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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-11 and 13-29 are pending. Claims 1 and 17 are independent.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to solution.
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge on pages 8-10 of their remarks that terms "wetting agent," "desizing agent," "hydrogen peroxide stabilizer," "lubricant," "core alkali neutralizer," and "leveling agent" are well known and defined in, "Handbook of Technical Textiles," A.R. Horrocks and S. C. Anand; The Textile Institute, Woodhead Publishing Limited; ISBN 1 85573 385 4; 2000.
In response, the 112b rejection is maintained below because independent claims 1 and 17 are limited by categories of reagents which is unclear and indefinite as to the scope for what patent protection being sought for includes and/or excludes. Claim limitations of the dependent claims cannot be read into the BRI of the independent claims. Further, Applicant’s arguments referencing a Handbook of textiles in their remarks on pages 9-10 with respect to each category is not found pertinent to the claim language presented for examination. The claim amendments are addressed within the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-11 and 13-29 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 dissolving steps of independent claims 1b and 17c recite language to categories of ingredients (a wetting agent, a desizing agent, a hydrogen peroxide stabilizer, a lubricant, a core alkali neutralizer, a leveling agent) which is unclear and indefinite as to the metes and bounds of these properties.
For example, when evaluating a prior art teaching hexylene glycol as a reagent for solubilizing fibers, hexylene glycol fits into the wetting agent category and the lubricant category.
The court has held that compositions are indefinite for being defined in terms of properties alone. Ex parte Spacht, 165 USPQ 409 (PO BdPatApp 1969); Ex parte Slob,, 157 USPQ 172 (PO BdPatApp 1967); Ex parte Pulvari, 157 USPQ (PO BdPatApp 1966).
The dependent claims do not fix the deficiencies of the independent claims. For purposes of compact prosecution, desizing solutions comprising surfactants reads upon the categories of wetting agent, lubricant, neutralizer, leveling agent.
New Grounds of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11, 13-23, 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Holland et al. (US 3,169,557) in view of Tieckelmann et al. (US 5,205,835) and Wang, X., Zhao, H., Chen, F. et al. The Application of Atmospheric Plasma for Cotton Fabric Desizing. Fibers Polym 20, 2334–2341 (2019) pdf attached and downloadable at The Application of Atmospheric Plasma for Cotton Fabric Desizing | Fibers and Polymers | Springer Nature Link.
With respect to claim 1 a and claim 1b, Holland et al. teach core yarns of silk or wool fibers. See col.2,ln.7-15 and example 1,col.5,ln.5. Holland teach core yarns (encompassing soluble fibers) and teach that they are dissolved using water, steam, alkali and acetone meeting the claimed lubricant, wetting agent, and leveling agents. See col.2,ln.13-14. Col.6,ln.10-15, illustrate woven towels such as 18, shown in Figure 2 (front cover), with borders made of any of the above yarns are pulled through a conventional continuous peroxide bleach are applied to remove the core yarn. See also col.6,ln.35, teaching that the soluble fibers are dissolved during dyeing and finishing leaving only the cotton yarn (encompassing the primary fibers). See col.6,ln.15-45.
Col.6,ln.13 teaching that in Fig 2 the towels are bleached using peroxide. One of ordinary skill can understand that this encompasses the claimed hydrogen peroxide as it is commonly understood that hydrogen peroxide is also known as "peroxide".
Holland et al. col.6, ln.35 teaches dyeing required in claim 1b.
Holland et al. col.6,ln.20 teaches sodium hydroxide broadly encompassing the category of hydrogen peroxide stabilizer. See the attached search notes on NaOH indirectly stabilizing H2O2. Examiner notes Holland et al. teach the same silk and cotton fibers dissolving in the same sodium hydroxide in used in Applicant’s specification step 215.
With respect to claim 1 step c.Holland et al. exemplify step of weaving the engineered yarn into fabric, by teaching their woven water absorptive textile fabrics having portions with different weave constructions which have different shrinkage characteristics when wet and which cause puckering or distortion of the fabric along the juncture of the two differently woven portions. See col.1,ln.10-15 and examples I, II, and II in col.4-6 where the silk core is destroyed leaving a woven fabric composite with cotton yarns.
Holland et al. do not teach the enzyme of independent claim 1.
In the analogous art, Wang et al. teach a method of atmospheric plasma treatment APT of cotton fabric to desize the starch coated in the weaving process. See abstract. Fig. 12 on page 2340 teaches enzymatic desizing of cotton is commonly known in the art, and teach their APT in cotton fabric desizing could be regarded as an alternative to the conventional amylase desizing and using less water, chemicals and energy. (See page 2340, right hand col above References).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with the claimed process of desizing with enzyme because Wang et al. establish the state of the art, that conventional amylase desizing is commonly known processes of cotton fabrics in general. One of ordinary skill understands amylase is an enzyme.
Holland et al. do not explicitly teach the core alkali neutralizer/buffer of claim 1b.
In the analogous art of treating cotton fibers, Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use neutralizing agents (col.2,ln, 2-1) in a similar process of treating cotton fibers. Tiechelmann et al. teach neutralizing denim fabric by removing residues by contacting the fabric with an aqueous solution containing about 1.5 to 30 parts by weight peracetic acid per hundred parts by weight. The aqueous solution also contains sufficient acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide to provide a peracetic:acetic acid:hydrogen peroxide weight ratio of at least 1:1:1.5. See col.2,ln.40-50.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with the claimed core alkali neutralizer/buffer because Tiechelmann et al. establishes the state of the art that neutralizing agents are commonly used in desizing cotton in general and Holland et al. teach that the claimed categories of ingredients can be used in dissolving the soluble fibers in a mixture of cotton, wool or silk. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Holland, Tieckelmann with Wang since all are in the analogous art of environmentally friendly processes of cotton textile manufacturing.
With respect to the fibers of claims 2-9, Holland et al. teach permanent spiraled yarns are cotton, viscose, nylon which reads upon the claimed primary fibers. See col.2,ln.17. Holland et al. teach core yarns of silk or wool fibers. See col.2,ln.7-15 and example 1,col.5,ln.5 encompassing the soluble fibers. While Holland et al. do not specifically teach the virgin or recycled wool or recycled silk of claims 7-9, it would have been obvious to modify Holland et al. with the claimed virgin or recycled wool or recycled silk because Holland et al. teach wool or silk core fibers in an analogous method of making cotton woven textile fabrics in general.
With respect to claim 10, Holland col.6,ln.35, teach that the soluble fibers are dissolved during dyeing and finishing leaving only the cotton yarn. See col.6,ln.15-45.
With respect to claim 11, Holland et al. do not teach the anionic or nonionic nature of the wetting agent, however, Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use anionic or nonionic wetting agents (col.5,ln.39) thus establishing that the claimed natures of categories of ingredients is not novel or patentable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with the anionic or nonionic wetting agents of claim 11 because Tiechelmann et al. establishes that the claimed natures of categories of ingredients are not novel or patentable and are commonly used in desizing in general and Holland et al. teach wetting agents along with the other claimed categories of ingredients used in dissolving the soluble fibers in a mixture of cotton, wool or silk.
Holland et al. do not teach the claim 13 limitation to the hydrogen peroxide stabilizer being anionic. Examiner notes Holland et al. teach sodium hydroxide solubilizing the silk fibers in a mixture of cotton, wool or silk which is the same as used by Applicants’ specification [0054].Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use anionic detergents and surfactants and carboxylic acid chelating agent in a similar process of desizing denim. See example 4 and col.2 and table I in col.7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with an anionic hydrogen peroxide stabilizer as claimed because Tiechelmann et al. motivates one of ordinary skill to anionic reagents in a similar process of desizing denim as they are inert to oxidizing agents. See Tiechelmann et al. col.3,ln.27.
Holland et al. do not teach the cryptoanionic nature of the lubricant required in claim 14. Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use a cryptoanionic lubricant (see col.5,ln.33) thus establishes that the claimed natures of categories of ingredients is not novel or patentable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with the claimed cryptoanionic lubricant because Tiechelmann et al. establishes that the claimed natures of categories of ingredients are not novel or patentable and are commonly used in desizing in general and Holland et al. teach that the claimed categories of ingredients can be used in dissolving the soluble fibers in a mixture of cotton, wool or silk.
Holland et al. do not teach the claim 15 limitation to the core alkali neutralizer being anionic as required in claim 15. Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use anionic detergents and surfactants in a similar process of desizing denim. See example 4 and col.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with an anionic core alkali neutralizer as claimed because Tiechelmann et al. motivates one of ordinary skill to anionic reagents in a similar process of desizing denim as they are inert to oxidizing agents. See Tiechelmann et al. col.3,ln.27.
Holland et al. do not teach the claim 16 limitation to the leveling agent being anionic as required in claim 16. Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use anionic detergents and surfactants in a similar process of desizing denim. See example 4 and col.2 col.3,ln.27. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with an anionic leveling agent as claimed because Tiechelmann et al. motivates one of ordinary skill to anionic reagents in a similar process of desizing denim as they are inert to oxidizing agents. See Tiechelmann et al. col.3,ln.27.
With respect to independent claim 17a and 17c, Holland et al. teach core yarns of silk or wool fibers. See col.2,ln.7-15 and example 1,col.5,ln.5. Holland teach core yarns (encompassing soluble fibers) and teach that they are dissolved using water, steam, alkali and acetone meeting the claim 17c lubricant, wetting agent, and leveling agents. See col.2,ln.13-14. Col.6,ln.10-15, illustrate woven towels such as 18, shown in Figure 2 (front cover), with borders made of any of the above yarns are pulled through a conventional continuous peroxide bleach are applied to remove the core yarn. See also col.6,ln.35, teaching that the soluble fibers are dissolved during dyeing and finishing leaving only the cotton yarn (encompassing the primary fibers). See col.6,ln.15-45.
With respect to claim 17 step b.Holland et al. exemplify step of weaving the engineered yarn into fabric, by teaching their woven water absorptive textile fabrics having portions with different weave constructions which have different shrinkage characteristics when wet and which cause puckering or distortion of the fabric along the juncture of the two differently woven portions. See col.1,ln.10-15 and examples I, II, and II in col.4-6 where the silk core is destroyed leaving a woven fabric composite with cotton yarns.
Col.6,ln.13 teaching that in Fig 2 the towels are bleached using peroxide. One of ordinary skill can understand that this encompasses the claim 17c hydrogen peroxide as it is commonly understood that hydrogen peroxide is also known as "peroxide".
Holland et al. col.6, ln.35 teaches dyeing required in claim 17c.
Holland et al. col.6,ln.20 teaches sodium hydroxide broadly encompassing the category of hydrogen peroxide stabilizer. See the attached search notes on NaOH indirectly stabilizing H2O2. Examiner notes Holland et al. teach the same silk and cotton fibers dissolving in the same sodium hydroxide in used in Applicant’s specification step 215.
Holland et al. do not teach the desizing enzyme of independent claim 17.
In the analogous art, Wang et al. teach a method of atmospheric plasma treatment APT of cotton fabric to desize the starch coated in the weaving process. See abstract. Fig. 12 on page 2340 teaches enzymatic desizing of cotton is commonly known in the art, and teach their APT in cotton fabric desizing could be regarded as an alternative to the conventional amylase desizing and using less water, chemicals and energy. (See page 2340, right hand col above References).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with the claimed process of desizing with enzyme because Wang et al. establish the state of the art, that the claimed desizing with enzyme is commonly known processes of cotton fabrics in general.
Holland et al. do not explicitly teach the core alkali neutralizer/buffer of claim 17c.
In the analogous art of treating cotton fibers, Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use neutralizing agents (col.2,ln, 2-1) in a similar process of treating cotton fibers. Tiechelmann et al. teach neutralizing denim fabric by removing residues by contacting the fabric with an aqueous solution containing about 1.5 to 30 parts by weight peracetic acid per hundred parts by weight. The aqueous solution also contains sufficient acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide to provide a peracetic:acetic acid:hydrogen peroxide weight ratio of at least 1:1:1.5. See col.2,ln.40-50.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with the claimed core alkali neutralizer/buffer because Tiechelmann et al. establishes the state of the art that neutralizing agents are commonly used in desizing cotton in general and Holland et al. teach that the claimed categories of ingredients can be used in dissolving the soluble fibers in a mixture of cotton, wool or silk.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Holland, Tieckelmann with Wang since all are in the analogous art of environmentally friendly processes of cotton textile manufacturing.
With respect to the fibers of claims 18-21, Holland et al. teach permanent spiraled yarns are cotton, viscose, nylon encompassing the claimed primary fibers. See col.2,ln.17. Holland et al. teach core yarns of silk or wool fibers. See col.2,ln.7-15 and example 1,col.5,ln.5 encompassing the soluble fibers. While Holland et al. do not specifically teach the virgin or recycled wool or recycled silk of claims 20-21, it would have been obvious to modify Holland et al. with the claimed virgin or recycled wool or recycled silk because Holland et al. teach wool or silk core fibers in an analogous method of making cotton woven textile fabrics in general.
Holland et al. do not teach the plasma treatment of claim 22. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with the claimed process of desizing with enzyme and plasma treatment because Wang et al. establish the state of the art, that both the claimed desizing with enzyme and plasma treatment is commonly known processes of cotton fabrics in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Holland, Tieckelmann with Wang since all are in the analogous art of environmentally friendly processes of cotton textile manufacturing.
Holland et al. do not teach the anionic or nonionic nature of the wetting agent of claim 23, however, Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use anionic or nonionic wetting agents (col.5,ln.39) thus establishing that the claimed natures of categories of ingredients is not novel or patentable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with the anionic or nonionic wetting agents as claimed because Tiechelmann et al. establishes that the claimed natures of categories of ingredients are not novel or patentable and are commonly used in desizing in general and Holland et al. teach wetting agents along with the other claimed categories of ingredients used in dissolving the soluble fibers in a mixture of cotton, wool or silk.
Holland et al. do not teach the claim 25 limitation to the hydrogen peroxide stabilizer being anionic. Examiner notes Holland et al. teach sodium hydroxide solubilizing the silk fibers in a mixture of cotton, wool or silk which is the same as used by Applicants’ specification [0054].Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use anionic detergents and surfactants and carboxylic acid chelating agent in a similar process of desizing denim. See example 4 and col.2 and table ! in col.7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with an anionic hydrogen peroxide stabilizer as claimed because Tiechelmann et al. motivates one of ordinary skill to anionic reagents in a similar process of desizing denim as they are inert to oxidizing agents. See Tiechelmann et al. col.3,ln.27.
Holland et al. do not teach the cryptoanionic nature of the lubricant required in claim 26. Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use a cryptoanionic lubricant (see col.5,ln.33) thus establishes that the claimed natures of categories of ingredients is not novel or patentable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with the claimed cryptoanionic lubricant because Tiechelmann et al. establishes that the claimed natures of categories of ingredients are not novel or patentable and are commonly used in desizing in general and Holland et al. teach that the claimed categories of ingredients can be used in dissolving the soluble fibers in a mixture of cotton, wool or silk.
Holland et al. do not teach the claim 27 limitation to the core alkali neutralizer being anionic. Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use anionic detergents and surfactants in a similar process of desizing denim. See example 4 and col.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with an anionic core alkali neutralizer as claimed because Tiechelmann et al. motivates one of ordinary skill to anionic reagents in a similar process of desizing denim as they are inert to oxidizing agents. See Tiechelmann et al. col.3,ln.27.
Holland et al. do not teach the claim 28 limitation to the leveling agent being anionic. Tiechelmann et al. teach that it is commonly known to use anionic detergents and surfactants in a similar process of desizing denim. See example 4 and col.2 col.3,ln.27. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. with an anionic leveling agent as claimed because Tiechelmann et al. motivates one of ordinary skill to anionic reagents in a similar process of desizing denim as they are inert to oxidizing agents. See Tiechelmann et al. col.3,ln.27.
With respect to claim 29, Holland col.6,ln.35, teach that the soluble fibers are dissolved during dyeing and finishing leaving only the cotton yarn. See col.6,ln.15-45.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Holland et al. (US 3,169,557), Tieckelmann et al. (US 5,205,835) and Wang, X., Zhao, H., Chen, F. et al. The Application of Atmospheric Plasma for Cotton Fabric Desizing. Fibers Polym 20, 2334–2341 (2019) as applied to claims 1-11, 13-23, 25-29 above, and further in view of Kumar (WO 00/34565).
Holland et al. Tieckelmann et al. and Wang et al. are relied upon as set forth above. However, they do not teach a group of enzymes for desizing as required by claim 24.
In the analogous art of desizing cotton, Kumar teach the state of common knowledge in the art wherein prior to the manufacture of the fabric, either the warp or the fill yarn is treated with an enzyme solution. Suitable enzymes for treatment include amylase for removing starch based sizing compositions from the fibers, protease enzymes for wool dehairing, pectinases and/or lipases for scouring of fibers generally, lipases for treatment of polyester fibers to, for example, improve their wettability, oxido-reductase enzymes for bleaching and expansins or swollenins for achieving modifications of the fibers. See page 5,ln.10-16 teaching a group of enzymes, namely amylases and cellulases (page 3ln.5) for specifically removing size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Holland et al. Tieckelmann et al. and Wang et al. with a group of desizing enzymes as taught by Kumar teaching a plurality of enzymes in an enzyme solution for dissolving size. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings because all in are in the analogous art of cotton fabric treatment.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights