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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beistline (US 2003/0207071 A1).
Claims 1-5, 24:
Beistline teaches a method for printing a multi-colored pattern on rugs and carpet (abstract) formed from tufted yarns [0034]. Fig 17 shows such a textile substrate divided into at least two areas having different tufted design (cut, loop, and cut/loop). The textile fabric is suppled to a digital printing apparatus (Fig. 1 and 2) and printed in-register at pre-determined locations such that at least a portion of both areas are supplied with print composition (Fig. 17). It is noted that the use of “comprising” language in the claim and the generic designation of areas A1 and A2 do not exclude printing the whole of the textile substrate or printing the other portions of the textile substrate in subsequent steps. For example, if all the cut and loop portions are set to A1 and the cut/loop portion is set to A2, then only at least a portion of both A1 and A2 are printed. Alternatively, Fig. 10 shows two different portions set to A1 and A2 having different pile height where a first printing is applied to only A1 and a second printing is applied to only A2 (fill area vs. border area [0115-0118]).
Claim 13:
Different material comprising the yarn [0180, 0183].
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.
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.
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) 6-12, 14-19, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beistline (US 2003/0207071 A1) in view of Crompton (US 7229680 B1).
Claims 6-12:
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach variations in print locations and pile height. However, Crompton teaches a method for printing images on flocked pile fabrics (abstract) where the fabric is embossed and printed in a superposed manner to enhance the visual effect (col. 10). This fabric comprises many different areas having different pile height as a result of the embossing, which are then printed or not depending on the desired image (Fig. 2d). The exact application ink for the purpose of printing an image and the amount of embossment (i.e., pile height difference) is considered a design choice within the skill on one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose achieving the desired appearance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the print locations and pile height in order to achieve the desired aesthetic appearance.
Claims 14-19:
These claims include varying the print composition (such as color), print pattern (parts of the overall image/design), and ink quantity. These parameters are similarly obvious as the manner for achieving the desired visual appearance.
Claims 20-23:
These claims include additional tufted designs. Crompton Fig. 2C illustrates several different pile orientations that can be separately categorized as different tufted design, at least 4.
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beistline (US 2003/0207071 A1) in view of Tateishi (US 2004/0099181 A1).
Previously cited prior art does not specify the ink composition. However, Yagi teaches an ink jet ink for dyeing fibers (abstract) where the ink can be colored or colorless [0453] and includes a wetting agent [0413]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ink containing a color component and/or a wetting agent for the purpose of printing on a textile fabric.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759