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 .
Claims 1-72 are pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-51 in the reply filed on January 17, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 52-72 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4,6-8,10,11,13-21,25,26,32,39,40,41,43,44,49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiangyu (CN 101392456A).
Xiangyu teaches polyvinyl alcohol (homopolymer not soluble in solvent for duration of contact with the solvent) fibers modified by esterification with 5-25% (concentration in the organic solvent) maleic anhydride in an organic solvent then rinsing in alkali solution of sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide (non-solvents) in ethanol or methanol and further rinsing in methanol and drying (page 4, paragraph 2-7; examples). The whole fiber is treated including the surface. Xiangyu teaches treating (mixing and immersing) the polyvinyl alcohol fiber (water soluble at room temperature) in a solution of dioxane solvent (nonpolar) heated to 60°C for 2 hours, wherein the reaction temperature is below the water solubility temperature of the fiber (page 5, example 2). Xiangyu teaches esterification grafting with maleic anhydride introduces carboxyl groups into the polyvinyl alcohol fiber (page 4, paragraph 7). Xiangyu teaches after treatment the modified fiber does not dissolve in water but before treatment it has a water solubility of room temperature or 80°C (abstract and examples 1-2), indicating the second dissolution temperature is greater than the first dissolution temperature. Based on the examples, different reaction conditions such as time, temperature, and amount of polyvinyl alcohol fiber and maleic anhydride and type and amount of solvent bring different levels of absorbency to the product, indicating the reaction is performed under conditions sufficient to provide a controlled amount of chemical modification of the polymer fiber. Claims 15-18, if written in independent form contain only alternate unrequired embodiments of sulfonates, lactams, sulfonic acids and monocarboxylic acids, and since these are optional components and the examiner has found an anhydride, the limitations are met. Accordingly, the teachings of Xiangyu are sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the claims.
Claims 1-4,6-8,10-18,22-24,26-29,32,39,49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tetsuro (US 3,027,224).
Tetsuro teaches polyvinyl alcohol (homopolymer, not soluble in solvent for duration of contact with the solvent) fibers modified by acetalization by treating (mixing and immersing) with 2% n-butyraldehyde in an organic solvent of water (polar solvent)and 20% ethanol (polar solvent), with 10% sulfuric acid catalyst (activator) at 60°C for 15 hours followed by treating in liquid paraffin bath (washing or rinsing in non-solvent) (column 4, example II). Air drying happens naturally and the whole fiber is treated including the surface and the different baths and steps are a batchwise process. Tetsuro teaches washing in water and air drying happens naturally (column 4, example III). Tetsuro teaches controlling the degree of acetalization of the polyvinyl alcohol fiber (column 2, lines 3-32), different reaction conditions such as time, temperature, and amount of polyvinyl alcohol fiber and type and amount of aldehyde and type and amount of solvent bring different levels of acetalization to the product, indicating the reaction is performed under conditions sufficient to provide a controlled amount of chemical modification of the polymer fiber. Claims 15-18, if written in independent form contain only alternate unrequired embodiments of sulfonates, lactams, sulfonic acids and monocarboxylic acids, and since these are optional components and the examiner has found an anhydride, the limitations are met. Accordingly, the teachings of Tetsuro are sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the claims.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiangyu (CN 101392456A).
Xiangyu is relied upon as set forth above.
Xiangyu does not teach heating the fiber in the solvent prior to contacting the surface of the fiber with the modification agent.
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 Xiangyu by first heating the fiber in the solvent and then adding the modification agent as this is simply an order of steps of mixing the components to be treated. Applicant has not indicated how long the preheating must occur so it could be a very short period of time such as a few seconds until the modification agent is added into the treating solution. In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959). Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). The simultaneous heating and adding of the modification agent would be expected to be similar to the first heating of the fiber in solvent and then adding the modification agent to the heated solution as the end result is the same where a fiber is present in a heated solution with a fiber, solvent and modification agent to perform the same reaction.
Claim(s) 9,30-38,40,42 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiangyu (CN 101392456A) in view of Freudenberg (US 2013/0274415).
Xiangyu is relied upon as set forth above.
Xiangyu does not teach the degree of hydrolysis of the vinyl acetate, vinyl acetate and vinyl alcohol copolymers, additional polymers of polyacrylate, starch or cellulose, core-shell structures and the first dissolution temperature is greater than the second dissolution temperature. .
Freudenberg teaches fibers with increased water absorption ability (paragraph 0020) can be made from polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinyl acetate copolymers (paragraph 0035) and can be modified to incorporate additional functional groups (paragraph 0034,0036) such as carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids (paragraph 0036, to produce anionically modified polymer). Freudenberg teaches additional polymers can also be added including celluloses, starches and polyacrylates (paragraph 0039). Freudenberg teaches the polyvinyl alcohol has a degree of hydrolysis from 80-100% (paragraph 0042) and the fibers are staple fibers (paragraph 0047). Freudenberg teaches the fibers can be core-shell structures (paragraph 0053). Freudenberg teaches fibers with different dissolution temperatures (paragraph 0033) wherein the degree of hydrolysis, content of the acetyl groups and molar mass impact the water solubility (paragraph 0032).
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 Xiangyu by using anionically modified polyvinyl alcohol polymers with carboxylic acid and sulfonic acid functional groups, staple fibers and fibers with additional polymers such as celluloses, starches and polyacrylates and polyvinyl alcohol with a degree of hydrolysis from 80-100% as Freudenberg teaches these fibers are conventionally used to produce a substrate with high water absorption capacity. Xiangyu teaches polyvinyl alcohol polymers also for producing substrates with have high water absorption capabilities. Using known polyvinyl alcohol fibers which are taught to be capable for the same purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill and would only require routine substitution.
Regarding the transverse cross-section for the core-sheath fiber and the first chemical modification of the core and a second chemical modification of the sheath, Freudenberg allows for different materials in the core and sheath portions of the fiber, therefore nothing unobvious is seen in providing different components with different capabilities of reaction with the modifying agent such that the sheath polymer has a higher reactivity with the modifying agent than the core or an increasing gradient of modification from the center to the outer region. It would further have been obvious to use a single polymer which can react equally and under conditions to uniformly modify the entire cross-section of the fiber.
Regarding producing a water soluble modified fiber with a lower dissolution temperature in water would be obvious as Freudenberg allows for selection of the modification functional groups and teaches the water solubility is based on the composition of the polyvinyl alcohol. Adjusting the water dissolution temperature of the modified polyvinyl alcohol is obvious as this can be clearly selected based on the selection of the polyvinyl alcohol and functional groups and how they effect the molar mass of the polyvinyl alcohol and its content of acetyl groups.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuro (US 3,027,224).
Tetsuro is relied upon as set forth above. Tetsuro teaches pre-heating the fiber prior to acetalization to improve stability (page 1, column 2, lines 65-70)).
Tetsuro does not teach heating the fiber in the solvent prior to contacting the surface of the fiber with the modification agent.
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 Tetsuro by first heating the fiber in the solvent and then adding the modification agent as this is simply an order of steps of mixing the components to be treated. Tetsuro clearly teaches that the fiber can be heat-treated prior to acetalization for the benefit of adding stability to the fibers. Applicant has not indicated how long the preheating must occur so it could be a very short period of time such as a few seconds until the modification agent is added into the treating solution. In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959). Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). The simultaneous heating and adding of the modification agent would be expected to be similar to the first heating of the fiber in solvent and then adding the modification agent to the heated solution as the end result is the same where a fiber is present in a heated solution with a fiber, solvent and modification agent to perform the same reaction.
Claims 1-4,6,8,13,14,23,24,32,39,45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 4,968,784).
Imai teaches dyeing of triaminotriazine radical dyes with polyvinyl alcohol fibers using continuous or batch methods with aqueous mediums (water polar solvent) at 60-130°C (abstract, column 6, lines 36-57). Imai teaches padding can be used as a method of application wherein the fabric would be pressed upon and in motion based on the repeated action of the padding instrument and stirring can be used while dyeing (column 6, lines 35-60; example 9). Imai teaches drying by squeezing through rollers (agitation) to remove excess solution and heating at 60-80°C (column 10, lines 60-68).
Imai does not teach all the claim embodiments in a single example but the claimed invention can be arrived at from selection of the teachings of Imai.
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 Imai by reacting the claimed dyes with several functional groups to chemically modify polyvinyl alcohol fibers by treating the fibers in a solution of water solvent and the modifying dye in a batchwise or continuous process and heating the dyeing solution and stirring while dyeing followed by removing excess dyebath from the fiber by squeezing through a roller and heating as Imai teaches this is an effective way of securely attaching the modifying dye to the fiber so it has excellent wash fastness. The squeezing through the rollers and stirring while dyeing can be used on any substrate such as the polyvinyl alcohol and not just the substrates int eh examples. Stirring while dyeing helps distribute the dye effectively to uniformly attach it to the fibers. Further squeezing the excess dye out after coloring of the fiber is completed is a agitating step as it manipulates the fiber during the drying process before heating which removes the rest of the water solvent.
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
