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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,383,005. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application encompass those of the patent.
Claims 1-7 and 12-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 16-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,564. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application encompass those of the patent.
Claims 8-11, and 17-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-12, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,564 in view of Serrianne et al.(US Patent 4,438,693). US Patent 11,693,564 discloses all the elements of the claims except for a unit which performs screen printing. Serrianne et al. discloses it is well- known and conventional in the clothing arts to use screen printing to apply different designs to clothing as it avoids cracking.(Col. 1, ll. 38-62) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to add a screen printing station to the claims of US Patent 11,693,564 since it avoids cracking as taught by Serrianne et al.(Col. 1, ll. 38-62) Different designs are evidence of customization.
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) 1-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Breitkopf et al.(US Patent 3,699,591).
Breitkopf et al. discloses an adhesive dispenser for dispenser a liquid adhesive(33)in discrete locations, a press roller operable to join two layers(B), and a cutting tool to make cuts in the fabric corresponding to features.(D) It also states the adhesive can be cured between stations B and D(Col. 4, ll. 7-10), but does not explicitly state the curing takes place via radiation from an energy source. It does states heat can be applied at that location and one in the art would understand that applying heat would require an energy source to supply the heat.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the rollers apply pressure.(Figure 2)
Regarding claim 4, the reference discloses curing the adhesive.(Col. 4, ll. 7-10)
Regarding claim 5, the adhesive is shown as being applied in stripes.(18)
Regarding claim 6, the adhesive is applied as a single line path.(18)
Regarding claim 11, while Breitkopf et al. does not disclose a motor to convey the fabric through the device, one in the art would understand that a motor is required to convey the fabric through the apparatus as it does not move itself.
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) 7, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breitkopf et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above
Regarding claim 7, the references shows using a mechanical cutter rather than a laser. However, a laser is a well-known and conventional cutting means and would have been obvious for this reason.
Regarding claim 14, one in the art would appreciate that any curable adhesive could be used and thus any radiation source can be used.
Regarding claim 15, Breitkopf et al. does not disclose changing the cut recipe based on the adhesive dispensing pattern. It is well-known in the clothing arts that a pattern cut size is changed based on the desired final article size and one in the art would appreciate this would result in the adhesive being applied in different locations.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breitkopf et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Serrianne et al.(US Patent 4,438,693).
Breitkopf does not disclose screen printing. However, the idea of customization by printing a design(hospital name etc.) is extremely well-known and conventional in general in the manufacturing arts and would have been obvious for this reason. Serrianne et al. discloses it is well- known and conventional in the clothing arts to use screen printing to apply different designs to clothing as it avoids cracking.(Col. 1, ll. 38-62) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to print on the apparel of Breitkopf et a. since printing logos is extremely well-0knonw and conventional in general in the apparel arts and to screen print in Breitkopf since it avoids cracking as taught by Serrianne et al.(Col. 1, ll. 38-62) Different designs are evidence of customization.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breitkopf et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ragone et al.(US Patent 4,055,855).
Breitkopf et al. does not disclose a third web. Ragone et al. discloses it is known in the medical arts to have a pocket on a medical gown.(34) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to include a third web which is used to make pockets in the apparatus of Breitkopf et al. since it is known it have pockets in medical gowns as shown by Ragone et al.(Figure 1)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breitkopf et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Grimm et al.(US Patent 3,156,927)
The references cited above do not disclose the specifics of the apparatus that moves the fabric. Grimm et al. discloses that it is known to use motors to move both pieces of fabric.(Col. 4, ll. 45-50) Grimm et al. discloses using index perforations to align the fabrics.(Col. 3, ll. 14-20) While it does not disclose the fabrics are synchronized, one in the art would appreciate that since the two webs are intended to be aligned on top of one another, the motors would be synchronized so the fabric movement was synchronized. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use synchronized motors to move the fabrics since Grimm et al. shows it is well-known and conventional to move the fabric using motors(Col. 4, ll. 45-50), and one in the art would appreciate they would be synchronized since the fabrics are synchronized and to include index perforations in the articles of Breitkopf et al. since this would allow alignment of the two fabric layers as taught by Grimm et al.(Col. 3, ll.15-20)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breitkopf et al. as applied to claim 11 above in view of Wang(CN 108192555)
Breitkopf et al. does not disclose changing the cut recipe based on the adhesive width. Wang discloses it is known to use different adhesive widths when joining clothes together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to change the adhesive width as taught by Wang depending on the bond width desired. While the references do not teach adjusting the cutting pattern based on the change in adhesive width, it is well-known in the clothing arts that a pattern cut size is changed based on the seam allowances as the final product is still intended to be the same size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to change the cut pattern based on the change in adhesive width since it is known in the clothing arts to change the cut pattern so that the final product is the same size regardless of changes to the seams.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the word “cuter” should be –cutter--. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights