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 amendments filed November 3, 2025. Claims 1-8 and 14-25 are pending. Claims 9-13 and 26-30 have been cancelled. Claims 1,2,4 and 5 have been amended. Claims 14-25 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
All prior objections to and rejections of the claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 1-8 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 in step a “immersed in a caustic solution, a tap water and a wetting agent in a single scouring vat” which renders the claim indefinite The language of the claim reads as if there are three separate solutions instead of a single treatment composition comprising three components. The examiner interpreted the claim as a yarn being immersed in a single solution comprising caustic, tap water and a wetting agent. The applicant should amend the claims to clarify is three individual solutions are being employed separately in a single vat, for example by immersing in the first caustic solution, draining and then using the same vat to apply tap water by immersion of the yarn, draining and in the same vat applying wetting agent by immersion of the yarn, or if a single solution containing the three components mixed is applied in a single application. The examiner, based on applicant’s arguments, is unclear if applicant is trying to claim that all modifications in b. must be present as b. states only three or more must be present, indicating three modifications are satisfactory to meet the claimed limitation. Applicant then recites in the last line of the claim, dyeing the yarn by the steps in section b. The examiner interprets this limitation to include only the three or more selected steps, not all the steps in section b. Since section b is directed to modifications to steps, it is contradictory to indicate that all steps must be present in the last line of the claim and that only three (or more) can be present in in first line of section b. Claims 2-8 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revolaze (WO 2020/096650) in view of Sakai (WO 2015/015606A1) and Humphrey (US 2016/0237607).
Revolaze teaches modifying methods for indigo dyeing yarns which traditionally contain scouring, scouring rinsing, dyeing (paragraph 0009), oxidation and dyeing rinsing stages (paragraphs 0007-0011). Revolaze teaches modifying the methods by reducing the wetting agent concentration in scouring to about 2 g/L (paragraph 0025), reducing the scour rinsing stage to 1 vat (paragraph 0030) and reducing the dwell time by changing the threading path between rollers by skipping some rollers, reducing the diameter of the rollers, eliminating rollers or shortening the span between rollers (paragraph 0008,0028). Revolaze teaches dyeing at 680-710mV (paragraph 0034). Since the steps in claims 2, 3, 5 and the sulphur dye of claim 8 are optional, and if claims 2,3 and 5 or claim 8 were rewritten in independent form the steps and dye, respectively would still be optional limitations, Revolaze also meets those claims.
Revolaze does not teach scouring in tap water or controlling the water flow during dye rinsing.
Sakai teaches that before dyeing cotton yarns, scouring in sodium hydroxide (caustic), and surfactant (wetting agent) and water is performed to remove a primary film to make the fiber more receptive to dyeing (page 1, technical field- page 2 first two paragraphs). Sakai teaches the scouring agent is dissolved in hot or cold water including tap water (page 9, last paragraph). Sakai teaches scouring is a cleaning step (page 10, paragraphs 3-4; page 14, second paragraph).
Humphrey teaches that water flow is adjusted during rinsing after indigo dyeing for the benefit of achieving the desired degree of rinsing (paragraph 0028-0029).
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 Revolaze by using tap water in the scouring step and controlling the flow of the water the dye rinsing stages as Sakai teaches scouring cotton fibers before dyeing is efficiently achieved by using water from sources such as tap water and Humphrey teaches water flow is conventionally adjusted during post indigo dyeing rinse steps to ensure the desired degree of rinsing occurs. It would have been obvious to use the most available source of water, tap water, to prepare the scouring solution as Revolaze teaches scouring in a solution of water, wetting agent and scouring agent is desired and Humphrey teaches tap water is a suitable source of water for dissolving scouring chemicals. It would have been obvious to control water flow in the rinsing vats after indigo dyeing as Revolaze teaches rinsing after dyeing and Humphrey teaches that after dyeing rinsing is monitored by coloration of the rinse liquid and the flow of water is adjusted based on this assessment such that a desired degree of rinsing is performed. Removing unfixed dye is obvious after dyeing by rinsing and washing the dyed fibers. .
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 00/71808) in view of Sakai (WO 2015/015606A1) and Humphrey (US 2016/0237607).
Liu teaches modifying methods for dyeing yarns which traditionally contain scouring with a caustic solution (paragraph 0155), scouring rinsing (page 1, last paragraph; page 4, paragraph 5), dyeing, oxidation and dyeing rinsing stages (page 2). Liu teaches modifying the methods by removing the scour rinsing step (abstract, page 3, first paragraph; page 20-21, example 4). Lui teaches the pH of the scouring bath is 11 (page 14, second paragraph). Liu teaches the amount of wetting agent (Kierlon Jet B) in the scouring liquor can be 1 g/L and it can be eliminated in the dyeing liquor (page 20, last paragraph; page 27, Table 6; page 23, Table 2, mild alkaline scour, then dyeing and singly bath bioscour). Liu teaches surfactants (wetting agents) can be used in concentrations of about 0.2% (2g/L) to about 15% (150g/L). Liu teaches it is known to adjust pH or wetting agent concentration of the scouring liquor (page 13, second paragraph). Liu teaches using sulphur dyes and indigo dyed (claim 19; page 12, paragraph 1). Liu teaches adjusting dyeing temperature is within routine skill in thar art and dyeing temperatures of 25-100°C, particularly 75°C are effective (page 14, paragraph 3).
Liu does not teach scouring in tap water or controlling the water flow during dye rinsing.
Sakai teaches that before dyeing cotton yarns, scouring in sodium hydroxide (caustic), and surfactant (wetting agent) and water is performed to remove a primary film to make the fiber more receptive to dyeing (page 1, technical field- page 2 first two paragraphs). Sakai teaches the scouring agent is dissolved in hot or cold water including tap water (page 9, last paragraph). Sakai teaches scouring is a cleaning step (page 10, paragraphs 3-4; page 14, second paragraph).
Humphrey teaches that water flow is adjusted during rinsing after indigo dyeing for the benefit of achieving the desired degree of rinsing (paragraph 0028-0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made by modifying traditional dyeing methods by performing a sequential scouring and then dyeing with no scour rinse as Liu teaches this is advantageous to reduce waste streams. It would have been further obvious to maintain a pH of 11 and reduce the wetting agent concentration to 0.7-4g/L during scouring as Liu teaches these are effective ranges to produce efficient dyeings with reduced steps and waste production. It would have been further obvious to select indigo dyes or sulfur dyes and dye at 70-80°C as Liu teaches these are commonly used dyes efficient at coloring yarns and the claimed temperatures are effective in applying the dyes to the yarns. It would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed pH, temperatures, and wetting agent concentrations as Liu teaches these variables are within routine skill in the art to optimize through routine experimentation to achieve a desired dyeing.
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 Liu by using tap water in the scouring step and controlling the flow of the water the dye rinsing stages as Sakai teaches scouring cotton fibers before dyeing is efficiently achieved by using water from sources such as tap water and Humphrey teaches water flow is conventionally adjusted during post indigo dyeing rinse steps to ensure the desired degree of rinsing occurs. It would have been obvious to use the most available source of water, tap water, to prepare the scouring solution as Liu teaches scouring in a solution of caustic, water and 1g/L or less wetting agent is desired and Humphrey teaches tap water is a suitable source of water for dissolving scouring chemicals. It would have been obvious to control water flow in the rinsing vats after indigo dyeing as Liu teaches rinsing after dyeing and Humphrey teaches that after dyeing rinsing is monitored by coloration of the rinse liquid and the flow of water is adjusted based on this assessment such that a desired degree of rinsing is performed. Removing unfixed dye is obvious after dyeing by rinsing and washing the dyed fibers.
Since the steps in claims 2,3,5 and 6 are optional, and if claims 2,3,5 and 6 were rewritten in independent form the steps and dye, respectively would still be optional limitations, Liu also meets those claims.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 00/71808) in view of Sakai (WO 2015/015606A1) and Humphrey (US 2016/0237607) and further in view of Schultz (US 2019/0382955).
Liu, Sakai and Humphrey are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Sakai and Humphrey do not specify the mV of the dyeing stage.
Schultz teaches dyeing at 725-740mV and 700-750mV (Table E, (E2), paragraph 0223, claim 30).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu, Sakai and Humphrey by using a 700-750mV range during dyeing as Schultz teaches this is effective for dyeing cotton using indigo and vat dyes and Liu invites the inclusion of dyeing cotton using indigo dyes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed the Revolaze, Liu and Schultz as they apply to the new rejections above have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner argues that the claims recite only three of the modifications to the dye range need to be present to satisfy the claims. Applicant is arguing all of the modifications must be present in the prior art which is not what the claims require. The claims do not teach how much of the yarn must be cleaned, plus step i. which is the only step to mention cleaning is optional. It is noted that scouring is a cleaning process and if scouring is performed, cleaning has been performed on the yarn. It is the examiner’s position that the steps in a. must be present and three modifications in step b. Applicant is requiring only three modification steps at a minimum be chosen to satisfy section b and then argues all modification steps in section b. must be performed. The claim as written do not require all steps in b. to be performed as only three modifications are required to be present. Any more than three modifications are an optional alternate embodiment. Accordingly, Revolaze, Liu and Schultz are still appropriate prior art references.
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 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