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 1-19 are pending. Claim 7 has been amended. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and amended claim 7 in the reply filed on October 29, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 5 and 6 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 “high-solids” in claims 5 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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 range encompassed by “high” is not defined as to the metes and bounds. The examiner interpreted ant solids level to meet the limitation of “high-solids” since no definition as to the range of high was defined.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: applicant should only include the range in oz./ sq. yd. or gm/ sq. meter as the conversion between units is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: styrene is misspelled in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20020056779).
Lee teaches a fragrant fabric selected from cotton composition coated with microencapsulated fragrance adhered to the fabric using a 50% solids (high solids) aqueous acrylic polymer resin (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). Accordingly, the teachings of Lee are sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20020056779) and further in view of Narayanan (US 2005/0260240).
Lee is relied upon as set forth above.
Lee does 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 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) and further in view of Muramatsu (JP 2004324029).
Lee is relied upon as set forth above.
Lee does 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 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. High-solids is met by any value as applicant has not defined what encompasses “high”. Lee teaching using 50% solids which is interpreted by the examiner to meet the limitation “high”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20020056779) and further in view of Park (KR 20020059048).
Lee is relied upon as set forth above.
Lee does not teach foam and surfactant.
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 the claim 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. 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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20020056779) 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 is relied upon as set forth above.
Lee 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 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20020056779) 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) and further in view of Muramatsu (JP 2004324029).
Lee and T-shirt Wholesaler blog are relied upon as set forth above.
Lee 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 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. High-solids is met by any value as applicant has not defined what encompasses “high”. Lee teaching using 50% solids which is interpreted by the examiner to meet the limitation “high”.
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