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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-10, 12, 14-16 and 19 are cancelled. Claims 11, 13 and 17-18 are pending. Claim 11 is independent.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 11-14, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton et al. (US 5,863,298), in view of Zizovic, Irena “Potential of Supercritical Solvent Impregnation for Development of Materials with Antibacterial Properties” Int Arch Med Microbiol 2017, Volume 1 | Issue 1, pdf attached and found at https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/iamm/international-archives-of-medical-microbiology-iamm-1-001.php?jid=iamm is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton et al. (US 5,863,298) and Zizovic, Irena “Potential of Supercritical Solvent Impregnation for Development of Materials with Antibacterial Properties” Int Arch Med Microbiol 2017, Volume 1 | Issue 1 as applied to claims 11-14, 16 and 19 above, and further in view of Thies et al. (US 5,512,231) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton et al. (US 5,863,298) and Zizovic, Irena “Potential of Supercritical Solvent Impregnation for Development of Materials with Antibacterial Properties” Int Arch Med Microbiol 2017, Volume 1 | Issue 1 and further in view of Esfandiari et al. “Effect of enzymatic and mechanical treatment on combined desizing and bio-polishing of cotton fabrics” The Journal of The Textile Institute, Vol. 105, No. 11, 1193–1202, 2014 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton et al. (US 5,863,298) and Zizovic, Irena “Potential of Supercritical Solvent Impregnation for Development of Materials with Antibacterial Properties” Int Arch Med Microbiol 2017, Volume 1 | Issue 1 and further in view of Liu et al. “Ecofriendly pretreatment of grey cotton fabric with enzymes in supercritical carbon dioxide fluid.” Journal of Cleaner Production Volume 120, 1 May 2016, Pages 85-94, is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully 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. The claim amendments are addressed below. Fulton et al. (US 5,863,298) is properly combined with Thies et al. (US 5,512,231) in the new grounds of rejection below as both references teach solvents miscible in super critical CO2 for textile fiber processing.
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 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton et al. (US 5,863,298) in view of Thies et al. (US 5,512,231).
Fulton et al. (US 5,863,298) teach well known methods to size and desize yarn textiles with liquid carbon dioxide or supercritical carbon dioxide solvent. See title and abstract. The examples in Fulton et al. teach applying the size to the yarn before weaving the cotton blend yarns (encompassing the sizing applied textile product). See col.9,ln.32 and experiment 4. Fulton et al. teach removing that size from the yarn prior to dying a roll of fabric with carbon dioxide. See abstract, col.9,ln.33-44 and experiment 4, and example 1, in col.3 encompassing ‘method of manufacturing” as required in independent claim 11.
Specific to sizing cotton threads in claim 11, Fulton et al. experiment 3 in col.7, illustrates the process for applying and removing size materials from 50/50 polyester/cotton yarns which encompasses the claim 11 to the textile product contains cotton threads.
Claim 11 limitation to weaving sizing-applied cotton thread into a sizing-applied textile product is met by Fulton et al. teaching in col.1,ln.25-35, size is applied by drawing the yarns through a mixture of water and a sizing material soluble in water such as starch or polyvinyl alcohol. The yarn is thereby wetted and coated with the size material. Typically, the yarn is then subjected to a drying or heating process to remove the water, thus leaving a yarn coated with the size material for weaving. After weaving the yarns into a fabric, the size material is removed by placing the fabric in water and thus dissolving the size into the water. See col.1,ln.25-35 and col.9,ln.32-43.
Fulton et al. do not teach cellulose acetate sizing agent and acetone cosolvent required in independent claim 11. Examiner notes that Fulton et al. teach co-solvents such as alcohols (water, ethanol, methanol, etc.), nitrites (acetonitrile) and the like are useful in experiment 4, col.10,ln.35-37 in general. Also regarding the cosolvent of claim 11, Fulton et al. teach in experiment 4,col.10,ln.28-37 a mixture of carbon dioxide and a cosolvent miscible with CO2. Examiner further notes that col.2,ln.45-67 guide one of ordinary skill that the sizing agent of Fulton may be polymeric in general. See also example 4, paragraph linking the col.9-10 contemplating a range of possible size materials applied in a mixture of carbon dioxide and a solvent miscible with carbon dioxide.
In the analogous art of fiber processing using supercritical CO2, Theis et al. (US 5,512,231) teach cellulose acetate is dissolved in a solvent to form a solution, the solvent made up of from 5% to 50% by weight of carbon dioxide and from 95% to 50% of a compatible solvent such as acetone is commonly known. See abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fulton et al. with the cellulose acetate and acetone as taught by Theis et al. teaching it is commonly known in fiber processing that cellulose acetate is dissolved in a acetone solvent to form a solution miscible with carbon dioxide and Fulton et al. guide one of ordinary skill to include a similar cosolvent that is miscible with carbon dioxide in their sizing and desizing method in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Fulton with Theis since both are in the analogous art of using supercritical CO2 on textile fibers.
