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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 07 February 2024 was received on 25 March 2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 February 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04 February 2025 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (US PGPub 2024/0017548 A1), hereinafter Okada.
With regard to Claim 1, Okada discloses a processing device that performs texture processing treatment on a printed fabric (Figs. 3-5; Abstract), comprising:
an abutting portion including a plurality of protruding portions that abut on the fabric (¶0081-0084, Fig. 3, protrusions 362; Fabric 100; Fig. 5, protrusions 912; ¶0143); and
a vibration applying unit configured to apply vibration to the abutting portion (¶0078; vibration application section 3; vibration application section 9; Figs. 4-6; ¶0142-0146), wherein
the abutting portion includes a first abutting portion and a second abutting portion disposed with the fabric interposed therebetween (Fig. 3, protrusions 362 as shown; Figs. 4-6, protrusions 912),
the vibration applying unit includes a first driving unit that applies vibration to the first abutting portion and a second driving unit that applies vibration to the second abutting portion (Fig. 3; pair of vibration generation sources 32; ¶0078; Figs. 4-6; motor pair 92 and cams 922; ¶0144-0145), and
a waveform of the vibration applied to the first abutting portion by the first driving unit and a waveform of the vibration applied to the second abutting portion by the second driving unit are opposite in phase (¶0144-0145, ¶0152).
Although, Okada does not explicitly disclose the term “opposite in phase”, Okada describes where the phase difference may be set between the rotations of one of the cams 922 and the other cam 922, in order to appropriately set the vibration pattern and the vibration characteristics of the vibration to be applied to the fabric 100 (¶0151). Okada further discloses where the present example, it is preferable that each of the cams are in the same phase, however the present disclosure is not limited to this configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the phase difference to “opposite” in the cams, in order to appropriately set the vibration pattern and the vibration characteristics of the vibration to be applied to the fabric 100, as taught by Okada (¶0151).
With regard to Claim 4, Okada further discloses wherein the first driving unit (Figs. 3-5; 92/922); and the second driving unit (Figs. 3-5; 92/922) are disposed side by side (Figs. 3-5; 92/922 next to one another as shown) in a horizontal direction so as to face each other (Figs. 3-5; 92/922, facing one another as shown).
With regard to Claim 5, Okada discloses a printing apparatus (Fig. 1; ¶0003-0006), comprising: the processing device according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above); and a printing unit configured to perform printing on the fabric (¶0011; ¶0110; Fig. 1), and further comprising: when the processing device including the first abutting portion and the second abutting portion is defined as a first processing device (Fig. 1; section 3; Fig. 4; section 9), however does not explicitly disclose a second processing device disposed downstream of the first processing device in a transport direction of the fabric, wherein the second processing device includes a third abutting portion and a fourth abutting portion disposed with the fabric interposed therebetween.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the processing device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ.
With regard to Claim 6, Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein a shape of the protruding portion provided at the first abutting portion and the second abutting portion is different from a shape of the protruding portion provided at the third abutting portion and the fourth abutting portion.
However, Okada discloses wherein the protrusion can be rigid and columnar and may any configuration, for example, spherical, conical, or plate-shaped and the protrusions can be shaped differently and of different materials (¶0081-0082, 0087-0089).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select different shapes for the protrusions, in order process the fabric at different bending angles, in order to make the texture more favorable, as taught by Okada (¶0087-0097).
Claims 2-3 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada¸ in view of Supron et al. (US PGPub 2011/0259163 A1), hereinafter Supron.
With regard to Claim 2, Okada does not explicitly disclose wherein the first driving unit and the second driving unit include a scotch yoke mechanism.
The secondary reference of Supron discloses the use of a scotch yoke mechanism as a driving unit (¶0029, scotch yoke as a substitute for cam/cams mechanisms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scotch yoke mechanism of Supron, with the driving units of Okada, as a matter of design choice known in the art, as taught by Supron (¶0029).
With regard to Claim 3, Okada further discloses wherein The first driving unit and the second driving unit synchronously operate (¶0144-0145, 0151-0152; controller operates the cams).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights