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 February 4, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 9-16 have been amended. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
All prior rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 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.
Claims 9-18 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. Claims 9-18 recite the limitation “eliminating the scour and/or the scour rinsing stage” but applicant requires those stages in claim 1 from which they claims depend and a step from claim 1 which is required cannot be removed in dependent claims. It is unclear as how to scour rinse if not scouring is not first performed.
Claims 10,11 and 13-18 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. Claims 10,11 and 13-18 recite the limitation “vats in the dyeing stage” or “vats of the dyeing stage” but applicant never indicates vats are present during dyeing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggest applicant amend the claims to first recite “the dyeing stage is performed in vats” and then recite further limitations about the vats. Claims 10,11 and 13-18 either recite the limitation or depend from a claim that recites the limitation and therefore inherits the same deficiency.
Claim 19 is 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. Claim 19 recites the limitation “sizing” but applicant never indicates sizing is present in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 was interpreted to depend from claim 16 which recites sizing.
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 1-4,6 and 7 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. July 29, 2011) in view of Nishioka (US 5,922,087) and Fu (CN 102093755).
Denimsandjeans teaches methods of scouring with pre-wet wetting agent and caustic, scour rinsing with washes, dyeing with sulfur black dye particle (sulfur bottoming as a barrier compound) at pH 11 and at 30-60°C, dyeing with indigo and dye rinsing with washes (page 6/17-8/17).
Denimsandjeans does not teach the particle sizes of the sulfur dye or the indigo dye.
Nishioka teaches stable suspension of sulfur dyes can be prepared with dyes of particle sizes 400 microns or less, including sulfur black (column 3, lines 5-55; column 4, lines 27-32).
Fu teaches indigo dye suspensions are effectively used to dye cotton because they improve color depth and friction resistance and washing fastness of the dye as they are easily adsorbed on the fabric (paragraph 0002). Fu teaches indigo of particle sizes of 147.1 nm and 181.2nm (examples).
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 by using sulfur dyes of 400 micron particle size and indigo dyes of 147.1nm particle size as Nishioka teaches sulfur black dyes used in dyeing conventionally have particles sizes of 400 microns or less and Fu teaches ultrafine particles of indigo such as 147.1 nm particles are effectively adsorbed by cottons to provide improved color depth and friction resistance or washing fastness.
Claims 9-11 and 13-19 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. July 29, 2011) in view of Nishioka (US 5,922,087) and Fu (CN 102093755) and further in view of Xie (US 2017/0145628).
Denimsandjeans, Nishioka and Fu are relied upon as set forth above.
Denimsandjeans, Nishioka and Fu do not teach scouring without caustic.
Xie teaches that in scouring processes before vat dyeing of cotton (abstract) it is advantageous to substitute bioscouring using enzymes and surfactants (wetting agents) instead of caustic chemicals (paragraph 0005, 0038-0044,0071, 0189). Xie exemplifies using concentration of 0.8-1.5g/L surfactant ( Tables 3,4,5 and paragraph 0190,0191).
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, Nishioka and Fu by scouring without using caustic and instead using a surfactant at the claimed concentrations as Xie teaches effective scouring can be accomplished with enzymes and surfactants without the need for harsh chemicals such as sodium hydroxide to produce a more ecofriendly and more gentle methods of scouring which is less damaging to fabrics.
Claims 13-19 are only require selection of one step and the prior art teaches step ii.. Claims 17-19 are also rejected since these are element of an optional step in claim 16 and therefore not required. Claims 17-19 if written in independent form would not require these limitations as they are alternate embodiments.
Claims 5 and 8 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. July 29, 2011) in view of Nishioka (US 5,922,087) and Fu (CN 102093755) and further in view of Haehnke (EP 0583745).
Denimsandjeans, Nishioka and Fu are relied upon as set forth above.
Denimsandjeans, Nishioka and Fu do not teach the concentration of sulfur dye or adding sodium bicarbonate.
Haehnke teaches dyeing cottons with sulfur dyes, pH adjustments are effectively made with sodium bicarbonate (page 3, paragraph 2 and next to last paragraph) and sulfur dyes are used at concentrations of 2g/L to 120g/L (examples).
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, Nishioka and Fu by using sodium bicarbonate to adjust the pH of the sulfur dye bath and use a concentration of 2-5 g/L of sulfur black as Haehnke teaches sodium bicarbonate is an effective and conventional pH adjusting agent to raise the pH to above 10 in sulfur dyeing and that concentrations as low as 2g/L to as high as 120 g/L provide coloring to similar textiles. Selecting the concentration of dye would be a design choice based on the final color shading desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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