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
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 1-7, 9-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan (PG Pub. 2017/0260690) in view of Ibrahim et al. (Ibrahim, N.A., El-Zairy, E.M.R., El-Zairy, M.R. and Khalil, H.M. (2010), Improving transfer printing and ultraviolet-blocking properties of polyester-based textiles using MCT-β-CD, chitosan and ethylenediamine. Coloration Technology, 126: 330-336).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17-18, Sloan et al. teaches a blended fabric (including a fabric item or t-shirt) and a thermal transfer method [0007] for blended fabric [0021] with the method comprising treating to obtain a treated blended fabric [0021]. The treating composition contacting the blended fabric with a pretreatment liquid [Abstract] comprising an epoxy resin [0011], a melamine formaldehyde crosslinking agent and a solvent [0008] and performing thermal transfer dye to the treated blended fabric [0021]. Sloan is silent regarding the polyamine. However, Ibrahim et al. teaches ethylenediamine in a pretreatment in order to improve heat transfer printing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ethylenediamine of Ibrahim et al. in the previous combination in order to improve heat transfer printing and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, treating further comprises pressing and drying at the claimed temperature for the claimed time of drying the blended fabric following the contacting [0018].
Regarding claim 3, Sloan et al. teach before the contacting preparing the pretreatment liquid (this is taught since Sloan teaches applying the pretreatment composition to the textile and it is already made) and teaches dispersing water in the epoxy resin, but is silent regarding dispersing epoxy resin and polyamine with a solvent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disperse the epoxy resin and polyamine with the solvent taught (water) given the limited number of options and further to add the solvent last to improve uniformity of dispersion.
Regarding claims 4 and 14-15, performing the thermal transfer of the dye to the treated blended fabric comprises providing a thermal transfer paper (sublimation transfer system) having a pattern (image) formed by the dye, attaching the thermal transfer paper having the pattern to the treated blended fabric and performing a thermal pressure treatment of the thermal paper attached to the treated blended fabric to obtain a thermally transferred blended fabric [0019]. The pressure treatment is performed by contacting a hot-pressing plate or a hot roller with the thermal transfer paper attached to the treated blended fabric [0019]. A temperature of the thermal pressure treatment is in the claimed range and a time of the thermal treatment pressure is in the claimed range [0019].
Regarding claim 5, Sloan et al. teach printing the dye on a thermal transfer paper to form a pattern on the thermal transfer paper to obtain the thermal transfer paper having the pattern [0005].
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the blended fabric is made by blending fibers comprising or consisting of a synthetic fiber and a natural fiber [0021].
Regarding claim 7, Sloan et al. teach printing the dye on a thermal transfer paper to form a pattern on the thermal transfer paper to obtain the thermal transfer paper having the pattern [0005]. Sloan et al. teach before the contacting preparing the pretreatment liquid (this is taught since Sloan teaches applying the pretreatment composition to the textile and it is already made) and teaches dispersing water in the epoxy resin, but is silent regarding dispersing epoxy resin and polyamine with a solvent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disperse the epoxy resin and polyamine with the solvent taught (water) given the limited number of options and further to add the solvent last to improve uniformity of dispersion.
Sloan et al. teaches applying the blended fabric in the pretreatment liquid, pressing an drying the blended fabric following applying to obtain a treated blended fabric [0017]. Sloan et al. is silent regarding the application being by immersion, but teaches application can be by any known method and teaches it can be applied to the entire garment and therefore it would have been obvious to apply the pretreatment liquid by immersion. Sloan et al. teach attaching the thermal transfer paper having the pattern in step (a) to the treated blended fabric in step (c) to obtain a thermal transfer paper attached to the treated blended fabric and then performing a thermal pressure treatment of the thermal transfer paper attached to the treated blended fabric to obtain a thermally transferred blended fabric [0017-0019].
Regarding claim 10, Sloan et al. teach the mass ratio of the epoxy resin to the polyamine (crosslinking agent) in step (b) [0008].
Regarding claim 16, Sloan et al. teaches a thermal transfer system comprising at least one pretreatment liquid in combination with at least one dye, a thermal transfer paper, and a blended fabric [Abstract, 0008, 0011 and 0017-0021]. The at least one pretreatment liquid comprises an epoxy resin [0008], a crosslinker and a solvent. Sloan is silent regarding the specific polyamine.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan (PG Pub. 2017/0260690) in view of in view of Ibrahim et al. (Ibrahim, N.A., El-Zairy, E.M.R., El-Zairy, M.R. and Khalil, H.M. (2010), Improving transfer printing and ultraviolet-blocking properties of polyester-based textiles using MCT-β-CD, chitosan and ethylenediamine. Coloration Technology, 126: 330-336) in view of Pinto et al. (PG Pub. 2011/0169901).
Regarding claim 8, The previous combination is silent regarding the type of epoxy. However, Pinto et al. teaches a bisphenol type A epoxy in order to provide improved fixation and crosslinking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bisphenol type A epoxy in Pinto et al. in order to provide improved fixation and crosslinking and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan (PG Pub. 2017/0260690) in view of in view of Ibrahim et al. (Ibrahim, N.A., El-Zairy, E.M.R., El-Zairy, M.R. and Khalil, H.M. (2010), Improving transfer printing and ultraviolet-blocking properties of polyester-based textiles using MCT-β-CD, chitosan and ethylenediamine. Coloration Technology, 126: 330-336) in view of Xu (CN103757923).
Regarding claim 13, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed baking and washing. However, Xu teaches dyeing the fabric baking the dyed fabrics at the claimed temperature and wash the fabric at the claimed temperature in order to obtain pattern vibrancy, wash fastness, and light fastness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the backing and washing and temperatures of Xu in the previous combination in order to obtain pattern vibrancy, wash fastness, and light fastness and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning He, Zhang and Matsunaga have been fully considered, but are moot as He, Zhang and Matsunaga are not used in the rejection above. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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