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.
Claim 34 is 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 34 recites the limitation "the first side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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) 15-24 and 26-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman, Jr. et al. (US6484629) (hereinafter, Hoffman) in view of Wall (US 3677538). Regarding claim 15, Hoffman discloses a “printing machine (Figure 1), comprising a printing plate (item 16) and a device for detaching a textile from the printing plate (Figure 3), the device comprising: a lifting device (Figure 3) which comprises a gripper for gripping a first end of the textile (item 15), and a first movement axis for lifting the gripper (column 4, lines 29-30).” Hoffman fails to disclose “a detachment slider, which can be inserted, via a second movement axis, between the at least one printing plate and the first end of the textile, lifted by the lifting device, in order to detach the textile from the at least one printing plate.” However, Hoffman does disclose that the textile is adhered to the platen with an adhesive (column 1, lines 45-46) and can be quite attached to the platen because of the pressures of printing (column 4, lines 53-58). Wall discloses that when printing textiles, the textiles are adhered to a surface with an adhesive (column 1, lines 4-9) and further discloses an automatic method of removing the textiles from the surface (column 1, lines 23-24) which uses an adhesion breaker mechanism (column 1, lines 50-51). It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the adhesion breaking mechanism of Wall in the printing machine of Hoffman: in order to have an automatic method of removing the textile from the surface to which it is adhered with an adhesive; and/or because it has been shown in the art to be a suitable means for separating a textile from a surface to which it is adhered with an adhesive. The detachment mechanism of Wall includes a detachment slider (item 30), which can be inserted, via a second movement axis (the horizontal axis of Figure 1), between the at least one printing plate and the first end of the textile in order to detach the textile from the at least one printing plate (Figure 1). Regarding claim 16, Hoffman further discloses a “method for operating a printing machine according to claim 15, comprising the steps of: - applying a textile to the at least one printing plate (column 1, lines 40-46); - printing the textile using the printing machine (column 1, line 40, column 4, line 53); - gripping the first side of the textile using the gripper (column 4, lines 8-10) - lifting the first side of the textile by moving the gripper by means of the first movement axis (column 4, lines 49-50).” Wall discloses “inserting the detachment slider, via the second movement axis, between the at least one printing plate and the first end of the textile (paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2).” Regarding the remaining limitations “lifted by the lifting device, and detaching the textile from the at least one printing plate,” since the purpose of the mechanism of Wall is to break the adhesion via a wedging action between the article and the adhesive coating (sentence bridging columns 1 and 2), and since Hoffman discloses grabbing the edges to lift the article (column 5, lines 7-8 and 39-42), logic would dictate that the blade of Wall should be implemented after the edges are lifted in order to maximize the amount of adhesion breaking imparted by the blade. Thus, upon carrying out the modification, the blade would be inserted after the edge has been lifted by the lifting device, and then the rest of the detachment process carried out. Regarding claim 17, Hoffman further discloses “wherein the printing is by direct printing and/or screen printing and/or using a plurality of colours (column 1, lines 11-12).” Regarding claim 18, Hoffman further discloses “wherein the operation of the device for detaching a textile takes place automatically (title).” Regarding claim 19, Wall further discloses “returning the detachment slider via the second movement axis (column 2, lines 1-6).”
Regarding claim 20, Hoffman further discloses “wherein the gripper is a mechanical gripper having two clamping elements, between which the first end of the textile can be clamped (Figure 3).” Regarding claim 21, Wall further discloses “wherein the detachment slider comprises a thrust plate which is linearly displaceable via a telescopic rail structure (column 1, lines 59-61, Figure 1).” Regarding claim 22, Wall further discloses “wherein a front edge of the detachment slider comprises a chamfer, in order to lift and detach the textile (Figure 1: Examiner interprets the slanted edge of the blade of Wall to be a chamfer).” Regarding claim 23, Hoffman further discloses “the device comprising a size adjustment means by which a position of the lifting device can be adjusted to a position of a first end of the textile (column 4, lines 19-27).” Regarding claim 24, Hoffman further discloses “wherein the position of the lifting device on a carrier arm which carries a bearing of the detachment slider is adjustable by the size adjustment means (column 4, lines 19-27).” Regarding claim 26, Hoffman further discloses “wherein the size adjustment means allows for a manual specification of the position of the lifting device via a separate input element or a control panel (column 6, lines 3-9).” Regarding claim 27, Hoffman further discloses “wherein the gripper comprises a gripping actuator, via which it is operated (column 4, lines 1-9).” Regarding claim 28, Hoffman further discloses “further comprising a controller which controls actuators of the gripper and/or of the first and/or second movement axis automatically, wherein the controller comprises an interface for coupling to the controller of the printing machine and/or of a device for handling printing plates having textiles applied thereto (column 6, lines 6-13).”
