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 § 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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2007/0226919 to Mheidle in view of “Digital Denim Is a Pretty Good Match for the Real Thing, Experts Say,” to Oleniacz.
Regarding Claim 11-12, 14-15 and 19
Mheidle teaches an indigo-free fabric comprising piezo ink-jet printed patterns on at least 70% of cellulose fibers containing hydroxyl groups substituted with a moiety of a chromogen originating from a reactive dye linked by a linker to the oxygen of the hydroxyl group (Mheidle, abstract, paragraph [0057], [0133]-[0176], [0255]).
Mheidle does not appear to teach that a region of the front and back sides of the fabric have parallel straight lines with the visual appearance of a front and back side of denim. However, Oleniacz teaches ink jet printing on cotton fabric to replicate the pattern and appearance of denim fabric resulting in a less labor-intensive and less wasteful method of making jean products (Oleniacz, pages 1-3). Oleniacz teaches that the pattern is printed on fabric having the same weight and texture as traditional jeans (Id.). Traditional denim utilizes a twill weave to achieve this texture which necessarily meets the limitations of a woven fabric with a diagonal rib. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the conventional inkjet printed fabric of Mheidle in the form and appearance of denim such as denim jeans, motivated by the desire to form a conventional inkjet printed cellulose fabric for popular applications such as denim and which reduces waste and labor compared to traditionally dyed materials.
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the distance between adjacent lines, width of said lines or the angle at which they are printed. However, this is an aesthetic design choice having no mechanical function, it would have been obvious to form the lines of the denim pattern with the claimed size, spacing and angle, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific pattern solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with an alternatively designed denim pattern. Matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04(I)).
Claim(s) 33-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mheidle in view of Oleniacz as applied to claims 11-12, 14-15 and 19 above in view of KR-10-2018-0039536 to Kim.
Regarding Claims 33-39
The prior art combination does not appear to teach printing a backside prior to the front side. However, Kim teaches digital ink jet printing of fabrics wherein the backside is printed prior to the front side in order to provide better image representation on the back side, provides excellent color expression of both the front side and rear side and maintaining uniform quality (Kim, abstract, background). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the fabric of the prior art combination, and to utilize as the printing method the two-sided printing method of Kim, motivated by the desire to from a printed fabric having improved color, sharpness and quality on both sides of the material.
Regarding the remaining limitations of the claims such as processing temperatures, treatments and steps, these limitations of the claims are product-by-process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20, 2026, including the Affidavit filed the same date, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art combination does not teach the claimed angular relationship between the printed parallel straight lines pattern and the direction of the “rib” and that “inherency” may not be utilized to reject such a property. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as set forth above this is an aesthetic design choice having no mechanical function, it would have been obvious to form the lines of the denim pattern with the claimed size, spacing and angle, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific pattern solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with an alternatively designed denim pattern. Matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04(I)).
Applicant argues that the prior art teaches away from the proposed combination and that there would be no expectation of success. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oleniacz teaches only that mass production would be difficult, however that a good match in visual properties of a denim fabric is achievable albeit within “high-end” products. Furthermore, the claims only require “the visual appearance of denim” and do not state any specific color, sharpness or quality parameters.
Applicant argues that the choice of latex printer by Oleniacz would not yield the claimed fabric. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oleniacz is relied upon for the patterning and visual aesthetic choices of the fabric while the primary reference of Mheidle is relied upon for the general printing methods and materials and its resulting product.
Applicant argues that the design choice obviousness rejection in regards to the line angle and spacing is not valid since the design provides both the visual appearance and the texture of a denim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited paragraph (See Applicant’s specification) states in fact that the texture is provided by using a twill weave woven fabric, not derived from the printing pattern. Furthermore, simply having the visual appearance of denim is not a technical function as it is by definition an aesthetic visual choice.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the product-by-process limitations of the newly added claims 33-39, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that the order of processing steps combined with the particular processing methods, materials and conditions is critical in order to achieve the claimed invention. This is found persuasive as it is supported not only by the tests provided in the declaration but also reinforced by the statements in the prior art that the line pattern quality and texture is difficult to achieve to a sufficient standard with general inkjet processing. However, as set forth above this order of printing steps is known and would have been an obvious modification to the teachings of prior art combination.
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 VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