With respect to claim 13, Fulton et al. do not teach the claim 13 method further comprising desizing the cellulose acetate sizing-applied textile product by bringing the cellulose acetate sizing-applied textile product into contact with a fluid containing supercritical carbon dioxide and a acetone. However, Fulton et al. guide one of ordinary skill to well known methods to size and desize cotton yarn with liquid carbon dioxide or supercritical carbon dioxide solvent. See title and abstract. The example1-3 and experiment 4 and col.9,ln.32-43 in Fulton et al. teach one of ordinary skill methods to coat cotton blend with size and remove that size from the yarn with carbon dioxide. See the abstract and exemplary methods encompassing ‘applying a sizing agent’ and ‘desizing the size’. And Theis et al. is relied upon as explained above for teaching commonly known fiber processing with supercritical CO2 wherein cellulose acetate is dissolved in a solvent to form a solution, the solvent made up of from 5% to 50% by weight of carbon dioxide and from 95% to 50% of a compatible solvent such as acetone. See abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fulton et al. with the claim 13 desizing the cellulose acetate sizing-applied textile product by bringing the cellulose acetate sizing-applied textile product into contact with a fluid containing supercritical carbon dioxide and a acetone, as taught by Theis et al. teaching it is commonly known that cellulose acetate is dissolved in a acetone and CO2 solvent to form a commonly known solution used in fiber processing and Fulton et al. teach desizing cotton blend yarns with supercritical CO2 in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Fulton with Theis since both are in the analogous art of using supercritical CO2 on textile fibers.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton et al. (US 5,863,298) and Theis et al. (US 5,512,231) as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Esfandiari et al. “Effect of enzymatic and mechanical treatment on combined desizing and bio-polishing of cotton fabrics” The Journal of The Textile Institute, Vol. 105, No. 11, 1193–1202, 2014. Pdf attached.
Fulton et al. teach well known methods to size and desize cotton yarn textiles with liquid carbon dioxide or supercritical carbon dioxide solvent. See title and abstract. Because Fulton et al. do not teach the claimed cellulose acetate sizing agent and acetone cosolvent required in independent claim and dependent claim 13, Fulton et al. is appropriately combined with Theis et al. teaching cellulose acetate is dissolved in a acetone and CO2 solvent to form a commonly known solution used in fiber processing.
However, Fulton et al. and Theis et al. do not teach the desizing includes metal balls required by claim 17.
Esfandiari et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of desizing textile methods and establish commonly known desizing includes metal balls coming into contact with the sizing applied textile fabric. See abstract and table 1 on page 1195 and page 1194 teaching that the sizing agent in the cotton must be removed in order to prepare the fabric for dyeing and finishing. See page 1194, lines 9-13 at the top left col.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed desizing with metal balls as required by claim 17 because Fulton et al. teach methods for deszing with scCO2 in general and Esfandiari et al. establish that it is commonly known that desizing includes metal balls coming into contact with the sizing applied textile fabric. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Fulton and Theis with Esfandiari et al. since all are in the analogous art of textile treatment in general.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulton et al. (US 5,863,298) and Theis et al. (US 5,512,231) as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Liu et al. “Ecofriendly pretreatment of grey cotton fabric with enzymes in supercritical carbon dioxide fluid.” Journal of Cleaner Production Volume 120, 1 May 2016, Pages 85-94, pdf attached.
Fulton et al. teach well known methods to size and desize cotton yarn textiles with liquid carbon dioxide or supercritical carbon dioxide solvent. See title and abstract. Because Fulton et al. do not teach the claimed cellulose acetate sizing agent and acetone cosolvent required in independent claim and dependent claim 13, Fulton et al. is appropriately combined with Theis et al. teaching cellulose acetate is dissolved in a acetone and CO2 solvent to form a commonly known solution used in fiber processing.
However, Fulton et al. and Theis et al.do not teach the desizing is batch processing or continuous processing as required in claim 18.
Liu et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of desizing textile methods and establish that it is commonly known to desizing cotton in supercritical carbon dioxide media and the results showed that both batch and continuous modes significantly increased the yields. See abstract and page 86, right hand column, ½ down the right side, about line 30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed desizing is batch or continuous processing because Fulton et al. teach methods for desizing with scCO2 in general and Liu et al. establish desizing is both batch and continuous processing is commonly well-known. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Fulton and Theis with Liu et al. since all are in the analogous art of textile treatment in general.
Conclusion
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