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 .
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Group I claims 1-6 directed to a treated fabric is acknowledged. Applicant argues that Seith et al., U.S. Patent Number 3,848,359 which was disclosed for restriction purpose, does not disclose the fabric as having different roughness. Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument. However, GB589151 hereinafter “the British reference” discloses a jute fabric having different treatment processes including different solutions, a scouring solution with soda ash and a bleaching solution with alkaline hypochlorite. Applicant’s claims 1, 7 and 19 have the same technical feature of a treated fabric The present claims do not present a contribution over GB589151 hereinafter “the British reference” The claims lack unity. The requirement for unity of invention remains and is FINAL.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB589151 hereinafter “the British reference”.
Regarding claims 1-2, the British reference discloses fabrics of jute [abstract] wherein the fabric is waterproofed with a paraffin wax. Additionally, the abstract discloses that the jute fabric is scoured with a soap or soda ash, bleached as with alkaline hypochlorite. The British reference is silent to the fabric having first and second rough regions. Scouring the fabric roughens the surface of the fabric. Bleaching the fabric roughens the surface of the fabric. Applicant’s claim recites that the first rough regions originate from a different substance than the second rough regions. The British reference discloses scouring with soap or soda ash and bleaching with alkaline hypochlorite. The British reference teaches the same method applied to the jute fabric as claimed. Additionally, scouring requires hard scrubbing. It would be expected that the scouring of would have deep regions than the bleaching. Applicant’s claim is not specific to the first regions versus the second regions. Examiner is corresponding the scouring as the second rough regions and the bleaching as the first rough regions. The last paragraph of the reference discloses impregnating the jute fabric. Applicant’s claim is directed to a treated fabric. Applicant’s claim includes a process limitation “fibers woven together”. Applicant’s claim does not require the treated fabric to be woven. Applicant’s claim is directed to a fabric. The manner in which the fabric is manufactured does not make the fabric different from the prior art as Applicant’s claim is directed to “a treated fabric”.
Regarding claim 3, The British reference is silent to the thickness of the treated fabric. This is an optimizable feature. The 4th paragraph of the reference discloses that the fabric can stand up much better to the frictional and other stresses of laundering. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would optimize the thickness of the treated fabric to 0.1 to 1 cm for the benefit of obtaining a treated fabric that withstands frictional stresses of laundering.
Regarding claim 4, the abstract discloses that finally the fabric is subjected to a finishing process such as beetling or calendaring. Beetling or calendaring roughen the surface of the fabric, thereby creating a third rough region.
Claims 5-6 are 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. Applicant claims a treated fabric as recited in claim 1, further including wherein the first rough regions originate from an ammonium acetate solution as recited in claim 5. Also, Applicant claims a treated fabric as recited in claim 1, further including wherein the second rough regions originate from a sodium hydroxide solution as recited in claim 6, The closest prior art, GB589151, teaches fabrics of jute [abstract] wherein the fabric is waterproofed with a paraffin wax. Additionally, the abstract discloses that the jute fabric is scoured with a soap or soda ash, bleached as with alkaline hypochlorite. The British reference fails to teach or suggest first rough regions originating from a sodium hydroxide solution and the second rough regions originate from a sodium hydroxide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights