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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1 (claims 1-14 and 23-25) in the reply filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because at least figures 1-2 and 7-11 contain unsatisfactory reproduction characteristics. Note that the applicant’s drawings comprise improper shading and scanlines which reduces legibility. Additionally, note that every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Within the preamble of claim 1, please replace “Textile processing apparatus” with “A textile processing apparatus”.
Within line 4 of claim 29, please replace “a garment” with “the garment” or “said garment”.
Regarding claim 29, the examiner suggests replacing the dependency statement, “the form pallet of claim 1”, of claim 29 with all of the structure of the form pallet in written-form to prevent confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6, 8-13 and 27-33 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.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant recites, “the form pallet approaches said textile processing apparatus for printing” in lines 4-5 thereof. This recitation is considered indefinite because the form pallet is defined/claimed as a component of the textile processing apparatus. Therefore, it is unclear how the form pallet “approaches” said textile processing apparatus if the form pallet is the textile processing apparatus.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said appendages" in lines 8, 9 and 11 (three occurrences). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, note that phrase, “said appendages” can also be found within claims 6 and 8-10.
Regarding claim 13, the applicant appears to be repeating the claim language previously introduced within amended claim 1. Is the “at least one rounded front contour” of claim 13 the same as the previously introduced “at least a first rounded front contour” within claim 1? If so, the applicant is repeating the same claim limitations.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "said sleeves" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 27-29 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EPPINGER (US 2001/0029657 A1) in view of HOFFMAN, Jr. et al. (US 6,276,274 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, EPPINGER discloses a textile processing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a form pallet (22) for a garment, the form pallet (22) having an inserting direction from which said garment to be placed on said form pallet (22) is positioned in the form pallet (22), and a travel direction (note rotational arrows of figure 1) in which the form pallet approaches said textile processing apparatus for printing, the garment having an upper surface and a lower surface, the form pallet (22) comprising a flat pallet surface (top surface); and mechanical grippers (38, 42; 38, 42) wherein said mechanical grippers are configured for sliding said garment over said form pallet (22) (Figures 1-3). However, EPPINGER fails to disclose the form pallet comprising at least a first rounded front contour facing said inserting direction wherein said first rounded front contour extending on a top of said form pallet and/or a bottom of said form pallet.
HOFFMAN discloses a form pallet (116) comprising at least a first rounded front contour (24; 24A, 24B) (note that each of the ledges 24 have a rounded end that allows for “smooth movement of said garment”) (additionally, the ledges 24 can be considered surrounding the form pallet as shown in figure 11) facing said inserting direction wherein said first rounded front contour extending on a bottom of said form pallet (116) in order to allow the garment to be gripped easier for unloading purposes (Figures 9-11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the form pallet of EPPINGER with one or more rounded front contours/parts facing said insertion direction and surrounding the form pallet, in light of the teachings of HOFFMAN, in order to allow the garment to be gripped easier for unloading purposes.
Regarding claim 28, EPPINGER discloses said sliding being automated (para 0039).
Claims 29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by EPPINGER in view of HOFFMAN for the reasons addressed above. Note that EPPINGER discloses fixing the mechanical grippers (38, 42; 38, 42) onto the garment and automatically sliding the garment onto said form pallet (22) (para 0037-0043).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8-13 and 30-32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, as cited on attached PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that WO 2019/092727 A1, like EPPINGER, discloses a textile processing apparatus comprising grippers (18, 20) that automatically pulls a garment onto a form pallet (12) for printing (Figures 1-7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights