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 I in the reply filed on 12/8/25 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)).
Claim 20 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/8/25.
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 1-19 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “shallow trays”. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the term “shallow” are intended to be.
Claim 7 recites that the flow direction in the second tray is opposite the second direction. However, claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, recites that the flow direction in the second tray is the same as the second direction. It is not clear how both can be true at the same time.
Claim 11 recites that the flow direction in the second tray is opposite the first direction. However, claim 10, from which claim 11 depends, recites that the flow direction in the second tray is the same as the first direction. It is not clear how both can be true at the same time.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sando et al. (US 4,182,140).
Claim 1: Sando teaches a method for treating a length of fabric (Abst.), the method comprising the steps of: providing a chemical bath divided among a plurality of shallow trays (8) positioned on a frame (3) (Fig. 1; 2:7-42); feeding a first end of said fabric over a first roller (7) and into said chemical bath in the first tray (8) (Fig. 1; 2:7-42) wherein guide rolls (10) prevent the cloth from sagging (i.e. claimed keeping said fabric from contacting the tray while the fabric traverses the tray) (2:29-30; Fig. 1); directing the first end of the fabric over a second roller (the next 7 in Fig. 1) and into said chemical bath in a second tray (the next 8 in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1; 2:7-42) wherein guide rolls (10) prevent the cloth from sagging (i.e. claimed keeping said fabric from contacting the tray while the fabric traverses the tray) (2:29-30; Fig. 1); and directing said first end over a third roller (7) (Fig. 1).
Claims 2-6: Sando teaches that the liquid flows down from the tank (9) and into each of the trays (8) (Fig. 1; 2:7-41) and that the fluid then flows out from each tray toward the middle of the apparatus and then the bottom (Fig. 1; 2:7-41). This means that the fluid flows from right to left in the first uppermost tray (i.e. claimed first direction) and from left to right in the second tray (i.e. claimed second direction).
Claims 8-10: Sando teaches that the liquid flows down from the tank (9) and into each of the trays (8) (Fig. 1; 2:7-41). This downward direction is generally perpendicular to the back and forth direction of the fabric.
Claim 15: Sando teaches that each of the trays are in the same space and are fed from the same tank (2:7-41). Thus, it is implicit that the temperature of fluid in each tray is generally the same.
Claim 16: Sando teaches a method for treating a length of fabric (Abst.), comprising the steps of: providing a roll of fabric (4) and a plurality of reactors (A, A’) each including a plurality of trays (7) positioned on a frame (3) (Fig. 5; 2:7-41, 4:53-68); directing the first end of the fabric into the first reactor (Fig. 5), while in the first reactor: feeding a first end of said fabric over a first roller (7) and into said chemical bath in the first tray (8) (Fig. 1; 2:7-42) wherein guide rolls (10) prevent the cloth from sagging (i.e. claimed keeping said fabric from contacting the tray while the fabric traverses the tray) (2:29-30; Fig. 1); directing the first end of the fabric over a second roller (the next 7 in Fig. 1) and into said chemical bath in a second tray (the next 8 in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1; 2:7-42) wherein guide rolls (10) prevent the cloth from sagging (i.e. claimed keeping said fabric from contacting the tray while the fabric traverses the tray) (2:29-30; Fig. 1); directing the fabric over a third roller and into the second reactor (Fig. 5), while in the second reactor: feeding a first end of said fabric over a first roller (7) and into said chemical bath in the first tray (8) (Fig. 1; 2:7-42) wherein guide rolls (10) prevent the cloth from sagging (i.e. claimed keeping said fabric from contacting the tray while the fabric traverses the tray) (2:29-30; Fig. 1); directing the first end of the fabric over a second roller (the next 7 in Fig. 1) and into said chemical bath in a second tray (the next 8 in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1; 2:7-42) wherein guide rolls (10) prevent the cloth from sagging (i.e. claimed keeping said fabric from contacting the tray while the fabric traverses the tray) (2:29-30; Fig. 1); and directing the fabric into a later process (4:53-68).
Claim 17: Sando teaches that each of the trays are in the same space and are fed from the same tank (2:7-41). Thus, it is implicit that the temperature of fluid in each tray is generally the same.
Claim 18: Sando teaches that each of the reactors (A, A’) are the same as the reactor described in example 1 (4:53-68). Accordingly, each tank (9) is supplied with fluid from the same source.
Claim 19: Sando teaches that the later process includes pressing the fabric to remove excess fluid (i.e. claimed drying) (4:53-68).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sando in light of Fisher et al. (US 2021/0372044).
Claim 12: Sando teaches treating the fabric, but does not teach metalizing the fabric. Fisher teaches a process of treating a fabric in baths and explains that the treatment fluid can be used to metalize the fabric (Abst.; ¶¶ 0038-0041). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized the trays of Sando to metalize the fabric as the treatment depending on the desired fabric treatment with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sando in light of Chappell et al. (US 2015/0218748).
Claim 13: Sando fails to teach that the ends of the fabric are joined to make a loop. Chappell teaches a process of treating a fabric in a bath (Abst.) and explains that the ends of the fabric can be joined to form a loop in order to run the process continuously (¶ 0022). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have joined the ends of the fabric in Sando as a loop when it was desired to run the process continuously.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sando in light of Tomibe et al. (US 3,998,585).
Claim 14: Sando fails to teach a particular flow regime. Tomibe teaches a method of treating fabric in a bath and explains that the fluid is in a laminar flow in order to more uniformly treat the fabric (3:28-41). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a laminar flow in Sando in order to have treated the fabric uniformly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712