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 CLAIMS 1-16 in the reply filed on 16 January 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 § 818.03(a)). Claims 17-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected INVENTION, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 June 2024 and 20 October 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 19 April 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation "at least one loading path" and “the loading paths” in Lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “at least one loading path”, and then Claim 8 which is dependent on Claim 1 recites the narrower statement “the loading paths” of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the loading paths” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner for purposes of examination interprets this claim as “at least one loading path” in correlation with Claim 1.
Claims 2-16 are rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
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 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno et al. (US PGPub 2021/0198063 A1), hereinafter Mizuno.
With regard to Claim 1, Mizuno discloses a loading and printing system (¶0022; 0049) for textile printing (¶0049), using pallets to carry textile from a loading station to a printing area (Figs. 1-2; platen 50; Abstract; ¶0003), the system comprising:
at least one loading path including at least one loading station (Fig. 1; ¶0049, where operator attaches the cloth P to the attachment plate 56);
at least one printing path (Fig. 1; see arrows), the printing path associated with at least one printing functional unit for carrying out a printing function on the textile (¶0047-0049; 0022-0025), the loading paths thereby to provide loaded pallets to the printing path as needed (Fig. 1; ¶0087; abstract).
With regard to Claim 2, Mizuno further discloses wherein said textile printing is garment printing (¶0021).
With regard to Claim 3, Mizuno further discloses a plurality of printing paths (Fig. 1; see arrows; 81-084; 15A-20A; ¶0038-0048), each fed by at least one of the said loading paths (¶0026; Fig. 1; see arrows; 81-84; 15A-20A; ¶0038-0048).
With regard to Claim 4, Mizuno further discloses wherein a respective printing path comprises a plurality of printing functional units (Fig. 1; printing units 15A-20A; 2A; ¶0038-0048).
With regard to Claim 5, Mizuno further discloses a plurality of printing paths, each path introducing a respective delay to carry out a printing function of a respective printing functional unit (Figs. 1, 9; conveyance printing path 15A-20A having separate path and distance between the separate paths provides the delays between the printing functions; ¶0073; Fig. 4, S5-S6; based on the printer to which cloth is to be conveyed, the convey time of the printing function is different due to the distance differences).
With regard to Claim 6, Mizuno further discloses wherein at least some of said respective delays differ (Fig. 9; ¶0073; Fig. 4, S5-S6; based on the printer to which cloth is to be conveyed, the convey time (delays) of the printing function is different due to the distance differences among the printing units).
With regard to Claim 7, Mizuno further discloses wherein different printing paths share printing functional units (Fig. 1; printing units 15A-20A are on branches off of main printing paths 81-84), the shared printing functional units being mounted to move with respect to the printing paths (¶0033, platen support member 60 of each printing functional unit moves with respect to the printing paths).
With regard to Claim 8, Mizuno further discloses wherein the loading paths on the one hand (Fig. 1, left to right direction) and printing paths on the other hand (Fig. 1; front to rear direction) are mutually perpendicular (Fig. 1).
With regard to Claim 9, Mizuno further discloses a controller for sending a respective pallet to a designated sequence of printing paths for load balancing and maximum utilization of the printing paths (¶0078; Fig. 4).
As for the limitation of “for load balancing and maximum utilization of the printing paths”, examiner reminds applicant that “a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
With regard to Claim 10, Mizuno further discloses wherein said designated sequence comprises sending said respective pallet more than once to at least one of said printing paths (Fig. 1; ¶0078; the pallet conveys to a specified printer via printing path lane 81/82, and then to the specific printer path 15A-20A of that printer and back to printing path lane 81/82; ¶0044).
With regard to Claim 11, Mizuno further discloses wherein said at least one path comprises a closed loop (Fig. 1; ¶0044).
With regard to Claim 12, Mizuno further discloses wherein said loading path is configured to receive said pallets in return after printing (Fig. 1; ¶0044, return line 204)
With regard to Claim 13, Mizuno further discloses at least one further unloading path to receive said loaded pallets after printing (Fig. 1; return line 204, 205).
With regard to Claim 14, Mizuno further discloses wherein at least one further unloading path to receive said textile from said printing path after printing (Fig. 1; return line 204, 205; ¶0028; 0044), and wherein said loading path is configured to receive said pallets unloaded after printing (¶0026).
With regard to Claim 15, Mizuno further discloses at least one drier in said unloading path (¶0086, after printing, the post-treatment device to the rear of the printers heats the printed cloth to dry the ink and fix it on the textile).
With regard to Claim 16, Mizuno further discloses wherein a respective loading path comprises at least one printing functional unit (Fig. 1; shipment line 201 and conveyance mechanisms 11, 12, 13, 22 and 23 as well as Lines 81-84 may be considered loading paths, pretreatment device 2a and 2b reside on these paths; ¶0028-0031).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 PM.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853