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 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1 and 4-8 in the reply filed on April 9, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2,3 and 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is substantially a duplicate of claim 6. Claim 6 “include at least 30 percent cellulosic fibers” and claim 7 “comprise at least 30 percent cellulosic fibers” which is substantially the same. Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 5 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 4 and 5 recite “percent by weight” but do not specify by weight of what which renders the claim indefinite. The examiner interpreted the limitation to be percent by weight of the fiber for examination purposes based on applicant’s specification paragraph 0053..
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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP6570101B1.
JP6570101B1 teaches yarns containing a plurality of fibers wherein the plurality of fibers comprise a lignin content of less than 2%, particularly manila hemp (page 12, second paragraph and claim 1). Since 2% is an endpoint, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage lignin amounts of just below 2%. The comprising language of applicant’s claims allow other fibers to be present with a lignin content outside the claimed range of a maximum of 10% or 5%. JP6570101B1 teaches the lignin colors the fiber (page 10, paragraph 4) and teaches no other colorants (primary dye). Accordingly the teachings of JP6570101B1 are sufficient to anticipate the limitations of the claims.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Juikar (Microbial production of coconut fiber nanolignin for application onto cotton and linen fabrics to impart multifunctional properties. Surfaces and Interfaces 9 (2017) 147-153).
Juikar teaches application of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.4% and 0.5% nanolignin solutions (page 150, Table 2, examples 1-5) to 100% cotton yarns (cellulosic fibers, page 148, section 2.2) made of a plurality of cotton fibers wherein the lignin provides a brown coloration (Figure 3, CT; page 150, left column, last paragraph) to the cotton compared to untreated cotton which is white (Fig 3, C). Juikar teaches the cotton yarns treated with the claimed 0.3,0.4 and 0.5% nanolignin inhibit the growth of bacteria and therefore are bacteriostatic (page 150, Table 2, ex 1,2 and 3). Accordingly the teachings of Juikar are sufficient to anticipate the limitations of the 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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juikar (Microbial production of coconut fiber nanolignin for application onto cotton and linen fabrics to impart multifunctional properties. Surfaces and Interfaces 9 (2017) 147-153).
Juikar is relied upon as set forth above.
Juikar does not specify fibers comprising lignin in a range of 0.3 percent to 10 percent or to 5 percent by weight.
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 Juikar by applying the lignin at concentrations of 0.3% to 10 percent or to 5 percent by weight of the plurality of fibers as Juikar clearly teaches applications of similar concentration solutions to the same 100% cotton (cellulosic) fibers with 100% pickup wherein the more nanolignin added results in more antibacterial activity being provided to the fiber (bacteriostatic property). Juikar further attributes the brown coloration of the cotton treated with nanolignin to the nanolignin pigment itself. Optimizing the nanolignin to the claimed concentrations would be a design choice and adjusted through routine experimentation to maximize bacterial growth inhibition and natural dye coloration as more nanolignin would add a darker shade of color and would provide increased bacterial growth inhibition.
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
Prosecution Insights