Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2 Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites the limitation “A method of direct to garment printing” . This limitation should be “A method of direct printing garment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3 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 18 contains the trademark/trade name “CMYK”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe (1) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4 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.
5 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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew et al. (US 20190127909 A1).
Andrew et al. (US’ 909 A1) teaches an aqueous solution for the treatment of polyester fabrics comprising 5% to 35% by wt., of at least one multivalent cationic salt include calcim nitrate and calcium chloride as claimed in claims 1-3 (see claims 29-32), 0.1% to 5% by weight of a blocked polyisocyanate crosslinking agents include blocked di-polyisocyanate and blocked tri-polyisocyanate as claimed in claims 1 and 4 (see claims 29 and 34) and 3% to 40% of waterborne resin include acrylic resin of vinyl acrylic (vinyl acrylate) emulsion as claimed in claims 1 and 5 (see claims 29 and claim 41), wherein the aqueous solution also comprises acetic acid in the amount of 0.01% to 1% by weight as claimed in claims 1 and 7 (see page 2, paragraphs, 0027-0028), wherein the aqueous solution also comprises organic solvents and humectants include propylene glycol methyl ether and ethylene glycol in the amount of 0.1% to 1% as claimed in claims 9-11 (see page 2, paragraphs, 0023-0026) and finishing agents include fragrances and biocides as claimed in claim 12 (see page 2, paragraphs, 0027-0028).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Andrew et al. (US’ 909 A1) by reciting a pretreatment aqueous solution for treating fabric comprising specific percentage weights of the claimed ingredients.
However, Andrew et al. (US’ 909 A1) teaches a pretreatment aqueous solution for fabric comprising the claimed ingredients in the amounts that overlapped with the claimed percentage ranges.
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Andrew et al. (US’ 909 A1) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amounts of the ingredients in the aqueous solution of Andrew et al. (US’ 909 A1) in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these ingredients in the aqueous solution, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such an aqueous solution to have similar property and similar result to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
6 Claims 6 and 13-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record (US 20190127909 A1) does not teach or disclose a pretreatment solution comprising an acrylic polymer comprising methyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate and ethylhexyl acrylate monomers in the weight percents as claimed. The closest prior art of record (US’ 909 A1) also does not teach or disclose a method of direct printing garment comprising the claimed steps of dispersing a pretreatment solution onto a first portion of a fabric, curing the pretreated first portion, printing an image on a first fraction of the cured pretreated fabric and curing the printed image to provide a cured printed image of the first fraction of the cured pretreated fabric as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571)272-2817. 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights