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 1-24 are pending. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 16-21 in the reply filed December 16, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not independent or distinct and no undue burden or additional time would be required to search all the inventions. This is not found persuasive because the inventions comprise steps that are distinct from one another and searching divergent steps provides a burden as additional searches and references need to be examined. Claims 1-15 and 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of claim 3, applicant should delete “of” before “3”. 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 17 and 18 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.
The term “style” in claims 17 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “style” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term style implies rope and slasher dye ranges but also ranges similar to these, which is unclear. The examiner does not know how similar a dye range must be to rope or slasher types to be in the “style” of them. For examination purposes the examiner interpreted the claim 17 to be rope dyeing methods and claim 18 to be slasher dyeing methods.
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 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denimsandjeans (Sulphur Dyeing in Denim, https://www.denimsandjeans.com/denim/manufacturing-process/sulphur-dyeing-in-denim/3492) in view of Sulfur Dyes (https://2.imimg.com/data2/XU/OJ/MY-3205726/sulphur-dyes.pdf).
Denimsandjeans teaches sulphur dyeing of yarns in the first box on Indigo machines, wherein the sulphur blacks are best oxidized with air passage like Indigo (page 4/117). Denimsandjeans teaches treating with caustic (scouring) in box 1, scour rinsing in boxes 2 and 3, padding with sulfur dye in box 4, washing in boxes 11 and 12 (dye rinsing in 2 dye rinse vats), oxidizing in box 13, and washing (dye rinsing in three dye vats) in boxes 14-16 (page 5/17).
Denimsandjeans does not specify that the washing in boxes 11,12 oxidizes the sulfur dye and washes away the loose dye.
Sulfur Dyes teaches that washing off after dye application of sulfur dyes removes loose residual dye and oxidation occurs by the dissolved oxygen present in the fresh water (page 3, sections 4. And 5.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the methods of Denimandjeans in the rinsing in two vats after sulfur dyeing would begin the oxidation process and washes away the loose dye as Sulfur Dyes teaches the oxygen dissolved in the fresh washing water is sufficient to oxidize the dye and that this oxidation method can be used in combination with oxidizing in atmospheric oxygen (air) or chemical oxidation. Since Denimsandjeans teaches rinsing in water vats and does not teach deaerating the water or performing the washing in an inert environment , it would have been obvious that oxygen would be present in the fresh was water and this oxygen would start oxidizing the sulfur dye to fix it to the yarn. It would have been further obvious that the dye rinsing in the two wash vats immediately after dyeing and the three rinse vats after oxidation in Denimsandjeans would also remove loose dye that has not become fixed to the yarn as Sulfur Dyes teaches the fresh water used in washing after dyeing with sulfur dyes is effective in removing loose unfixed dye. It would be obvious to adjust the number of dye rinse vats through routine experimentation as this is simply a mechanism of removing unfixed dye and performing preliminary oxidation on the sulfur dyes, and controlling the number of vats and exposure to the oxygenated water would directly impact the fixing of the dye due to oxidation and removal of loose unfixed dye.
Claims 17,18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denimsandjeans (Sulphur Dyeing in Denim, https://www.denimsandjeans.com/denim/manufacturing-process/sulphur-dyeing-in-denim/3492) in view of Sulfur Dyes (https://2.imimg.com/data2/XU/OJ/MY-3205726/sulphur-dyes.pdf) and further in view of Kiser (US 10,508,388).
Denimsandjeans and Sulfur Dyes are relied upon as set forth above.
Denimsandjeans and Sulfur Dyes do not teach reducing the dyeing stage to about 6-14 seconds in a slasher style dye range, reducing the dyeing stage to about 3-12 seconds in a rope style dye range and reducing the wetting agent in the scouring stage to about 0.5-2g/L.
Kiser teaches in sulfur and indigo dyeing in slasher and rope dyeing methods it is advantageous to scour the cotton yarns in a scouring agent comprising 2g/L wetting agent (column 1, lines 38-46, column 6, lines 65-66). Kiser teaches the dye immersion time can approximately 15-20 seconds (column 3, lines 49-50). Kiser says the term about extends the values of the endpoint to values above and below the range and may include ±100% of the value (column 20, 35-55).
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 Denimsandjeans and Sulfur Dyes by using 2g/l of wetting agent during scouring before sulfur dyeing as Kiser teaches this is an effective amount for improving penetration of the scouring agent and for detergency properties to clean the yarn before 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 Denimsandjeans and Sulfur Dyes by dyeing in a slasher method for about 6-14 seconds or in a rope dyeing method for about 3-12 seconds as Kiser teaches dyes may be applied for approximately 15-20 seconds. Approximately is not an absolute value and reads on 14 seconds and 12 seconds. The word “about” permits some tolerance. At least about 10% was held to be anticipated by a teaching of a content not to exceed about 8%, see In re Ayers, 154 F 2d 182,69 USPQ 109 (CCPA 1946). A pressure limitation of 2-15 pounds per square inch was held to be readable on a reference which taught a pressure of the order of about 15 pounds per square inch, see In re Erickson, 343 F 2d 778, 145 USPQ 207 (CCPA 1965). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.051. Finding the optimal dye application time would be obvious based on the desired dye penetration and shading of the yarn and could be readily determined though routine experimentation. Kiser further teaches a preference for ring dyeing which preserves a white core of the yarn and limits dye penetration which would require shorter immersions (column 10, lines 10-12). Kiser’s definition of the term about allows for the range to extend above or below the endpoints of the range and includes ±100% of the endpoints, and 15±100% reads on applicant’s immersion time values for rope dyeing and slasher methods.
Using similar immersion times in dyebaths for slasher and rope dyeing machines would be obvious as they have significantly overlapping ranges. Using similar dyeing methods for indigo dyes and sulfur dyes is obvious as they are both taught as suitable dyes in the same apparatus in the methods of Kiser.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denimsandjeans (Sulphur Dyeing in Denim, https://www.denimsandjeans.com/denim/manufacturing-process/sulphur-dyeing-in-denim/3492) in view of Sulfur Dyes (https://2.imimg.com/data2/XU/OJ/MY-3205726/sulphur-dyes.pdf) and further in view of Denimsandjeans2 (Acidic Damage in the Sulfur-Black Dyeing of Denim, https://www.denimsandjeans.com/denim/manufacturing-process/acidic-damage-in-the-sulfur-black-dyeing-of-denim/1412).
Denimsandjeans and Sulfur Dyes are relied upon as set forth above.
Denimsandjeans and Sulfur Dyes do not teach the dye rinse vats are controlled with freshwater flow rates so that the pH does not exceed 11.5.
Denimsandjeans2 teaches oxidation of sulfur dyes is effectively performed by passing the fabric through air and then and then washing with water (page 4/13). Denimsandjeans2 teaches that after oxidation the sulfur black dyes material should be buffered to a pH 11 as acidic pH values will result in lower fabric strength (page 3/13, last paragraph; page 4/13, last paragraph, page 5/13,first paragraph).
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 Denimsandjeans and Sulfur Dyes by after oxidation, buffering the pH of the fresh water wash solution to pH 11 and controlling the flow rate so this value is maintained as Denimsandjeans2 teaches a pH of 11 must be kept after dyeing and oxidation of the sulfur black dyes articles and before the cotton is dried to prevent acid attack on the sulfur black dyed cotton which will lower the fabric strength. It would be obvious to buffer the rinse water to this value and keep the flow such that a pH of 11 is maintained as this is necessary to keep the integrity of the fabric in tact and maintain the strength and durability.
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 16, 20 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6 and 7 of copending Application No. 17/504942 in view of Sulfur Dyes (https://2.imimg.com/data2/XU/OJ/MY-3205726/sulphur-dyes.pdf). Copending Application 17/504942 teaches dyeing methods with sulfur dyes comprising scouring, scour rinsing, dyeing, oxidation and dye rinsing, overlapping concentrations of caustic and rinsing in dye vats with optimized water flow to maintain the pH at 7-11. It would be obvious to oxidize sulfur dye and remove loose dye in the dye rinsing step as Sulfur Dyes teaches the oxygen dissolved in the fresh washing water is sufficient to oxidize the dye and that this oxidation method can be used in combination with oxidizing in atmospheric oxygen (air) or chemical oxidation. Since copending application 17/504942 teaches rinsing in water vats after dyeing and controlling the water flow to maintain a pH of 7-11 and does not teach deaerating the water or performing the washing in an inert environment , it would have been obvious that oxygen would be present in the fresh was water and this oxygen would start oxidizing the sulfur dye to fix it to the yarn.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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