previously claims a single “first starting point” not two and, therefore, how the second starting point is between the two first starting points. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected as best understood be examiner.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 is identical to Claim 3, from which Claim 5 ultimately depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuber (US 3,930,383) in view of Houseman (US 1,811,849).
Regarding Claim 1, Nuber discloses a cylinder (1) and dial (20) knitting machine, comprising a knitting gap (i.e. space between 2 & 21), at least one feeder configured to feed two yarns into the knitting gap (Col.11, lines 13-29), at least one upper needle cam (33), a plurality of upper needles (21) guided by the at least one upper needle cam (Col.7, line 65-Col.8, line 7), at least one lower needle cam (16,17), and a plurality of lower needles (2) guided by the at least one lower needle cam (Col.6, lines 18-38), the two yarns being interlaced at a narrowing point located in the knitting gap (as evidenced by Fig.14), the cylinder and dial knitting machine being characterized in that, the cylinder and dial knitting machine further comprises a selector (10), each of the plurality of lower needles (2) is controlled by the selector to move along a first needle track (16.2) or a second needle track (17.2)(Col.6, lines 18-41), each of the plurality of lower needles comprises a first hooking point in the first needle track and a second hooking point in the second needle track (Col.7, lines 5-15), the first hooking point and the second hooking point have different positions at the knitting gap (Col.7, lines 5-15; i.e. fully projected position or partial projection, tuck position), the first hooking point and the second hooking point have two different distances to the narrowing point (Col.7, lines 5-15; i.e. fully projected position or partial projection, tuck position). Nuber does not disclose each of the plurality of lower needles is disposed to hook the two yarns at the first hooking point or the second hooking point to determine a looping process is standard plating or interchanged plating according to relative positions of the two yarns at a timepoint of being hooked into the lower needle. However, Houseman teaches a knitting machine with two yarns (b,p) being interlaced at a narrowing point (following V where b,p meet at X) located in a knitting gap (gap between C & d); and each of a plurality of lower needles (X) is disposed to hook the two yarns at a first hooking point or a second hooking point to determine a looping process is standard plating or interchanged plating according to relative positions of the two yarns at a timepoint of being hooked into the lower needle (as seen in Fig.2; Pg.2, lines 30-70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the knitting
machine of Kunde to produce a textile including two yarns which are plated, as taught
by Houseman, in order to provide a textile with the desired aesthetic appearance for a
user. When in combination, Nuber and Houseman teach the relative positions of the two yarns at the timepoint of being hooked into the lower needle in the first hooking point and the second hooking point are different (Nuber: Col.7, lines 5-15; i.e. fully projected position or partial projection, tuck position).
Regarding Claim 2, Nuber discloses a cylinder and dial knitting machine according to claim 1, wherein the cylinder and dial knitting machine includes at least two feeders, each of the at least two feeders feeds the two yarns into the knitting gap, and colors of a plurality of yarns fed into the knitting gap by the two feeder are different from each other (Col.9, lines 48-56 & Col.11, lines 13-29).
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Nuber discloses a cylinder and dial knitting machine according to claim 1, wherein each of the lower needles (2) comprises a first half needle position (i.e. rest position; Col.7, lines 19-25), each of the upper needles (21) comprises a second half needle position (Col.10, lines 7-9), each of the lower needles, in each of the first needle track (16.2) and the second needle track (17.2), comprises a first starting point (i.e. at the rest position) for narrowing which starts narrowing from the first half needle position, and each of the upper needles comprises a second starting point (i.e. at the partial projection, tuck position) for narrowing which starts narrowing from the second half needle position, wherein, in the knitting gap, a position of the second starting point for narrowing (of 21) is located between positions of the two first starting points (of two adjacent needles 2) for narrowing in the first needle track and the second needle track (i.e. needle 21 would be positioned between two adjacent 2).
Regarding Claim 4, When in combination, Nuber and Houseman teach a cylinder and dial knitting machine according to claim 3, wherein each of the two yarns (Huber: Col.11, lines 13-29) has a yarn-feeding path, the two yarn-feeding paths are different (as evidenced by b & m in Fig.2 of Houseman), and two extension lines of the two yarn-feeding paths are interlaced at the narrowing point (Houseman: Fig.2).
Regarding Claim 6, Nuber discloses a cylinder and dial knitting machine according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of lower needles (2) comprises a first cast-off point (i.e. transfer/cast-off of stitches) in each of the first needle track and the second needle track, each of the plurality of upper needles (21) comprises a second cast-off point (i.e. transfer/cast-off of stitches) upon moving, and a timing when the plurality of upper needles enter the second cast-off point is earlier than that when the plurality of lower needles enter the first cast-off point (Col.9, lines 48-56; i.e. in a rib knit the transfer/cast-off of stitches from the rib dial onto the cylinder happens before the transfer/cast off from the cylinder onto the rib dial). It is noted that Applicant's claimed movement of a knitting machine's upper and lower needles at different intervals involves merely programming the machine to achieve such a pattern action, which has been widely known in the knitting art since the inception of computerized knitting machines.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Kunde (US 2013/0152640) teaches a cylinder and dial knitting machine with upper and lower needles that move according to a programmed pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm 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 J. 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