Regarding claim 29, Hoffman, as modified, further discloses “wherein the controller is configured to carry out the following method: - gripping the first side of the textile using the gripper (column 4, lines 7-8 of Hoffman); - lifting the first side of the textile by moving the gripper by means of the first movement axis (column 4, lines 38-41 of Hoffman); - inserting the detachment slider, via a second movement axis, between the at least one printing plate and a first end of the textile (paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2 of Wall).” and 38-41 Regarding the remaining limitations “lifted by the lifting device, and detaching the textile from the at least one printing plate,” since the purpose of the mechanism of Wall is to break the adhesion via a wedging action between the article and the adhesive coating (sentence bridging columns 1 and 2), and since Hoffman discloses grabbing the edges to lift the article (column 5, lines 7-8 and 39-42), logic would dictate that the blade of Wall should be implemented after the edges are lifted in order to maximize the amount of adhesion breaking imparted by the blade. Thus, upon carrying out the modification, the blade would be inserted after the edge has been lifted by the lifting device, and then the rest of the detachment process carried out. Regarding claim 30, Hoffman further discloses “wherein the printing machine is a screen printing machine using a plurality of colours (column 3, line 42: multiple printing stations is interpreted by Examiner to be multiple colors).” Regarding claim 31, Hoffman further discloses “wherein the position of the lifting device is adjustable in a direction in parallel with an extension direction of the second movement axis of the detachment slider (Figures 3-6).”
Regarding claim 32, Hoffman further discloses “further comprising at least one printing station and a device for handling the at least one printing plate of the printing machine, wherein the device for handling the at least one printing plate comprises a movement axis via which the at least one printing plate can be moved into a region of the device for detaching a textile from the printing plate, wherein the at least one printing plate can be moved by the device for handling to the at least one printing station (column 3, lines 30-44, Figure 1).” Regarding claims 33 and 35, since Hoffman is modified with Wall in order to break the adhesion of the textile from the plate, and since the entire length of the textile is adhered to the plate with adhesive, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that using the slider along the entire length would facilitate the breaking of the adhesion along the entire area of adhesion of the textile. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would configure the system and method such that the movement of the detachment slider via the second movement axis completely detaches the textile from an adhesive film provided on the at least one printing plate in order to facilitate breaking of the adhesion along the entire area of adhesion of the textile. Regarding claims 34 and 36, Hoffman further discloses “wherein the textile is a T-shirt (item 20, column 1, lines 16-18) having a lower opening at the first side (this is an implicit feature of a T-shirt), wherein the printing machine is configured for printing the textile with the textile pulled on to the printing plate by the lower opening and thus surrounding said printing plate (see the configuration shown in Figure 1).” Hoffman fails to specifically disclose “the detachment slider being configured to be pushed into said lower opening.” However, the slider in the proposed modification of Hoffman must be pushed in from at least one of the two ends of the T-shirt. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2143(I). In this instance, there are only two sides from which one having ordinary skill in the art could choose to push the slider into between the T-shirt and the plate. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would certainly expect that pushing the slider into the lower opening would aid in breaking the adhesion of the T-shirt from the plate. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to push the detachment slider into the lower opening in order to break the adhesion of the T-shirt from the plate because choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions has been held to be prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman. and Wall, further in view of Mano et al. (US 2023/0150276) Regarding claim 25, Hoffman, as modified, discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 23 above, except “wherein the size adjustment means comprises a sensor which acquires the position of the first end of the textile, and a controller which adjusts the position of the lifting device, on the basis of data of the sensor, to the position of the first end of the textile.” However, Mano et al. disclose providing sensors to detect the edges/position of a garment on a printing platen in order to ensure the garment is placed properly on the platen (paragraph 5) by adjusting the grippers (paragraph 14) via a controller (paragraph 15). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use an adjustment system like that of Mano et al. in the modified apparatus of Hoffman in order to ensure that the textile is placed properly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are based on the assumption that the platen of Hoffman has notches. However, as shown by Figures 2E and 2F, notches are not required. Thus, Examiner maintains that modification of Hoffman in accordance with Wall would be obvious in order to separate the textile from the surface to which it is adhered.
To the extent that Applicant’s arguments can be construed as arguing that Hoffman and Wall are not combinable, the rejection relies only on the teaching of Wall that a blade being inserted between a textile which is attached to a surface via adhesive breaks the adhesion. This teaching is clearly applicable to Hoffman as it is the same scenario which is present in Hoffman: a textile is attached to a surface using adhesive, the adhesion resulting in the textile being “quite attached” to the platen, and the contact between the two needing to be broken (column 4, lines 53-58).
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 JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights