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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/07/2024.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 15, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020), Fang (US 2005/0266753), Himeno (US 4985545) and Manabe (US 4322214).
Regarding Claims 1 and 29, Mccullough teaches a method for treating cotton, comprising: treating the cotton comprising a natural wax (Table 1) to remove impurities (pg. 2 ln. 1-27) while retaining at least a portion of the natural wax on the cotton (Table 1); bleaching the cotton with hydrogen peroxide at a temperature of less than or about 40°C (pg. 5 line 32-pg. 6 ln. 3); neutralizing the hydrogen peroxide (pg. 8 ln. 18-20); lowering the pH with an organic acid to between about 6 and about 7 (pg. 15 ln. 10-11); dying the cotton at a temperature not exceeding 60 °C (pg. 10 ln. 25-35); and treating the cotton with a wax lock (pg. 11 17-32), the wax lock coating evenly distributed, i.e. over the natural wax on the cotton.
Mccullough does not teach later removal of the natural wax by surfactants and is silent as to the property that the wax lock coating prevents removal of the portion of the natural wax by surfactants for 20 subsequent laundering cycles; however, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). With regard to the preventing removal and retaining limitations, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or function are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112. In this situation, the prior art exemplifies the applicant's claimed materials and structure, so the claimed preventing removal and retaining relating to the materials and structure are present in the prior art. Absent an objective evidentiary showing to the contrary, the addition of the physical properties to the claim language fail to provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Mccullough does not explicitly teach the treatment to remove impurities being with soda ash at a temperature of less than about 150 °F and a pH of about 9.5; however, Salmon teaches that scouring processes well known in the art employ sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate, i.e. soda ash ([0039]). Salmon teaches scouring processes at temperatures between 10-100°C and a pH above 9 ([0039]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the scouring process of Mccullough to include a scouring, as taught in Salmon, because it is a known process in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the cotton of Mccullough with scouring as in Salmon. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the temperatures and pH of the combined references to be any temperature and pH, taught in Salmon, because Salmon teaches they are all suitable conditions for use with the invention.
Mccullough teaches the coated product having moisture resistance (pg. 12 ln. 1-2). Mccullough does not explicitly teach wherein the wax lock comprises a silicone compound or an acrylic compound; however, Fang teaches hydrophobic textile treatments including waxes, silicones, and acrylic copolymers ([0012]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the coating of Mccullough to include silicones or acrylic compounds, as suggested by Fang, because they are known finishes for a water repellent property in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Mccullough with silicones or acrylic compounds.
Mccullough teaches wherein the dying comprises treating the cotton with sodium chloride; treating the cotton with soda ash; and treating the cotton with dye solution (Table 3, pg. 16 ln. 6-14). Mccullough teaches rinsing the cotton twice (pg. 16 ln. 11-14). Mccullough does not explicitly teach the salt being sodium sulfate and is silent as to the claimed pH raise with soda ash to about 9.5; however, Himeno teaches sodium sulfate as an alternative salt for dye solutions (col. 11 ln. 52-68). Himeno teaches a sodium carbonate, i.e. soda ash, as an alkali for the dye solution and teaches a pH ranging from 8-12 (col. 11 ln. 52-68). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the salt of Mccullough to be sodium sulfate, as taught in Himeno, because it is a known alternative salt for die solutions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the die solution of Mccullough with a salt as in Himeno. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the pH of the combined references to be any pH, as taught in Himeno, because Himeno teaches they are all suitable conditions for use with dye solutions.
Mccullough does not explicitly teach neutralizing the dye solution to a pH of about 6.5 as claimed; however, Manabe teaches an after treatment of waste dye solutions by neutralizing to a pH of 6-7 (col. 15 ln. 3-5). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to neutralize the waste dye solutions, as taught in Manabe, because it is a known treatment for waste dye solutions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the dyed product of Mccullough with a dye solution after treatment as in Manabe.
Regarding Claims 2-3, Mccullough teaches cotton fabric or yarn (pg. 1 ln. 28-29).
Regarding Claim 4, Salmon teaches a mixture of sodium carbonate with sodium hydroxide, i.e. a bleach activator ([0039]).
Regarding Claim 5, Salmon teaches chelating agents in the scouring ([0005]).
Regarding Claim 7, Mccullough teaches neutralizing comprises adding an enzyme to degrade the hydrogen peroxide (pg. 8 ln. 18-19).
Regarding Claims 15 and 28, Mccullough teaches the temperatures of drying allow the wax to evenly distribute and become affixed to the fiber surface (pg. 9 ln. 29-30). Mccullough does not explicitly teach a drying temperature; however, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II. A. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the drying temperatures of Mccullough, as suggested by the reference, in order to allow the wax to evenly distribute and become affixed to the fiber surface and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed temperatures.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020), Fang (US 2005/0266753), Himeno (US 4985545) and Manabe (US 4322214) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 15, and 28-29 above, and further in view of Siddiquee (Siddiquee, Comparative study of conventional and enzymatic pretreatment (scouring and bleaching) of cotton knitted fabric, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 3(1), 2014, pg. 37-43).
Regarding Claim 6, Mccullough teaches a catalyst (pg. 8 ln. 15-18). Mccullough does not explicitly teach an arylesterase catalyst; however, arylesterase catalyst for peroxide bleaching is known in the art (Siddiquee abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the catalyst of Mccullough to be an arylesterase catalyst, as taught in Siddiquee, because it is a known catalyst for peroxide bleaching in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the peroxide bleaching of Mccullough with a catalyst as taught in Siddiquee.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020), Fang (US 2005/0266753), Himeno (US 4985545) and Manabe (US 4322214) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 15, and 28-29 above, and further in view of Schmidt (US 3954652).
Regarding Claim 8, Mccullough teaches acetic acid. Mccullough does not explicitly teach citric acid; however, citric acid is a known alternative to acetic acid for pH adjustment in the art (Schmidt col. 2 ln. 52-64). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the acid of Mccullough to be a citric acid, as taught in Schmidt, because it is a known acid for pH adjustment in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the solution of Mccullough with an acid as taught in Schmidt.
Claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020), Fang (US 2005/0266753), Himeno (US4985545), and Manabe (US 4322214) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 15, and 28-29 above, and further in view of Meszaros (US 4917706).
Regarding Claims 10-11, Mccullough teaches sulfur dye (pg. 7 ln. 25-27). Mccullough is silent about the specific dye and does not teach a pre-reduced dye or reducing agent; however, Meszaros teaches a pre-reduced sulfur dye (abstract). Meszaros teaches a supplemental portion of reducing agent can be added. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dye vat of the combined references to include a pre-reduced dye and reducing agent, as suggested in Meszaros, because it is a known composition in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the textile of Mccullough with a dye and reducing agent, as in Meszaros.
Regarding Claim 12, Mccullough teaches sodium chloride, i.e. adding a mordant to the dye solution.
Regarding Claim 13, Mccullough teaches hydrogen peroxide, i.e. treating the cotton with an oxidant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 8/26/2025, with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
Applicant's other arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Mccullough does not teach or suggest treating the cotton with a wax lock after dying the cotton. In response to applicant’s argument, Fang teaches textiles being dyed before application of wax treatment ([0010], [0012]).
Applicant argues the combination of Mccullough and Manabe is improper because there is no reasonable expectation of success. Applicant argues there is no reasonable expectation of success of using the specific sulfur dyes of Manabe in the bi-regional cotton fiber of Mccullough. In response to applicant’s argument, while Mccullough teaches sodium chloride; treating the cotton with soda ash; and treating the cotton with dye solution (Table 3, pg. 16 ln. 6-14) as a desirable dying process, Mccullough does not limit the dying to these specific conditions and also teaches the choice of dye class varies in the fastness properties they are able to impart to the finished dyed cotton (pg. 7 ln. 25-pg. 8 ln. 2). Mccullough is further silent as to the after-treatment process for the waste dye. This teaching in Mccullough provides motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to related art concerning suitable dying methods and after-treatment processes, including those of Manabe.
Applicant argues the combination of Mccullough and Fang is improper because “ignition resistance/fire retardancy” and “hydrophobicity” are distinct characteristics that require different treatments. Applicant argues that the two characteristics are not equivalent to each other. Applicant argues Mccullough does not seek to achieve moisture resistance. Applicant argues the assertion of equivalents of waxes, silicones, and acrylic copolymers cannot be applied. In response to Applicant’s argument, Mccullough teaches the coating providing both ignition resistance and enhanced moisture resistance. This teaching in Mccullough provides motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to art directed to enhanced moisture resistance, including Fang. Fang teaches waxes, silicones, and acrylic copolymers are known equivalents in the art which provides motivation to modify the coating of Mccullough to include these known equivalents. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, the characteristics of ignition resistance and moisture resistance are not mutually exclusive.
Applicant argues Mccullough and Fang are not analogous art. Applicant argues Mccullough and Fang address fundamentally distinct problems and propose different solutions. Applicant argues none of the cited references addresses one of the motivations of application — to reduce environmental impact of cotton processing. In response to applicant's argument that Mccullough and Fang are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Mccullough and Fang are in the field of textile treatment, which is the field of the inventor’s endeavor.
Applicant argues the other references do not cure this deficiency and the cited references also fail to render the dependent claims obvious; however, this is not convincing as discussed above.
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 TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712