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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1, 7, 11, 12 and 18 have been amended. Claims 8 and 10 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendments are found sufficient to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejections set forth in the Action dated 1/28/26. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are also found sufficient to overcome the anticipation rejections made over the cited prior art of published JP 2014001252 A as set forth in the Action dated 1/28/26. Specifically, the cited prior art of published JP 2014001252 A does not teach the newly added claim limitations pertaining to the absence of an acidic solution and the pH of the surfactant free emulsion as it is applied to the carpet. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, the Examiner is of the position that the cited prior art of published JP 2014001252 A renders the claims obvious for reasons set forth herein below.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicants argue that the emulsion of the published JP reference has a pH of 4.3 which is outside the claimed range of 4.5 to 10.0. The Examiner asserted that since water has a neutral the pH of the emulsion of the pH would be higher before the water is added. The Examiner concedes that this argument would made in error. The Examiner assert that the pH of the emulsion would be adjusted (e.g. higher than 4.3) after water (neutral pH of 7) is added. Since the water is added to the emulsion prior to application to the carpet, the Examiner is of the position that the pH of the surfactant free emulstion would be higher than the initial 4.3 as it is applied to the carpet as claimed. The Examiner is further of the position that a pH of 4.3 is statistically close to a pH of 4.5 and thus it is expected that an emulsion with a pH of 4.3 would have the same or similar properties to an emulsion with a pH of 4.5. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. Applicants further point to the examples and data in the specification; however, it appears that only examples 4-6 have adjusted pH of 2. There are no examples and/or data that evidence or support superior and/or unexpected results with a surfactant free emulsion having a pH ranging from 4.5-10 as claimed. For these reasons the Examiner is of the position that the cited prior art of the published JP reference renders the rejected claims obvious as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014001252 A.
With regard to claims 1 and 14-18, the published JP application teach treating a textile with a cationic surfactant free emulsion (title and abstract). The emulsion includes a paraffin wax, cationic acrylic polymer and water, where in the cationic polymer is a copolymer of monomer compositions containing (a) a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer which is an ester of (meth)acrylic acid and alcohol with more than 10 carbon atoms and (b) a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer which is an ester of (meth)acrylic acid and tertiary amino alcohol (abstract). With specific regard to claim 16, the published JP application disclose that in the monomer composition, the component (b) is a (meth) acrylic acid ester monomer that is an ester of (meth) acrylic acid and a tertiary amino alcohol as described above. The component (b) imparts cationicity and hydrophilicity to the cationic acrylic polymer. The tertiary amino alcohol is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include dialkylamino alkanals (saturated aliphatic alcohols having a dialkylamino group (dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate: manufactured by Mitsubishi Rayon Co., Ltd., Acryester DM (trade name) (see translated description). The published JP application teach that the paraffin wax can be emulsified even when a surfactant is not used or a small amount is used, and high-water repellency is easily obtained (see translated description). It also appears that the treatment composition is applied without the use of an acetic solution (see translated description). With regard to the claimed pH, the published JP application appears to teach adjusting the pH of the emulsion to a pH of 4.3 with water (see above). The Examiner is of the position that since water has a neutral pH of 7, the pH of the emulsion would be higher than 4.3 after water is added. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise. The published JP document teach that the repellent fiber product is not particularly limited, and can be widely applied to textile products (see translated description). The Examiner is of the position that absent any further distinguishing limitations, a textile product is sufficient to meet the limitation of the claimed “carpet”.
With regard to claim 11, it appears that water is added to adjust the pH prior to application to the textile. The published JP application does not teach adding an additional pH adjusting agents to the dried textile. In other words, it appears that water is used to adjust the pH of the emulsion (e.g., part of the emulsion composition) and not a separate pH adjusting agent that is applied to the dried carpet.
With regard to claims 12 and 18, as set forth above, the textile treatment can be free of a surfactant.
With regard to claim 2, the published JP application teach that textile is dried after the treatment is applied (see translated description).
With regard to claims 3 and 4, a cotton twill cloth was immersed in the evaluation solution, and the cloth was squeezed between two rubber rollers to make the wet pickup 70 mass%. The “wet pickup” is a numerical value representing the mass of the evaluation liquid absorbed by the cotton twill cloth as a ratio to the dry mass of the cotton twill cloth (hereinafter the same). Next, by using a pin tenter, the cotton twill cloth was dried at 130 ° C. for 120 seconds and further subjected to a dry heat treatment at 170 ° C. for 60 seconds to produce an evaluation cloth (water-repellent fiber product) (see translated description).
With regard to claims 5-6, it appears that the treatment composition is free from a salt solution (see translated description).
With regard to claim 7, it appears that the treatment composition is free from any solution with conductivity of greater than 0. 1mS/cm is applied to the carpet (see translated description).
With regard to claim 9, the published JP application teach that the emulsion has a pH of an emulsion having a pH of 4.3 (adjusted prior to application and drying) (see translated description).
5. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014001252 A as applied to claim 1 and further in view of JP 2017222967 A.
The published JP application issued to 2014001252 does not teach a fluorine free comprising emulsion.
The published JP application ‘967 teach providing a water repellent capable of imparting a water repellent effect having excellent water repellency and excellent washing durability to a fiber products using a fluorine-free compound (title and abstract). The published JP application ‘967 teach that perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) was pointed out to be harmful, bioaccumulative, and environmental pollutant, and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and other perfluoro compounds with 8 or more carbon atoms are concerned. For this reason, fluorine-based water repellent manufacturers have been developing fluorine-based water repellents that do not contain these substances and that have no fear of being generated as decomposition products. Therefore, motivated by the desire to provide a water repellent that is environmentally friendly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the surfactant free water repellent emulsion of the published JP application ‘252 without any fluorine comprising compounds as taught by the published JP application ‘967. The Examiner is of the position that both cited references are analogous and concerned with formulating similar water repellent composition for use in textiles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would easily recognizes the advantages of providing a fluorine free water repellent composition and formulating such a composition would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art without undue experimentation.
6. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014001252 A as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Peng et al., US 20080202384 A1.
The published JP application ‘252 does not teach the claimed carpet or carpet fiber material.
The published patent application issued to Peng et al., teach applying an oil, water and stain resistant composition to textiles such as carpet and textiles comprising PET. Fibrous substrates include textiles, nonwovens, fabrics, fabric blends, carpet, wood, paper and leather. Peng et al., teach textiles and fabrics can comprise polyamides including but not limited to polyamide-6,6 (PA-66), polyamide-6 (PA-6), and polyamide-6,10 (PA-610), polyesters including but not limited to polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polytrimethylene terephthalate, and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT); rayon; cotton; wool; silk; hemp; and combinations thereof (paragraph 0081). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the composition of the published JP application ‘252 to the PET comprising textiles and carpets of Peng et al. The Examiner is of the position that both cited prior art references are analogous and concerned with forming similar water repellent compositions used to treat carpets and textiles. It would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to apply a water repelling composition to textiles and carpets comprising PET fiber material without undue experimentation.
The combination of cited prior art does not teach a continuous length of textile or carpet; however, the Examiner of position that it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the composition to a continuous length of carpet or fabric to expedite the surface treating process, to ease the manufacturing of a surface treated textile or carpet and to provide a uniform coating to the surface of a textile or carpet.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-272-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights