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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected for the recitation of “fiber canvas”. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim by such a recitation. For purposes of examination, Examiner has treated this limitation to be met by an extruded fiber, filament, or yarn and shaped by the extruder. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the manufacture" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is advised to amend the language to recite “in manufacturing”.
Claim 1 is rejected for the recitation of “…with such canvas pattern defined to achieve the same visual effect as “straw lattices” , “Hindu straw” or “Hindu canvas””. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim by such a recitation as such language is subjective and not clearly defined. What is considered “straw lattices” , “Hindu straw” or “Hindu canvas”? What determines if it “meets the same visual effect”? This language is very subjective and unclear. For purposes of examination, Examiner has treated this limitation to be met by the cited art that teaches extruded tapes with pattern. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
Claim 1 is rejected for the recitation of “base putty format”. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim by such a recitation. For purposes of examination, Examiner has treated this limitation to be met by the material placed in the extruder. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fiber design" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fibers" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the synthetic fabric strip" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plastic raw material" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the possible materials" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the desired color" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected for the recitation of “the own putty” in line 11. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim by such a recitation. It is believe Applicant intended to recite “in the putty”. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dyed putty" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the manufacturer" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the drying phase" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the latter" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed Applicant is referring the loom machine and if this is the case, Applicant should positively recited this and not state “the latter”. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
In claim 2, in order to have proper antecedent basis, “A synthetic weatherproof fiber canvas” should be changed to “The synthetic weatherproof fiber canvas”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the manufacture" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is advised to amend the language to recite “in manufacturing”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the formation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “a tape” in line 2. In order to have proper antecedent basis, this should read “the tape” referring back to the tape already claimed in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected for the recitation of “simulating with visual perfection joined yarns, woven yarns, straw, and any other possible aspect or desired pattern”. This language is unclear and also attempts to claim things not clearly defined. What constitutes “with visual perfection”? This language is subjective. It also appears Applicant is intending to claim all these patterns on one yarn from the claim language. For purposes of examination, Examiner has treated this claim limitation to be met by the cited art and any yarn that has pattern on it. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
In claim 3, in order to have proper antecedent basis, “A synthetic weatherproof fiber canvas” should be changed to “The synthetic weatherproof fiber canvas”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the manufacture" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is advised to amend the language to recite “in manufacturing”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the configurations" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the own machine" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected for the recitation of “the own machine”. It is believed Applicant intended to recite, “the machine”. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (PG Pub. 2007/0257393) in view of Ganesan et al. (PG Pub. 2008/0242784).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a synthetic weatherproof (“the artificial strip is made of polyester plastic material, the imitated rattan/willow furniture does not easily become rotten or moldy even in an outdoor humid environment”) fiber canvas for use in manufacture of indoor and outdoor furniture which characteristics provide resistance to rain and resistance to peeling (dyed polyester is input into the extruder thereby avoiding peeling) with the canvas pattern defined to achieve a visual effect as “straw lattices, “Hindu straw” or “Hindu canvas” but composed of polyester with the raw material in base putty (considered to be the material placed in extruder) format for extrusion [Abstract, 0057, Fig. 1]. Chen teaches dyeing the fiber design that defines the fibers that will compose the synthetic fabric strip by taking the plastic raw material putty and submitting it to a dyeing process with a dedicated dye to achieve the desired color in the putty and not requiring any paint application later [Abstract]. Chen et al. teach submitting the dyed putty to a chemical extrusion process where it is extruded in a dedicated die with the shape of the fiber strip wherein the thread pattern is defined by the manufacturer and once extruded, the putty is now in the pattern of threads bonded in a malleable tape followed by drying [Abstract, 0048, 0056, claim 6]. The tapes already produced in the pattern of yarns desired will feed a loom machine (woven is taught) where the loom will organize and weave them in a canvas pattern chosen by the manufacturer resulting in a canvas ready to be cut and applied on the furniture items desired by an technique known [0041].
Chen is silent regarding the claimed receiving admixture for UV protection of the material and resistance to sunlight and not discoloring or aging over time. However, Ganesan et al. teach incorporation of UV light stabilizers and UV absorbers to provide UV resistance in polyester compositions including for outdoor furniture [0038, 0096, 0142]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed resistance to sunlight and not discoloring or aging over time by UV stabilizers and UV absorbers as taught by Ganesan et al. in Chen in order to provide UV resistance and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed canvas being 1 meter. However, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to use any size including the commonly known in the art 1 meter loom. Further, such a limitation is a product by process limitation.
Even if the previous combination does not disclose the claimed process steps, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that the previous combination meets the requirements of the claimed fiber canvas, the previous combination clearly meet the requirements of present claims fiber canvas.
Regarding claim 2, the formation of the tape provides finish in several thread patterns defined by the manufacturer simulating with visual perfection (subjective terminology; see 35 USC 112 rejection above) joined yarns, woven yarns, straw or any other possible aspect or desired pattern [Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 3, the canvas pattern is taught by Chen as having any shape including rectangular depending on the configurations and possibilities of the machine [0048, claim 6].
Art Not Used But Relevant
PG Pub. 2008/0105993 teaches indoor/outdoor furniture that is synthetic and waterproof made of fiber canvas.
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