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 October 10, 2025.
Claims 1 and 6-16 are pending. Claims 2-5 have been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended. Clam 16 is new. Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
All prior rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.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.
Claims 1,6-11,15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita (US 2017/0292210) in view of Tamura (JP 2019081968), Kuroda (JP 2015224406), Cliver (WO 02/055785), Kuroda (JP 200301643) and Toshio (EP 0249009) as evidenced by Basic Blue 54 (PubChem, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/C.I.-Basic-Blue-54).
Iwashita teaches dyed fabrics (paragraph 0012,0019,0027,0067,0068,0110, claim 17) containing blended spun yarns (paragraph 0055) meta-aramid, para-aramid, electrically conductive nylon and polyester fibers in a ratio of 73:5:2:20 (example 2) wherein the fabrics have an afterflame time defined in JISL1091-1992 A-4 of 2.0 sec or less and the water absorption performance defined in AATCC79 prior to washing is 0.1-8 sec and after 20 cycles of laundering as defined in ISO6339-2012(6N-f) is 1-20 sec (paragraph 0071). Iwashita teaches using flame retardant rayons in the fabrics also (paragraph 0110).
Iwashita does not specify azo cationic and azo disperse dyes, ring dyeing or the JISL 0849 II dry and wet rubbing fastness.
Tamura teaches that fabrics containing spun blended yarns comprising meta-aramid, para-aramid, nylon conductive fibers and polyester fibers have high strength and excellent dye affinity when dyed with cationic and disperse dyes with a JIS L 0849 II dry and wet fastness to rubbing of grade 3 or higher (page 1, abstract; page 3, next to last paragraph; page 4, paragraph 1-5).
Kuroda ‘406 teaches flame resistant fabric comprising meta-aramid fibers, para-aramid fibers, polyester fibers and nylon or rayon fibers (pages 2 and 3) which is dyed after fabric formation (page 4, paragraphs 5-6). Kuroda ‘406 teaches it is desirable for the fabric to have a afterflame time of 1 second or less as described in JIS L109A-1 (page 4, next to last paragraph).
Cliver teaches that fabrics can be formed from polyester, aramids, rayon and polyamides (page 8, lines 13-20) followed by dyeing the fabrics wherein if high efficiency continuous and semi-continuous methods are used, the yarns can be ring dyed (page 12, lines 4-20).
Kuroda ‘643 teaches that flame retardant dyed fabrics containing meta-aramid fibers, poly-aramid fibers and polyesters are effectively dyed in fabric form with disperse and cationic dye mixtures (page 5, paragraphs 4 to end of the page) and have excellent properties such as flameproofness, chemical resistance and morphological stability (paragraph 0009, page 2). Kuroda ‘643 teaches using disperse dyes (Disperse Blue 56) at 1% owf and the cationic dye (Basic Blue 54) at 4% owf (page 7, example 1). Basic Blue 54 document provides evidence that Basic Blue 54 is an azo based dye (see section 1.1 2D structure).
Toshio teaches that monoazo benzene and heterocyclic based dyes are effective at dyeing polyester fibers with excellent rubbing fastness with a JIS-0849 rating of 5 (page 2, last three paragraphs; page 3, first paragraph; page 13, example 1 has benzene groups, page 17, table 2, example 1; pages 18-19, example 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fabrics of Iwashita by dyeing the fabrics with the claimed concentrations of cationic and disperse dyes owf (residual dye) as Tamura teaches cationic and disperse dye mixtures are effective for dyeing meta-aramid, para-aramid, electrically conductive nylon and polyester blended fabrics to produce fabrics with excellent properties such as JIS L 0849 II dry and wet fastness to rubbing of grade 3 or higher. Tamura is silent to the concentration of dyes however choosing the claim concentration owf would simply be a design choice which results from routine experimentation as this would determine the color of the finished fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fabrics of Iwashita by producing a fabric with an afterflame time of 1 sec or less as measured by JIS L1091 A-1 as this is a desirable flame resistance parameter for fabrics containing similar fibers as taught by Kuroda ‘406. Iwashita teaches an afterflame time defined in JISL1091-1992 A-4 of 2.0 sec or less. It is clearly recognized by Iwashita that the afterflame value by a similar test have an overlapping afterflame time result. The recognition of the importance of the afterflame time by similar testing indicates one of ordinary skill could arrive at the claimed value based on the claimed afterflame time and afterglow time defined in JISL1091 A-1 protocol through routine experimentation as flame retardancy is the desired goal of the fabric.
Regarding the water absorption performance defined in AATCC79 after 10 washing cycles defined in ISO6330:2012 (6N-F) of 10 seconds or less, Iwashita teaches water absorption performance defined in AATCC79 after 20 cycles of laundering as defined in ISO6339-2012(6N-f) is 1-20 sec. It is clearly recognized by Iwashita that the water absorption value by a similar test have an overlapping water absorption result. The recognition of the importance of the water absorption value after multiple laundering by similar testing indicates one of ordinary skill could arrive at the claimed value based on the claimed ISO6330:2012 (6N-F) protocol through routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dye the fabrics of Iwashita, Tamura and Kuroda ‘406 by ring dyeing as it is conventional to achieve a desired patterned effect. Selecting ring dyed fibers is obvious as this is a design effect known to be produced on similar fabrics. The desired pattern is a design choice. Using known conventional methods of dyeing similar combinations of yarns in a fabric would be obvious to obtain a design choice of ring dyeing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fabrics of lwashita, Tamura, Kuroda ‘406 and Cliver by dyeing the fabrics with the claimed concentrations of cationic and disperse dyes owf (residual dye) as Kuroda ‘643 teaches azo cationic and disperse dye mixtures are effective for dyeing meta aramid, para-aramid and polyester blended fabrics to produce fabrics with excellent properties such as flameproofness, chemical resistance and morphological stability. Kuroda ‘643 teaches the claimed concentration of cationic dye and a similar concentration 1% of disperse dye owf (residual dye). It is noted that the disperse dye concentration of Kuroda ‘643 is simply an example and not limiting of the invention as it would have been obvious to adjust the concentration of disperse dye to the claimed 0.01-0.18% owf residual dye based on the desired coloration. This is a design choice to determine the color of the product and can be determined through routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to modify the fabrics of lwashita, Tamura, Kuroda ‘406, Cliver and Kuroda ‘643 by using the benzene-based monoazo disperse dyes of Toshio as Toshio teach the claimed monoazo benzene based and heterocyclic based disperse dyes are effective in dyeing polyester fabrics with an excellent rubbing fastness, particularly when tested with JIS L-0849, a rating of 5 is achieved. Using known benzene and heterocyclic based azo disperse dyes effective for dyeing polyester that are capable of achieving the desired fastness rating is obvious.
Claims 1, 6-11,15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwashita (US 2017/0292210) in view of Tamura (JP 2019081968), Kuroda (JP 2015224406), Cliver (WO 02/055785), Kuroda (JP 200301643) and Toshio (EP 0249009) as evidenced by Basic Blue 54 (PubChem, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/C.I.-Basic-Blue-54) and further in view of Shang (Process control in dyeing of textiles, Process Control in Textile Manufacturing, Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles, 2013, Pages 300-338).
Iwashita, Tamura, Kuroda ‘406, Cliver, Kuroda ‘643, Toshio and Basic Blue 54 are relied upon as set forth above.
Iwashita, Tamura, Kuroda ‘406, Cliver, Kuroda ‘643, Toshio and Basic Blue 54 do not specify the residual disperse dyestuff amount of 0.01-0.18% o.w.f.
Shang teaches it is known to effectively color polyester with disperse dyes at concentrations of <0.5% o.w.f. for light shading (page 319, Table 13.13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dye polyester in the products of Iwashita, Tamura, Kuroda ‘406, Cliver, Kuroda ‘643, Toshio and Basic Blue 54 to a residual disperse dyestuff concentration of 0.01-0.18% o.w.f. as Shang teaches this is conventionally done to produce light colored polyester fabrics with disperse dyes. Nothing unobvious is seen in dyeing the polyester portion to conventional light shading levels with disperse dye as this is a design choice based on desired coloring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Iwashita (US 2017/0292210) in view of Tamura (JP 2019081968), Kuroda (JP 2015224406) and Cliver (WO 02/055785) in view of Kuroda (JP 200301643), as they apply to the rejections above, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Toshio clearly teaches it is conventional to dye polyester with benzene and heterocyclic based dyes to achieve a JIS L 0849 rubbing fastness of 5. Nothing unobvious is seen in using known conventional dyes to effectively dye polyester to arrive at the claimed invention.
Table 2 of applicant’s specification is not commensurate in scope with the claims as the genus for any cationic azo dyestuff and any azo disperse dyestuff contains thousands of dyes with a vast array of different functional groups while applicant has only tested a single species of each dye, Basacryl Red GL and Sumikaron Red S-3BFL, which are not the dyes taught by the prior art and not representative of an entire genus of cationic and disperse azo dyes. Applicant did not test the same dyes as used in Kuroda '643 and Toshio. The examiner repeats that cationic and disperse dyes are a large genus containing diverse dyes with different functional groups so the data for two dyes cannot represent those with different structures and functionalities. Applicant’s data is only reflective of the results for the species of dye tested and not to azo disperse dyes and azo cationic dyes as a genus. Accordingly, applicant's data including that of table 2 in the specification do not provide evidence of unexpected results in a manner commensurate in scope with the claims and comparing to the closest prior art of record.
Regarding Shang, the method by which the dye is applied, whether batch or continuous is not determined to be critical in a product claim unless applicant provides evidence commensurate in scope with the claims of that the method of application materially effects the invention as this is a product by process limitation. The claims just require the dyes be applied to a fiber in a known concentration range and can be applied by any method suitable. Any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
It is the examiner’s central position that applicant’s dyed fabric can be arrived at from the teachings of the prior art which combine similar fiber combinations, dyed with similar azo cationic and benzene and heterocyclic based azo disperse dyestuffs in art recognized concentrations and with the benefits of high afterflame, afterglow and dry and wet rubbing fastness properties as these are desired in dyed fabrics for durability of color and flame retardance.
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 on 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