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 Invention I, drawn to a method of making a fabric article, in the reply filed on 02/22/2026 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)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/06/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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.
Claims 5, 8, 11, 17-19 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 5 recites “the steps of forming…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the size of the rigid support”. It is unclear which rigid support the Applicant wants to refer to as there are two rigid supports.
Claim 11 recites “the rigid support” in line 3. It is unclear which rigid support the Applicant wants to refer to as there are two rigid supports.
Claim 17 recites “the first support” in line 1. It is unclear “the first support” is the same or different from “the first rigid support” in claim 7. For the purpose of applying art, “the first support” is interpreted as the first rigid support.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linkous (US 6868626).
Regarding claim 1, Linkous teaches a method for needlepoint finishing comprising:
a/ trimming a canvas (column 4, lines 44-46, the edge of the needlework fabric is trimmed) completed with a needlepoint stitched design leaving an edge portion spaced from a stitched area of the canvas to leave an unstitched area around at least a portion of a periphery of the canvas (figs. 2, 4-5);
b/ cutting a non-paper based rigid support to a desired size (column 4, lines 21-23, cutting the support (see fig. 14) to a desired size; column 8, lines 41-43, the support comprising plastic sheets 224, and as shown in fig. 14, the support comprising a rigid plastic panel 226);
c/ placing unstitched edges of the canvas around itself or around edges of the rigid support (figs. 2 and 8b);
d/ wrapping a fabric (column 9, lines 30-32, the two piece frame is covered with fabric) composed of softer material than the rigid support around the support (the fabric is softer than the rigid plastic) and;
e/ attaching the fabric to one or both of the rigid support or the canvas (figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Linkous teaches positioning a padding (fig. 14, foam 222) of softer material than the rigid support between the stitched area of the canvas and the rigid support to capture the padding between the stitched area of the canvas and the rigid support (figs. 2, 8b).
Regarding claim 3, Linkous teaches the size of the rigid support is less than a size of the canvas (figs. 2 and 8b).
Regarding claim 5, Linkous teaches the steps of forming at least one cutout in the rigid support (fig. 6a, fasteners 28, or fig. 6b, fasteners 90 make at least one cutout in the plastic sheet) and placing a grommet in the at least one cutout to reinforce the at least one cutout (column 5, lines 28-31, fasteners are framer’s points, screws, turn buttons, nails), the at least one cutout enabling the fabric and canvas to be placed in apposition.
Regarding claim 6, Linkous teaches the rigid support is composed of a substantially non-absorbent material (a plastic sheet) to limit retention of moisture and degradation of integrity of the rigid support and stitched canvas.
Regarding claim 7, Linkous teaches a method for needlepoint finishing comprising:
a/ trimming a canvas (column 4, lines 44-46, the edge of the needlework fabric is trimmed) completed with a needlepoint stitched design leaving an edge portion spaced from a stitched area of the canvas to leave an unstitched area around at least a portion of a periphery of the canvas (figs. 2, 4-5);
b/ cutting a non-paper based first rigid support to a desired size (column 4, lines 21-23, cutting the support (see fig. 14) to a desired size; column 8, lines 41-43, the support comprising plastic sheets 224, and as shown in fig. 14, the support comprising a rigid plastic panel 226);
c/ wrapping the canvas around at least edges of the first rigid support to form a first multilayered piece comprising the canvas and first rigid support (figs. 2 and 8b);
d/ wrapping a fabric (column 9, lines 30-32, the two piece frame is covered with fabric) around a second rigid support (column 8, lines 54-57, a second piece of the frame or a backing member, which is comprised of wood, plastic, metal, or heavy rubber); to form a second multilayered piece comprising the fabric and second rigid support, the fabric composed of softer material than the first rigid support (the fabric is softer than the rigid plastic);
e/ placing the first and second multilayered pieces in apposition (fig. 2); and
f/ attaching the first and second multi-layered pieces such that the first and second rigid supports restrict bending of the canvas (figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Linkous the size of the rigid support is less than a size of the canvas (figs. 2 and 8b), and further comprising one or both of a/ a first padding (fig. 14, foam 222) positioned in the first multilayered piece between the first rigid support and canvas and b/ a second padding positioned in the second multilayered piece between the second rigid support and fabric.
Regarding claim 10, Linkous teaches the first and second rigid supports are of different thicknesses and/or different sizes (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Linkous teaches one or both of the first and second rigid supports are composed of a substantially non-absorbent material (the first rigid support is a plastic sheet, the second rigid support is wood, plastic, metal or heavy rubber) to limit retention of moisture and degradation of integrity of the rigid support and stitched canvas.
Regarding claim 13, Linkous teaches attaching a second rigid support (column 8, lines 54-57, a second piece of the frame or a backing member, which is comprised of wood, plastic, metal, or heavy rubber) having one or both of a/ a different thickness than a thickness of the non-paper based rigid support or b/ a different size than a size of the non-paper based rigid support (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Linkous teaches the canvas is trimmed (column 4, line 45; column 4, lines 37-column 5, line 4) or the rigid support is cut so their contours substantially correspond (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Linkous teaches the trimmed canvas has an asymmetric shape (figs. 9-11).
Regarding claim 17, Linkous teaches the first support has at least one cutout (fig. 6a, fasteners 28, or fig. 6b, fasteners 90 make at least one cutout in the plastic sheet) to enable the fabric and canvas to be placed in apposition and a grommet (column 5, lines 28-31, fasteners are framer’s points, screws, turn buttons, nails) is positioned in the at least one cutout.
Regarding claim 19, Linkous teaches the grommet is attached to the canvas ad fabric (figs. 6a, 6b).
Regarding claim 20, Linkous teaches a second support stacked with the non-paper based rigid support (fig. 14, plastic panel 226 or another layer of plastic sheet 224).
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linkous (US 6868626), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Kronenberger (US 2006/0143790).
Regarding claim 4, Linkous does not teach attaching a cording positioned to hide a region where the fabric and canvas are joined.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kronenberger teaches a cording positioned to hide a region where the fabric and design are joined (figs. 2-3, para. [0060], thread 26 is wrapped/embroidered around the perimeter edge 24 of a design 16; and the substrate layer 14 is fabric).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Linkous with attaching a cording positioned to hide a region where the fabric and canvas are joined as taught by Kronenberger for the benefit of providing aesthetically pleasing features to the artwork.
Regarding claim 9, Linkous does not teach attaching a cording positioned to hide a region where the fabric and canvas are joined.
However, Kronenberger teaches a cording positioned to hide a region where the fabric and design are joined (figs. 2-3, para. [0060], thread 26 is wrapped/embroidered around the perimeter edge 24 of a design 16; and the substrate layer 14 is fabric).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Linkous with attaching a cording positioned to hide a region where the fabric and canvas are joined as taught by Kronenberger for the benefit of providing aesthetically pleasing features to the artwork.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linkous (US 6868626), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Smelcer (US 2018/0093196).
Regarding claim 18, Linkous does not teach inserting a ribbon through the grommet.
However, Smelcer teaches a ribbon through the grommet (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Linkous with a ribbon through the grommet as taught by Smelcer for the benefit of holding, carrying or suspending during using or storage (Smelcer, para. [0038]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 10-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12584254. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, for instance, the difference between the patented claim 1 and the instant claim 1 are minor and obvious from each other. The instant claim 1 is a broader version of the patented claim (i.e. the instant claim 1 does not include the limitations “securing a first magnet in or on the rigid support” as in the patented claim 1). Therefore, the patented claim 1 would read on the instant claim 1. Furthermore, in the instant claim 1, the claimed limitations can be found in the patented claim 1. Any infringement over the patented claim 1 would also infringe over the instant claim 1. Hence, the instant claim does not differ from the scope of the patented claim 1.
For the same reason, claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12584254.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12584254.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12584254.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12584254.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12584254.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732