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 January 30, 2026. Claims 1,3 and 10-13 are pending. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 10-13 are new. Claims 2 and 4-9 have been cancelled.
All prior rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the clams.
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 1,3 and 10-13 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 1 and 10 recite the limitation “conventional dyeing system suitable for pre-reduced liquid indigo dye” which is indefinite because applicant does not define what is encompassed by “conventional”. The examiner interpreted the limitation to encompass any known system capable of being used with pre-reduced liquid indigo dyes.. Claims 3 and 11-13 are also rejected for being dependent upon claims 1 or 10 and inheriting the same deficiency.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 2013/0330992) in view of Malpass (US 2018/0073192) and Keranen (WO 2019/113297).
Mitchell teaches preparing denim fabric, apparel and garments (abstract) from polyester yarns as the filling yarn and cotton yarns as the warp yarn, weaving the yarns into a denim fabric, dyeing the fabric with pre-reduced liquid indigo dye in a known (conventional) dyeing system wherein the cotton is dyed with the indigo and the polyester remains undyed (paragraphs 0009, 0027,0036,0038,0042-0049, 0055). Mitchell teaches the fabric has 25-40 wt% recycled polyester and 25-40 wt% recycled cotton and 25-40 wt% of other cotton (paragraph 0036). Mitchell teaches dyeing in the form of fabric or in the form of fibers or both (paragraph 0055).
Mitchell does not specify that the polyester remains undyed when a mixed cotton polyester denim fabric is exposed to pre-reduced indigo dye.
Malpass teaches it is known to provide undyed textile into a dyeing chamber and dyeing them with pre-reduced indigo dye wherein the fabric is a denim woven from cotton fiber and polyester or polyolefin fibers (paragraphs 0013, 0027,0028,0030,0031,0035).
Keranen teaches that cotton is readily dyed by pre-reduced indigo (paragraph 0004, 0048,0080) but polyester is not suitable for dyeing using conventional leuco-indigo dyeing process and indigo must be modified to dye polyester (paragraph 0081). Keranen teaches garment dyeing (paragraphs 0009, 0059).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the denim fabric dyeing methods of Mitchell by preparing a undyed woven cotton warp polyester weft denim fabric in the claimed percentages and dyeing the undyed fabric a pre-reduced indigo liquid dyebath to arrive at a fabric with dyed cotton and undyed polyester as Malpass teaches it is known to combined polyester and cotton into a woven denim fabric and dye the fabric after weaving and Keranen teaches that cotton will readily dye with pre-reduced indigo dye but conventional dyeing with pre-reduced (leuco) indigo will leave the polyester undyed. Mitchell invites the inclusion of dyeing in fabric form or dyeing in fiber form. Nothing unobvious is seen in dyeing in pre-reduced indigo a woven denim fabric comprising undyed cotton warp and undyed polyester weft, resulting in a fabric with dyed cotton and undyed polyester. Applicant has not defined what encompasses “conventional” dyeing systems and since these systems are taught to be suitable to dye with pre-reduced indigo, they meet the claimed limitation.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 2013/0330992) in view of Malpass (US 2018/0073192) and Keranen (WO 2019/113297) as evidenced by Gurley (US 5,611,822)
Mitchell teaches preparing denim fabric, apparel and garments (abstract) from polyester yarns as the filling yarn and cotton yarns as the warp yarn, weaving the yarns into a denim fabric, dyeing the fabric with pre-reduced liquid indigo dye in a known (conventional) dyeing system wherein the cotton is dyed with the indigo and the polyester remains undyed (paragraphs 0009, 0027,0036,0038,0042-0049, 0055). Mitchell teaches the fabric has 25-40 wt% recycled polyester and 25-40 wt% recycled cotton and 25-40 wt% of other cotton (paragraph 0036). Mitchell teaches dyeing in the form of fabric or in the form of fibers or both (paragraph 0055).
Mitchell does not specify that the polyester remains undyed when a mixed cotton polyester denim fabric is exposed to pre-reduced indigo dye. Mitchell does not teach cutting and sewing the denim weave fabric to construct a garment.
Malpass teaches it is known to provide undyed textile into a dyeing chamber and dyeing them with pre-reduced indigo dye wherein the fabric is a denim woven from cotton fiber and polyester or polyolefin fibers (paragraphs 0013, 0027,0028,0030,0031,0035).
Keranen teaches that cotton is readily dyed by pre-reduced indigo (paragraph 0004, 0048,0080) but polyester is not suitable for dyeing using conventional leuco-indigo dyeing process and indigo must be modified to dye polyester (paragraph 0081). Keranen teaches garment dyeing (paragraphs 0009, 0059).
Gurley provides evidence that garment dyeing is known to be a process wherein undyed fabrics are cut and sewn into garments and dyed with indigo after garment fabrication (column 3, lines 29-32; column 4, lines 50-54)..
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the denim fabric dyeing methods of Mitchell by preparing a undyed woven cotton warp polyester weft denim fabric in the claimed percentages, cutting and sewing the undyed fabric to prepare a garment and dyeing the undyed garment in a pre-reduced indigo liquid dyebath to arrive at a garment with dyed cotton yarns and undyed polyester yarns as Malpass teaches it is known to combined polyester and cotton into a woven denim fabric and dye the fabric after weaving and Keranen teaches that cotton will readily dye with pre-reduced indigo dye but conventional dyeing with pre-reduced (leuco) indigo will leave the polyester undyed and garment dyeing is used as an effective method of dyeing. Gurley specifies that garment dyeing is a process in which undyed fabrics are cut and sewn into garments and then dyed with indigo. Mitchell invites the inclusion of dyeing in fabric form or dyeing in fiber form. Nothing unobvious is seen in dyeing a woven, cut and sewn garment in pre-reduced indigo to produce a woven denim garment comprising undyed cotton warp yarns and undyed polyester weft yarns. Applicant has not defined what encompasses “conventional” dyeing systems and since these systems are taught to be suitable to dye with pre-reduced indigo, they meet the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3 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