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
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 14, 16, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOMBOURQUETTE et al. (US 2020/0189295) in view of HO (US 2004/0158942).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-7, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches an apparatus for pre-treatment of synthetic fabric comprising a printing pre-treatment location where the fabric can be treated, and a non-contact heat source that can heat the pre-treated area (paras. 23 and 32). MOMBOURQUETTE does not describe a material with outward protruding fibers, but a recitation of a material worked upon does not limit the apparatus (MPEP 2144.04), so the apparatus is anticipated. MOMBOURQUETTE does not describe that the heat source is capable of heating above 250 degrees Celsius. HO teaches another method of pre-treating a fabric material via applying treatment material and heating, where the fabric is heated to 180-280 degrees Celsius (para. 19), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a heat source sufficient to reach the disclosed temperature.
Regarding claim 3, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches a burning natural gas heat source (para. 9).
Regarding claim 4, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches a heated air heat source (para. 9).
Regarding claim 5, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches a forced air heat guns that can direct the air (para. 32), which is the same as a nozzle.
Regarding claim 8, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches an air heater and air blower (para. 32).
Regarding claim 10, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches an infra-red heat source (para. 9).
Regarding claims 14, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches a spray source for the pre-treatment capable of performing the functions claimed (para. 25).
Regarding claim 16, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches a platen feeder for feeding fabric from the pre-treatment location to a printing location (para. 35).
Regarding claims 23-24, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches a spray source for the pre-treatment capable of performing the functions claimed (para. 25), and it would have been obvious to duplicate and rearrange spraying steps because duplication and rearranging process steps have been held per se obvious (MPEP 2144.04), and there would have been a reasonable expectation of producing the same product (MPEP 2141).
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as combined as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of COLWELL (US 7,699,896).
Regarding claim 9, MOMBOURQUETTE teaches radiation (IR) heating, but does not teach a laser heat source. COLWELL teaches another method of treating fabric comprising applying pre-treatment and heating, wherein the heat of the pre-treatment process is applied via laser (col. 3, lines 4-16), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a laser heat source of COLWELL as the radiation heat source of MOMBOURQUETTE because the two are functionally equivalent and laser heat application is common in the art.
Regarding claim 15, MOMBOURQUETTE does not teach a second spray source for spraying post-heat treatment. COLWELL teaches another method of treating fabric comprising applying pre-treatment and heating, wherein the apparatus comprises a post-treatment of applying additional material, where one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would utilize a second spray source after the heat source to impart additional resistance to the printing location (col. 3, lines 4-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that MOMBOURQUETTE does not teach a heating temperature. HO teaches utilizing a heat source that is functionally capable of heating to the claimed temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest an apparatus as claimed wherein the heat source comprises a phased plate heat press comprising edges having an acute receding angle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745