DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the punction at the end of each step is inconsistent and “and” should be at the end of line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a space between “textile” and the comma in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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 “evacuating the mist.” However, the claim does not require any mist to have been provided within the space. The claim requires nozzles capable of creating a mist, but there is no positively recited step of creating a mist.
Claim 1 states “a drying cyclus cycle.” This phrase cannot be understood. It is assumed to state “a drying cycle.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation "an inner support" (three instances). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear if they refer to the inner support recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “wherein preceding the step of creating a mist.” However, claim 4, nor claim 1 from which it depends, recites a step of creating a mist.
Claim 4 recites “a second filter unit,” but a first filter unit is not recited in the claims. It is unclear whether a first filter unit was inadvertently omitted from the claims.
In claim 6 the agent requires "the remainder up to 100% deionized water." Since other compounds are recited in the agent, the remainder cannot be 100%. It is not clear that 100% deionized water is an alternate formulation or that the clause should state "the remainder deionized water;" the later of which is assumed.
Remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 20050223502 by Kleker.
As to claim 1, Kleker discloses a method of treating a garment, the method comprising hanging the garment onto an inner support (hanger 43, fig. 1); providing an outer surface (walls 12a-f) spaced form the inner support and the garment; providing a plurality of nozzles (in arms 42) capable of creating a mist of impregnating agent in the space created by the inner support and the outer surface, where the mist is circulated in the space; evacuating the mist from the space after a predetermined period of time (using blower 100, para. 44); and activating a drying cycle (para. 33).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20050223502 by Klecker in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 20060278669 by Redlin.
As to claim 3, Kleker teaches an inner support embodied as a hanger, but does not teach that the inner support is a mannequin. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to embody the hanger of Klecker as a mannequin. Redlin teaches that a mannequin allows for stretching of garments for good drying and smoothing (abstract; paras. 1-2, 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to support a garment on a mannequin to provide for smoothing of the garment, as taught by Redlin. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 5, Redlin teaches that its mannequin is inflatable (abstract) and it may be inflated prior to supporting a garment (para. 34).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20050223502 by Kleker in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
20030126691 by Gerlach et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160102424 by Bush et al.
As to claim 4, Kleker teaches a further set of nozzles (additional nozzles 42, fig. 1) to issue a cleaning agent towards a garment (e.g. during a wash cycle) preceding a step of creating a mist of impregnating agent (e.g. steam), and after a predetermined time the cleaning agent is removed from the garment (during rinsing) (para. 33).
Kleker does not teach specifics of its cleaning agent, and thus does not teach that it comprises the claimed compositions. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to use the claimed compositions as they were all known in the art as components of cleaning agents and would have had expected results commensurate with their established use in the art (see Bush, paras. 59, 61).
Kleker does not teach a filter unit for collecting polluted remains. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of a filter is well-known in the art for its intended purpose. For example, Gerlach teaches a garment treating apparatus with a filter to absorb fugitive chemicals, perfumes, and malodorous compounds before they are emitted to an exterior of the apparatus (para. 106). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the apparatus taught by Kleker to have a filter unit for this advantageous benefit.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 20050223502 by Kleker in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
20210162091 by Swamy et al.
As to claim 6, Kleker does not teach a particular composition of an impregnating agent. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have an agent with the claimed composition. Swamy teaches agents having aqueous C6-fluorocarbon, a binder, ethanol, and water (paras. 360, 401, 575). While Swamy does not explicitly teach the claimed proportions and combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the teachings of Swamy that each compound would perform as expected when used in an impregnating agent in the claimed ranges. Furthermore, binders, solvents, and DI water were well-known and common in the art as compounds in agents for garment treating. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach the claimed electrically conducting surfaces and using an electrostatic field direct an impregnating agent towards the inner support. While it is well known to use electrostatic nozzles, the presently claimed structure has a different mode of operation. The prior art of record has not identified electrically conducting surfaces for the stated purposes in a garment or textile apparatus of the type presently disclosed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711