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 .
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 19-20 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.
By amendment, there is now a discrepancy between claim 1 (requiring adhesive directly applied to fabric and aqueous composition directly applied to adhesive) and claims 19-20 (requiring aqueous composition directly applied to fabric).
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(s) 1-7, 9-17, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (US 2020/0216632) in view of Rubin (US 6492001 B1).
Claims 1-12:
Nair teaches a method for making a fabric [0142] having an opacifying element [0129]. The fabric can be surface treated [0149] (a type of finishing) and coated with an opacifying element [0129] (another type of finishing). The result is a finished fabric where each side either has the surface treatment finish or the opacifying element finish. The finished fabric is further coated with a functional composition and this functional composition [0153-0183] is identical to the claimed non-foamed aqueous composition. The only difference is that Nair does not explicitly state the functional composition is non-foamed. Rather, Nair states “In some embodiments, the functional composition formulation can be foamed” [0153]. The implication here, understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is that the functional composition formulation can also be non-foamed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Nair using a functional composition formulation that is not foamed.
Nair does not teach an adhesive composition applied to the finished fabric prior to the non-foamed aqueous composition.
However, Rubin teaches a method for forming a treated textile fabric where the fabric is finished by a treating process (3:6), and the finished fabric has a suitable liquid adhesive applied (6:67) followed by a polymeric film (6:16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Nair and include an adhesive composition between the finished fabric and non-foamed aqueous composition. Rubin establishes this is a suitable approach for forming a treated textile fabric and the adhesive would have necessarily improved adhesion between fabric and subsequent coated layers.
Claims 13-14:
The fabric is a woven fiberglass [0142].
Claim 15:
Forming images on surfaces of the fabric and/or coated fabric [0206-0208].
Claim 16:
Rubin teaches the treatment is water repellency (5:58).
Claims 17, 19-20:
The functional composition can be sprayed [0197]. It would have been obvious to apply the composition to both sides of the fabric in order to realize the benefits [0156] on both sides of the fabric.
Claim 21:
Rubin teaches acrylic adhesives (7:2). Acrylic used in this way refers to PMMA, a polymer of acrylic esters.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (US 2020/0216632) in view of Rubin (US 6492001 B1) in view of Kukoff (US 2750300).
Nair does not teach applying an adhesive over the resulting fabric article. However, it would have been obvious to apply an adhesive in order to attach decorative and/or functional elements to the fabric. For example, Kukoff teaches a method for applying an adhesive to a fabric in order to attach glitter discs for a decorative effect (col. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Nair and further apply and adhesive to attach decorative and/or functional elements to the fabric.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/13/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of co-filed claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further search.
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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights