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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blakely et al. (US10492550) in view of Iafrate et al. (WO1997007899).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 8-10, Blakely teaches forming an adhesive coating on a patterned textile material in knit fabric (paragraph 28) by tensioning (col. 5, lines 37-48) the material on a roto-gravure coating press (Fig. 4B for example). Blakely fails to teach the direction in which the tension takes place. However, Blakely fails to teach that the tension takes place in multiple directions. Blakely simply states that the textile is “under tension”. However, given a limited number of possibilities (i.e., combinations of x, y and z directions for tensioning) it is the position of the examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tension the fabric in any combination of directions wherein all would provide predictable outcomes and would be reasonably expected to function. Further it should be noted that Iafrate art as cited above is cited within the Blakely art (col. 5, line 47). In the Iafrate art, which is described by Blakely as an “exemplary” example of the process of Blakely, Iafrate teaches that although tension in this gravure type coating system is desirable, it can cause “buckling in the crossweb direction”. Therefore Iafrate further evidences that there would be known benefit to multi directional tensioning, wherein those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that crossweb tension would aid in preventing crossweb buckling. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a cross tension in order to reduce the effects of “buckling” as described by Iafrate. Further it should be noted that technically speaking the ends of the rolls 430A and 430B in Blakely provide an outward tension to the fabric rolled because due to the tension in the y-direction in Fig. 4B, would be a natural tendency of the fabric to want to compress in the z-direction, wherein the rollers of Blakely actively resist this an provide an opposing tension in the z-direction. Further Blakely teaches wherein a first thickness of is less than or equal to a second thickness (Fig. 7B). Blakely in view of Iafrate fails to teach wherein the first portions are circumscribed by the section portions. Blakely is set as the general opposite of this with the second portions are circumscribed by the first portions. However, Blakely teaches that the adhesive pattern may be applied generally in “any pattern suitable for its described purpose” (see paragraph 37). Any such generally any pattern of depositing the adhesive that does not provide some unexpected result is generally envisaged by Blakely as a matter of aesthetic design change. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). Further this pattern change would be considered mere change in shape of the pattern of Blakely in view of Iafrate wherein the Court has long held that general changes in shape of a prior art product (in this case the deposition pattern) are incapable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the prior art provided pattern’s shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of Blakely in view of Iafrate are as shown above. Blakely in view of Iafrate fails to explicitly state the level of tensioning in the textile article. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that based on the materials used by Blakely (cotton or wool), there would be reasonable limits to the amount of stretch that the material would have without experiencing permanent damage while at the same time applying at least a level of tension that require stretching the material to at least greater than 100% of its resting length in order to have any stretch at all. Therefore in the absence of criticality of the specific stretch range of the current claims, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have considered it obvious to optimize the amount of stretch provided to the material of Blakely in view of Iafrate in order to both provide at least some stretch as desired by Blakely without permanently damaging the material.
Regarding claims 4-7, the teachings of Blakely in view of Iafrate are as shown above. Blakely further teaches wherein the adhesive film composition applied to the first portion is polyurethane. Blakely fails to teach if the polyurethane used is thermoplastic, thermoset or elastomeric, the three types generally considered to be the three known groupings of polymers. However, polyurethane is available in all three forms. Therefore, given a limited number of possibilities for what class of material the composition of Blakely could be, it would have been “obvious to try” for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attempted to use any of the types of polyurethane known including thermoplastic polyurethane wherein all types would be expected to function in a predictable way with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 11-12, Blakely teaches forming an adhesive coating on a patterned textile material in knit fabric (paragraph 28) by tensioning (col. 5, lines 37-48) the material on a roto-gravure coating press (Fig. 4B for example). Blakely fails to teach the direction in which the tension takes place. However, Blakely fails to teach that the tension takes place in multiple directions. Blakely simply states that the textile is “under tension”. However, given a limited number of possibilities (i.e., combinations of x, y and z directions for tensioning) it is the position of the examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tension the fabric in any combination of directions wherein all would provide predictable outcomes and would be reasonably expected to function. Further it should be noted that Iafrate art as cited above is cited within the Blakely art (col. 5, line 47). In the Iafrate art, which is described by Blakely as an “exemplary” example of the process of Blakely, Iafrate teaches that although tension in this gravure type coating system is desirable, it can cause “buckling in the crossweb direction”. Therefore Iafrate further evidences that there would be known benefit to multi directional tensioning, wherein those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that crossweb tension would aid in preventing crossweb buckling. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a cross tension in order to reduce the effects of “buckling” as described by Iafrate. Further it should be noted that technically speaking the ends of the rolls 430A and 430B in Blakely provide an outward tension to the fabric rolled because due to the tension in the y-direction in Fig. 4B, would be a natural tendency of the fabric to want to compress in the z-direction, wherein the rollers of Blakely actively resist this an provide an opposing tension in the z-direction. Further Blakely teaches wherein a first thickness of is less than or equal to a second thickness (Fig. 7B).
Regarding claims 13-15, the teachings of Blakely in view of Iafrate are as shown above. Blakely further teaches wherein the adhesive film composition applied to the first portion is polyurethane. Blakely fails to teach if the polyurethane used is thermoplastic, thermoset or elastomeric, the three types generally considered to be the three known groupings of polymers. However, polyurethane is available in all three forms. Therefore, given a limited number of possibilities for what class of material the composition of Blakely could be, it would have been “obvious to try” for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attempted to use any of the types of polyurethane known including thermoplastic polyurethane wherein all types would be expected to function in a predictable way with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Blakely further teaches wherein the surface treatment composition may comprise a heat conductive material, which would have the ability to remove heat from the body effectively cooling it (paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 17, Blakely further teaches wherein the surface treatment composition may comprise a heat-reflective material (paragraph 35).
Regarding claims 18, Blakely teaches forming an adhesive coating on a patterned textile material in knit fabric (paragraph 28) by tensioning (col. 5, lines 37-48) the material on a roto-gravure coating press (Fig. 4B for example). Blakely fails to teach the direction in which the tension takes place. However, Blakely fails to teach that the tension takes place in multiple directions. Blakely simply states that the textile is “under tension”. However, given a limited number of possibilities (i.e., combinations of x, y and z directions for tensioning) it is the position of the examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tension the fabric in any combination of directions wherein all would provide predictable outcomes and would be reasonably expected to function. Further it should be noted that Iafrate art as cited above is cited within the Blakely art (col. 5, line 47). In the Iafrate art, which is described by Blakely as an “exemplary” example of the process of Blakely, Iafrate teaches that although tension in this gravure type coating system is desirable, it can cause “buckling in the crossweb direction”. Therefore Iafrate further evidences that there would be known benefit to multi directional tensioning, wherein those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that crossweb tension would aid in preventing crossweb buckling. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a cross tension in order to reduce the effects of “buckling” as described by Iafrate. Further it should be noted that technically speaking the ends of the rolls 430A and 430B in Blakely provide an outward tension to the fabric rolled because due to the tension in the y-direction in Fig. 4B, would be a natural tendency of the fabric to want to compress in the z-direction, wherein the rollers of Blakely actively resist this an provide an opposing tension in the z-direction. Further Blakely teaches wherein a first thickness of is less than or equal to a second thickness (Fig. 7B). Blakely in view of Iafrate fails to teach wherein the first portions are circumscribed by the section portions. Blakely is set as the general opposite of this with the second portions are circumscribed by the first portions. However, Blakely teaches that the adhesive pattern may be applied generally in “any pattern suitable for its described purpose” (see paragraph 37). Any such generally any pattern of depositing the adhesive that does not provide some unexpected result is generally envisaged by Blakely as a matter of aesthetic design change. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). Further this pattern change would be considered mere change in shape of the pattern of Blakely in view of Iafrate wherein the Court has long held that general changes in shape of a prior art product (in this case the deposition pattern) are incapable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the prior art provided pattern’s shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 19-20, the teachings of Blakely in view of Iafrate are as shown above. Blakely further teaches wherein the adhesive film composition applied to the first portion is polyurethane. Blakely fails to teach if the polyurethane used is thermoplastic, thermoset or elastomeric, the three types generally considered to be the three known groupings of polymers. However, polyurethane is available in all three forms. Therefore, given a limited number of possibilities for what class of material the composition of Blakely could be, it would have been “obvious to try” for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attempted to use any of the types of polyurethane known including thermoplastic polyurethane wherein all types would be expected to function in a predictable way with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the prior art combination does not teach 1) the formation of a circumscribed first portion by a second portion and 2) wherein the tension may be applied in a plurality of directions including the x and y directions. As to the first point, this claim limitation is newly provided and the current rejection was modified in relation to it. As to the second point, the examiner maintains that Blakely merely teaches that the product is “under tension” but is not explicit as to the type of tension. However, one viewing figure 4A would assume at least some linear (y-direction) tension pulling the web through the rollers, some compression in the (z-direction) from the rollers and likely some tension in the x-direction from the y-direction tension described by the Poisson effect wherein a stretched object has a tendency to narrow in the middle to compensate. Further x-direction tension would presumably be provided by the roller as well, keeping the fabric widely pressed as it passes through the set of rollers. As such, the tension described is present. However, nonetheless, if one could not ascertain this from the figures it can be said that because Blakely mentions the use of tension in general, tension in the x and y directions in particular would reasonably be envisaged by one reading Blakely and combinations of that would be obvious as stated in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights