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 on May 26, 2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1 and 4-7 have been amended. Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
All prior claim objections and rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the temperatures in degrees C and F which is redundant, only one temperature scale is needed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1,2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20020056779) in view of Park (KR 20020059048).
Lee teaches a fragrant fabric selected from cotton composition coated with microencapsulated fragrance adhered to the fabric using an amount of solids aqueous acrylic polymer resin emulsion comprising water (page 3, first 2 paragraphs, page 4, example 3; claims). Lee teaches the treated fabrics have strong wash durability of the fragrance due to the much stronger bonding of the resin and the fabrics are garments such as socks or stockings (page 4). In some examples Lee teaches 40% solids of the acrylic polymer emulsion (example 1, example 3).
Lee does not teach surfactant, foam application or the wet pick-up.
Park teaches woven fabrics (page 7, embodiment 2, which are conventionally cotton (page 3, paragraph 5), are effectively coated with foamed perfumed compositions comprising acrylic acid copolymer resins, perfumed microcapsules and surfactants (page 1, abstract)
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 Lee by using applying a foam composition including surfactant to the fabric as Park teaches these agents effectively bind the perfume microcapsule to the fabric for the benefit of resistance against washing (page 3, last paragraph). It is noted that claim 7 is product by process and the prior art teaches a substantially similar foamed perfume microcapsule, acrylic resin, surfactant and water composition applied to a woven fabric, wherein the blow ratio and drying temperature are process limitations in a product claim. 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. Burden is on applicants to show product differences in product by process claims, see In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding the 15% wet-pick up and solids content of about 59%, these limitations could be achieved through routine experimentation to the desired level of fragrance application and binding strength and durability of the fragrance to the cotton. Lee allows for a binding solids amount to be determined and teaches 40% in examples which are not limiting of the invention. One of ordinary skill could adjust the solids amount of the acrylic resin emulsion and the wet pick-up of the foam to the claimed values to ensure a desired degree of fragrance and also for a durable binding of the foam to the cotton fabric. Applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of these amounts and therefore arriving at them through routine experimentation is obvious as they directly impact the smell and durability of the fragrance on the cotton.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20020056779) in view of in view of Park (KR 20020059048) and further in view of T-shirt Wholesaler blog (Your T-Shirt Is ‘100% Cotton’—What Does That Really Mean? https://www.t-shirtwholesaler.com/blog/faq/your-t-shirt-is-100-cotton-what-does-that-really-mean?srsltid=AfmBOoq-4rBNo8SwNZSfzaQHaqSviRdhk7FSHPtc3hzZro8nDTBfQjsy, 10/31/2019).
Lee and Park are relied upon as set forth above.
Lee and Park does not teach preshrunk 4.2 oz./sq. yd. 100% combed cotton fabric.
T-shirt Wholesaler blog teaches that 100% preshrunk cotton and combed cotton are advantageous because the preshrinking forces the fibers to tighten before the garment is manufactured so it doesn’t shrink in laundering and combing removes impurities and short fibers from the cotton to provide a softer smooth texture on the skin (page 3/8). T-shirt Wholesaler blog teaches Bella+ Canvas sell 100% cotton combed 4.2 oz t0shirts that are smooth and silky (page 5/8, 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 fabrics of Lee and Park by using preshrunk 4.2 oz/ sq yd. 100% combed cotton to make the fabrics as T-shirt Wholesaler blog teaches combing cotton removes impurities and improves softness and skin feel due to a smoother texture, preshrinking pre-tightens the fibers so they don’t shrink after garment manufacturing and in laundering and Bella+Canvas sell a 4.2 oz cotton which one of the softest cottons with a silky feel. Using the cottons of T-shirt Wholesaler blog in the fragrant cotton garments of Lee would be obvious to enhance softness, silkiness, skin feel and resistance to shrinking after manufacturing.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20020056779) in view of Park (KR 20020059048) and further in view of Narayanan (US 2005/0260240).
Lee and Park are relied upon as set forth above.
Lee and Park do not teach a carboxylated, heat-reactive, styrene acrylic copolymer.
Narayanan teaches textile coatings to preserve additives (paragraph 0025) wherein the coating can comprise carboxylated styrene acrylics which crosslink upon drying with the benefit of significantly enhancing adhesion properties to cellulosic substrates such as wood and cotton as well as improving water resistance for durability of the coating (paragraph 0085). Narayanan teaches the enhanced retention of fragrance on fabrics if a crosslinking polymeric binder is applied (paragraph 0105).
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 Lee and Park by using a carboxylated heat-reactive, styrene acrylic copolymer as Narayanan teaches this polymer provides significantly enhanced adhesion properties to cellulosic substrates such as wood and cotton as well as improving water resistance for durability of the coating and fragrance additive. Heat-reactive is met by any temperature including room temperature drying and any reaction as applicant has not defined what encompasses “heat-reactive”. Lee teaching drying and using any heat level, including drying at ambient temperature, which crosslinks as a reaction and meets this claimed limitation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20020056779) in view of Park (KR 20020059048) and further in view of Muramatsu (JP 2004324029).
Lee and Park are relied upon as set forth above.
Lee and Park do not teach self-crosslinking acrylic polymer emulsion.
Muramatsu teaches that fragrance containing microcapsules are effectively adhered to textile products such as cotton cloth by using self-crosslinking emulsified acrylic ester polymer or co-polymer with a carboxyl group which provide wash resistance (paragraph 0012,0018, abstract).
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 Lee and Park by using a about 59% solids self-crosslinking acrylic ester polymer as Muramatsu teaches this polymer provides effective binding of fragrance microcapsules to cotton fabric with the benefit of great wash resistance. Lee teaching using an amount of solids which is interpreted by the examiner to allow one of ordinary skill to select an appropriate and desired amount for the most effective binding of the fragrance microcapsules, including about 59%.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20020056779) in view of in view of Park (KR 20020059048) and T-shirt Wholesaler blog (Your T-Shirt Is ‘100% Cotton’—What Does That Really Mean? https://www.t-shirtwholesaler.com/blog/faq/your-t-shirt-is-100-cotton-what-does-that-really-mean?srsltid=AfmBOoq-4rBNo8SwNZSfzaQHaqSviRdhk7FSHPtc3hzZro8nDTBfQjsy, 10/31/2019) and further in view of Muramatsu (JP 2004324029).
Lee, Park and T-shirt Wholesaler blog are relied upon as set forth above.
Lee, Park and T-shirt Wholesaler blog do not teach high-solids self-crosslinking acrylic polymer.
Muramatsu teaches that fragrance containing microcapsules are effectively adhered to textile products such as cotton cloth by using self-crosslinking acrylic ester polymer or co-polymer with a carboxyl group which provide wash resistance (paragraph 0012,0018, abstract).
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 Lee, Park and T-shirt Wholesaler blog by using a high-solids self-crosslinking acrylic ester polymer as Muramatsu teaches this polymer provides effective binding of fragrance microcapsules to cotton fabric with the benefit of great wash resistance. Lee teaching using an amount of solids which is interpreted by the examiner to allow one of ordinary skill to select an appropriate and desired amount for the most effective binding of the fragrance microcapsules, including about 59%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Lee, Park, Muramatsu, Narayanan and T-shirt Wholesaler blog have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner argues that woven fabrics are effectively coated with similar microcapsules of perfumes and acrylic resins and the compositions include surfactants as conventional dispersing additives, therefore using a known effective method to bind microencapsulated perfumes with similar binders to fabric compositions in the methods of Lee which also binds microencapsulated perfumes to fabrics is obvious to try to produce a durable fragrance coating on the fabric substrate. Nothing unobvious is seen in using a foam composition comprising the same acrylic binders, water and surfactants to apply a fragrance coating to a fabric instead of an unfoamed composition as both methods achieve durably bound fragrance microcapsules on a fabric. All the prior art are directed to applying fragrance microcapsules to fabrics and selecting the teachings of the coating compositions particularly the foam composition and its additive components, the type or solids, amount of the acrylic binder and wet pick-up would be obvious as they all impact the level of fragrance, durability of that fragrance and uniform distribution of the fragrance in unagglomerated form on the same cotton substrates taught by applicant. Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality of the particular acrylic binder, conventional surfactant additive, the solids level or wet pick up and these parameters can routinely be adjusted through routine experimentation to provide a durably fragranced cotton. Accordingly the rejections are maintained.
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
Prosecution Insights