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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/26/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "series of spray session, , the type of liquid" in line 14 should read "series of spray session, [[,]] the type of liquid". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the amount of liquid deposited" in line 13 should read "an amount of liquid deposited". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: "controlling operation of the precise liquid placement (PLP) is" in lines 8-9 should read "controlling operation of the precise liquid placement (PLP) head is". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “controlling operation of the high-volume-low-resolution heads" in lines 9-10 should read "controlling operation of the high-volume-low-resolution head". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “"wherein the pump controlling each nozzle comprises controlling different amounts of liquid disposed from per each nozzle, different materials disposed from per each nozzle, timing of nozzle operation" in lines 26-28 should read "wherein a pump controlling each nozzle comprises controlling different amounts of liquid disposed from each nozzle operation". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “"in an continuous manner" in line 4 should read "in a continuous manner. ". 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 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.
Claims 1 recite the limitation "a fabric ". It is unclear if the method and system requires fabric and foam product or a fabric or foam product. Is the product fabric and foam? For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted to mean “a fabric or foam product”.
Claims 2-5, 8-18, 19, 22 and 24-25 are rejected for dependence on claims 1 and 17, respectively.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " via " in lines 2-3. It is unclear if said precise liquid placement (PLP) head and high-volume- low-resolution head are referring to that in claim 1 or separate therefrom. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “via the precise liquid placement (PLP) head and the polymer liquid droplets deposited via the high-volume-low-resolution head”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said attributes of the different designated sections" in lines 3-4. However, different designated sections has not been established. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “said attributes of different designated sections”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the different designated sections" in line 1 and depends from claim 1. However, different designated sections is established in claim 11. For examination purposes, claim 12 is interpreted to depend from claim 11.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "further wherein the pump controlling each nozzle" in line 26. However, pump has not been established. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “further wherein a pump controlling each nozzle”.
Claims 18-19and 24-25 are rejected for depending on claim 17
Claim 22 is rejected for depending on canceled claim 21, noting the limitations of canceled claim 21 has been incorporated into claim 17. Further, claim 22 recites the limitation "each of the nozzles of the precise liquid placement (PLP) head is operatively connected to a mechanical pump". Is the mechanical pump referring to the pump of claim 17? The pump in claim 17 was previously established in canceled claim 23, which depended on claim 22. Hence, it is unclear from which claim claim 22 should depended from. As this cannot be ascertained, claim 22 has not been examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oriakhi (US 2022/0154396 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oriakhi teaches an additive manufacturing method for creating a seamless fabric and/or foam product comprising different properties in different designated sections along the fabric and/or foam product (Figure 1-3; paragraphs 0011-0012, textile treatment systems and methods may include applying one or more ink jettable textile treatment layers to a textile substrate; paragraph 0018, the treatment layers may comprise one or more functional/property modifiers thereby altering a performance of the textile), the method comprising:
depositing polymer liquid droplets (nanodroplets 194) on a printing surface (102) via a precise liquid placement (PLP) head (printer head 114;
depositing polymer liquid droplets (nanodroplets 192) on a printing surface (102) via a high-volume-low-resolution head (printer head 11112); and
controlling operation of the precise liquid placement (PLP) head and of the high-volume-low-resolution head (paragraphs 0013, 0028, controller 12 may signal to an actuator of a printer head to form droplets of the textile treatments for jetting onto the textile substrate 102.), thereby controlling the different properties of the seamless fabric and/or foam product (paragraph 0018, the treatment layers may comprise one or more functional/property modifiers thereby altering a performance of the textile), via a computerized control system (controller 12),
wherein controlling the operation of the precise liquid placement (PLP) head and of the high-volume-low-resolution head comprises controlling continuous or non-continuous liquid droplets depositing, speed at which each liquid droplet leaves a nozzle of each of the precise liquid placement (PLP) head and of the high- volume-low-resolution head, the amount of liquid deposited in every deposition session, or at any given series of spray session, , the type of liquid material applied per every session of droplets application, the order and duration of materials applied per each session of droplets deposition, or any combination thereof (paragraphs 0027-0028, one or more of the inkjettable textile treatments may be jetted from a drop-on-demand and/or continuous inkjet printer head such as printer heads 112, 114, 116, and 118 (i.e., continuous or non-continuous liquid droplets depositing)).
Regarding claim 2, Oriakhi further discloses the polymer liquid droplets are waterborne polymer or waterborne resin (paragraph 0191, urethane dispersion (25 wt. %) was mixed…de-ionized water).
Regarding claim 5, Oriakhi further discloses the polymer liquid droplets deposited via [the] precise liquid placement (PLP) head and the polymer liquid droplets deposited via [the] high-volume-low-resolution head, comprises additives, wherein said additives are fire retardants, scents, blowing agents, conductive elements, colour pigments, or any combination thereof (paragraphs 0191-0193, discloses additives being pigment).
Regarding claim 8, Oriakhi further discloses controlling the operation of the precise liquid placement (PLP) head comprises controlling number of droplets deposited at every predetermined period of time (paragraph 0027, The continuous stream of droplets is deflected towards or away from the textile substrate 102 by charged metal plates and/or timed air jets. The deflection of the textile treatment droplets may be controlled by a controller such as controller 88, by actuating the charge on the metal plates and or the firing and timing of the air jets. Droplets that are deflected away from the textile substrate 102 may be collected, filtered, and returned to a reservoir for future jetting (i.e., controlling number of droplets deposited on print surface)).
Regarding claim 11, Oriakhi further discloses the controlling the different properties of the fabric and/or foam product comprises controlling attributes of the fabric and/or foam product, per any designated section along the fabric and/or foam product (paragraphs 0011-0012, textile treatment systems and methods may include applying one or more ink jettable textile treatment layers to a textile substrate; paragraph 0015, textile treatments may be applied to the textile substrate by inkjet printing (also herein referred to as jetting) inkjettable (also herein referred to as jettable) layers on to the textile substrate 102 at designated treatment areas,), said attributes of increase performance properties of the treated textile such as wash durability, color vibrancy, flexibility and tactility, adhesion, color fastness, and abrasion resistance. Each of the pretreatment, white ink, color ink, and topcoat may be specifically formulated for a specific textile substrate type or material).
Regarding claim 12, Oriakhi teaches all the elements of claim [11] and further discloses the different designated sections are anywhere along the X, Y, Z dimensions of the fabric and/or foam product (Figures 1-3; paragraphs 0011, 0015, treatment area 120, 130, 140).
Regarding claim 14, controlling the different properties of the foam product do not further limit the specific properties of the fabric; noting in section 9 above, “a fabric and/or foam product" is interpreted to mean “a fabric or foam product”. Hence, controlling the different properties of the foam product is an optional limitation of the claim and preceding claim(s).
Regarding claim 15, Oriakhi further discloses semi-curing between depositing of one layer to another layer to cause seamless fusion between the layers to create a seamless fabric and/or foam product (paragraphs 0082-0084, discloses partially curing the pretreatment layer).
Regarding claim 16, Oriakhi further discloses curing performed after depositing of the polymer liquid droplets is complete (paragraph 0154, drying and/or curing may take place before or after individual treatment layers are printed, and/or after all treatment layers have been applied to a treatment area of the textile substrate).
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) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oriakhi, in view of Giloh (US 2017/0120554 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Oriakhi teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose depositing short loose fibres via a flocking system.
Giloh teaches depositing short loose fibers via a flocking system onto a polymeric layer of a fabric (Figure 3; paragraphs 0023, 0030, loose fibers may be added onto at least a part of a polymeric layer body or surface, preferably by a flocking process; one or more flocking units). Giloh discloses the addition of loose fibers thereto provides a smooth feel or a special design and functionality (paragraphs 0026-0027). One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known technique to the invention of Oriakhi in the same manner and the results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to deposit loose fibers to change the properties of the fabric or foam product (i.e., feel).
Regarding claim 4, Oriakhi, as modified by Giloh, further discloses said short loose fibres are textile fibres (paragraphs 0002, 0013, 0023, 0030) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have further modified the invention of Oriakhi/Giloh and utilized textile fibers to change the properties of the fabric or foam product (i.e., feel), as disclosed by Giloh.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oriakhi.
Regarding claim 9, Oriakhi teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose output rate of the depositing of liquid droplets via the high-volume-low-resolution head is at least two times higher compared to output rate of the depositing of liquid droplets via the precise liquid placement (PLP) head. However, Oriakhi discloses the printer heads may be that of an Epson DX5/DX7 having drop frequency 5 kHz of Panasonic Wide Format having drop frequency 30 kHz (i.e., having at least two time output rate of Epson) (Figure 17). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have utilized the Panasonic Wide Format for the high-volume-low-resolution head and the Epson DX5/DX7 for the precise liquid placement head depending on the treatment or parameters desired.
Regarding claim 10, Oriakhi teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose resolution of the precise liquid placement (PLP) head is at least five times higher compared to resolution of the high-volume-low-resolution head. However, Oriakhi discloses the printer heads may be that of a Ricoh Gen 4L having a resolution or and Epson DX5/DX7 having a resolution 1440 (i.e., having at least five times resolution of Ricoh) (Figure 15, 17). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have utilized the Ricoh for the high-volume-low-resolution head and the Epson DX5/DX7 for the precise liquid placement head depending on the treatment or parameters desired. Further, depositing of liquid droplets via the precise liquid placement (PLP) head is configured for creating a detailed overlay (paragraph 0028, 112 forms one more pretreatment layers 122 (i.e., detailed overlay)), while the depositing of liquid droplets via the high-volume-low-resolution head is configured for creating a low detail base overlay or filler overlay, which is configured to serve as a plain layer, or as a first layer onto which the detailed overlay is created, or as a filler neighbouring or surrounding the detailed overlay, respectively (paragraph 0028, 114 forms one or more lighter ink layers 124 (i.e., filler overlay), further wherein controlling operation of the precise liquid placement (PLP) [head] is performed with respect to controlling operation of the high-volume-low-resolution [head] thereby optimizing operation of the heads with respect to manufacturing time and product quality (paragraphs 0028, 0030).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oriakhi, in view of Tokie (US 2002/0085054 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Oriakhi teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose precision and resolution of the depositing via the precise liquid placement (PLP) head is of at least + 1 mm, and wherein the precision and resolution of the high-volume-low-resolution head is between 0.5cm to 80cm.
Tokie teaches a printhead (120 in Figure 2; paragraph 0025) which deposits 10,000 drops per second within 5.8 mm print width (paragraph 0029) (i.e., precision and resolution at least 1mm) and a jet (130 in Figure 2; paragraph 0030) having a resolution in the range of 150 drops per inch (59 drops per centimeter). Hence, printheads having the specific resolutions as claimed is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have substituted the printheads of Tokie having the disclosed resolutions for that of Oriakhi and the results would have been predictable for one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated for the benefits improved efficiency of the depositing and/or depending on the treatment or parameters desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims would be allowable if the 112b rejection(s) identified above are resolved.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 17 would be allowable for requiring:
“…wherein each of the precise liquid placement (PLP) head and the high-volume-low-resolution head is attached to a movable and tiltable holding device, said movable and tiltable holding device configured to move each of the precise liquid placement (PLP) head and the high-volume-low-resolution head along X, Y, and Z axes, to roll in RX, RY, and RZ axes, thereby to control the angle of deposition direction and the distance and angle between each of the precise liquid placement (PLP) and the high-volume-low-resolution heads and the printing surface.”
Claims 18-19 and 24-25 would be allowable at least for depending on claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights