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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Usuda (JP 2020002496).
Regarding claim 1, Usuda teaches a surface material (fiber sheet) comprising a print provided on a part of a main surface of a fabric [0045 and 0047] wherein the average brightness on a main surface of the black fabric (Lb) is taught as 28 in the Example fabric and taught as high as 30 [0041 and 0057-0058]. Usuda teaches the fabric after printing has a L* of 25 [0066-0068]. The entire aim of the patent is to provide print area with a L* darker (and thus the L* of the print is lower than that of the fabric) than that of the fabric for a more aesthetically pleasing fabric. Therefore, Usuda teaches a brightness difference delta L where delta L equals Lp-Lb between an average brightness on the main surface of the black fabric (Lb) and an average brightness on the print provided on the main surface (Lp) is less than 0. This is shown in the lower L* value of the fabric after printing.
Regarding claim 5, the fabric of Usuda teaches a binder resin based print system with thermal drying and suppressed migration and is made of such similar materials in such a similar fashion, the claimed property is necessarily inherent to the fabric of Usuda. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usuda (JP2020002496) in view of Del Pesco et al. (TW I231818).
Regarding claims 2-3, Usuda is silent regarding the claimed fluorine based water and oil repellent with a crosslinked moiety having the claimed structure. However, Del Pesco et al. teaches a fluorine based water and oil repellent with a crosslinked moiety having the claimed structure in a print in order to impart water and oil repellency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fluorine based water and oil repellent with a crosslinked moiety having the claimed structure of Del Pesco et al. in the print of the Usuda in order to give water and oil repellency and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usuda (JP2020002496) in view of Demott (GB 2074622).
Regarding claims 2, Usuda is silent regarding the claimed fluorine based water and oil repellent. However, Demott teaches a fluorine based water and oil repellent in a print in order to give soil resistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fluorine based water and oil repellent in a print of Demott in the Usuda in order to give soil resistance and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usuda (JP2020002496) in view of Kagata et al. (EP 3375829).
Regarding claim 4, Usuda teaches silicone in the print but is silent regarding the claimed silicon based water repellent with the claimed crosslinked moiety. However, Kagata et al. teaches ink with the claimed silicon based water repellent with the claimed crosslinked moiety with the claimed structure (urea linkage is taught) in order to have high storage stability of ink and improve dyeability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the silicon based water repellent with the claimed crosslinked moiety with the claimed structure of Kagata in Usuda order to have high storage stability of ink and improve dyeability and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usuda (JP2020002496) in view of Hayashi et al. (PG Pub. 2018/0058000).
Regarding claim 5, In the alternative, if it is found the claimed property is not inherent to Usuda. Hayashi et al. teaches an automobile fabric coated and that has the claimed property of claim 5 including grade 4 or 5 in order to achieve high color fastness to rubbing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the coating of Hayashi et al. in Usuda in order to achieve high color fastness to rubbing and arrive at the claimed invention.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
TW 530106 teaches a water and oil repellent composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights