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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 234 words instead of 50 to 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-9 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 phrase “a treatment liquid attachment step of attaching a treatment liquid composition, which contains any specific substance selected from particles containing forcibly emulsified organopolysiloxane and an aliphatic ester, and water” is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrase “specific substance selected from particles” and what follows is meant to be a Markush grouping. Also, the phrase “any specific substance selected from particles containing forcibly emulsified organopolysiloxane and an aliphatic ester, and water” has a few potential meanings. Specifically, is the aliphatic ester a component of the particle, the specific substance, the treatment liquid or is it an option for the specific substance alongside particles of organopolysiloxane? The different possible meanings of the claim and the lack of clarity of the Markush grouping renders the meets and bounds of the claim unclear and indefinite.
In clam 1, the phrase “a treatment liquid attachment step of attaching a treatment liquid composition, which contains any specific substance selected from particles containing forcibly emulsified organopolysiloxane and an aliphatic ester, and water” is being interpreted to not be a Markush grouping and the aliphatic ester is interpreted to be a part of the specific substance and not an option for the particle.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the claim is being indicated as allowable in view of the interpretation that the phrase “a treatment liquid attachment step of attaching a treatment liquid composition, which contains any specific substance selected from particles containing forcibly emulsified organopolysiloxane and an aliphatic ester, and water” is not considered to be a Markush grouping and the aliphatic ester is considered to be a part of the specific substance and not an option for the particle. The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including; a coating liquid attachment step of attaching a coating liquid composition containing anionic resin particles and water to the fabric by an ink jet method, a treatment liquid attachment step of attaching a treatment liquid composition, which contains any specific substance selected from particles containing forcibly emulsified organopolysiloxane and an aliphatic ester, and water, and a time difference from when the coating liquid composition is attached by the coating liquid attachment step to when the treatment liquid composition is attached to a region to which the coating liquid composition is attached by the treatment liquid attachment step is 60 seconds or shorter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamada (US 20240400849 A1), Matsuzaki (US 20190283464 A1), Zhou (WO 2021211138 A1) and Yano (EP 3061618 A1) are cited as having similar steps to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Leslie J Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853