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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s claims filed on March 31, 2025. Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 1-9 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 “defined by a preparation of the fabric that uses a chemical bath comprising an aqueous solution” which is unclear. The claim doesn’t clearly recite that the chemical bath is applied to the fabric and can read that the fabric at some point will use the claimed chemical bath. The examiner suggests for clarity applicant recite “ a first step comprising in sequence applying to a fabric a chemical bath comprising an aqueous solution of anti-migration and anti-reducing agents and water and that does not contain urea, printing of the fabric and subsequent drying of the printed fabric”. Claims 2-9 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
Claim 7 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “pre-drying operation subsequent to the blade coating operation”, and the claim also recites “preferably implemented by means of a blade blower” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 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 4 recites “roll type device” which is indefinite. The examiner is unclear as to what encompasses the term type. The examiner interpreted the limitation to be any application device with a roll or roller.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milini (US 2013/0232746) in view of Haruta (DE 69532402).
Milini teaches digital printing methods for treating fabrics wherein the fabric speed is controlled as a function of print speed wherein the fabric is treated in sequence with an aqueous chemical bath comprising compounds to facilitate fixing of the dye and passed through presser rollers (roll type device, tank 8, Figure 4) followed by digital printing, fixing the ink by steaming in a steaming chamber, washing to eliminate excess unfixed ink and drying (paragraphs 0018- 0027).
Milini does not specify the anti-reducing and anti-migrating chemicals in the aqueous pretreatment solution and blade coating.
Haruta teaches in digital inkjet printing of fabrics with reactive and anionic (acid) dyes (page 6, paragraph 3-4) fabrics are pretreated with aqueous solutions comprising polyethylene oxide as an anti-migration agent which prevent bleeding of the image by preventing diffusion of the ink (page 3; page 4 paragraphs 2-3, next to last paragraph; page 5, paragraph 7). Urea is optional (page 4, paragraph 5). Haruta teaches the pretreatments can contain cationizing agents applied by coating or impregnation and can contain anti-reducing agents (page 6, paragraphs 1-5). Haruta teaches fixing the ink by steaming, washing and drying fabrics (page 3, next to last paragraph; page 6, second from last and next to last paragraph). Haruta teaches drying (pre-drying) after pretreating and prior to inkjet printing (see example 2) using a pretreatment with no urea.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Milini by using the anti-migrating, anti-reducing pretreatment composition of Haruta as Haruta teaches these compounds when applied in solution by impregnating or coating prevent dye bleed and fix the ink in place to produce a sharper image. Using the continuous cloth printing device of Milini with the dye fixing pretreatment compositions of Haruta would be obvious to produce clearer sharper printed images on inkjet printed fabrics. Performing pre-drying is obvious as Haruta teaches this dries the pretreatment composition in place before application of the inkjet ink.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milini (US 2013/0232746) in view of Haruta (DE 69532402) and further in view of Kitamura (JP 2015183342).
Milini and Haruta are relied upon as set forth above.
Milini and Haruta do not specify blade application.
Kitamura teaches that pretreatments for fabrics before inkjet printing are effectively applied by spray, dip, roller and blade coating (page 2, last 4, paragraphs). Kitamura teaches the pretreatments comprise water, ant-reducing agents
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Milini and Haruta by applying the treatment by blade or roller coating (roller type device) as Kitamura teaches these methods are functionally equivalent in applying similar pretreatment compositions anti reducing agents (paragraphs 1-6). Substituting one known effective pretreatment application technique for another known equally effective technique is obvious to try to achieve the predictable result of efficiently coating a fabric with an image fixing composition prior to ink jet printing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
