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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corliss et al (US Patent 11,439,195).
With regards to claim 22, Corliss discloses a system comprising:
a fabric joining method and device (Abstract) comprising:
A first section configured to releasably hold a first portion of a fabric item on a surface of the first section (Figure 1A item 144), where the first section comprises a first plurality of sectors, where each sector is configured to apply heat to the first portion of the fabric item (column 5 lines 34 – 37)
A second section configured to releasably hold a second portion of the fabric item on a surface of the second section (Figure 1A item 142), where the second section comprises a second plurality of sectors, where each sector is configured to apply heat to the second portion of the fabric item (column 5 lines 8 – 12)
One or more first actuators coupled to the second section and configured to move the second section toward the first section to fold the second portion of the fabric item onto the first portion of the fabric item and to press the first portion of the fabric item and the second portion of the fabric item together to join the first and second portions of the fabric item (column 4 lines 61 – 63).
A placement apparatus comprising one or more sections configured to releasably hold and place the first portion of the fabric item, the second portion of the fabric item or both, onto the fabric joining device, where the one or more sections are further configured to include a third plurality of sectors, where each sector is configured to selectively apply heat to the first portion of the fabric item, the second portion of the fabric item, another portion of the fabric item, or a combination thereof (Figure 4 item 442, column 11 lines 18 - 28).
While Corliss fail to explicitly disclose that the heat in the first and second section are selectively applied, one of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that in order to reduce energy costs and to avoid damaging the fabric it would selectively apply heat where is needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art made of record does not teach or suggest a fabric joining device and method comprising a spacer positioned with respect to the first section and the second section to support a non-joint region of the first portion of the fabric item, a non-joint region of the second portion of the fabric item or both.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to claims 1 - 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 of May 12, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 with regards to claim 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of Corliss does not teach or suggest a placement apparatus that comprises a plurality of sectors where each sector is configured to selectively apply heat to the first, second or both portion of the fabric items. After further review of the prior art, the Examiner agrees that the portion in the prior art pointed in the previous Office Action does not discuss about the placement apparatus but has recognized that the prior art does discuss this claim limitation in Figure 4 item 442 and column 11 lines 18 - 28.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights