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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 7, 11, 12 and 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.
3. With regard to claim 7, claim 7 is indefinite because it is not clear if a “solution with conductivity of greater than 0. 1mS/cm is applied to the carpet” is applied to the carpet. In other words, it is not clear if the method of treating the carpet further includes applying any solution with conductivity of greater than 0. 1mS/cm is applied to the carpet after the carpet is dried. For purposes of the Examination claim 7 will be interpreted as a method that includes drying the carpet without the application of any solution with conductivity of greater than 0. 1mS/cm is applied to the carpet. For purposes of examination the Examiner will only give patentable weight to the definite limitations pertaining to the structure and method.
4. With regard to claim 11, claim 11 is indefinite because it is not clear if a “separate pH adjusting agent is applied to the carpet”. In other words, it is not clear if the method of treating the carpet further applying a separate pH adjusting agent is applied to the carpet after the carpet is dried. For purposes of the Examination claim 11 will be interpreted as a method that includes drying the carpet without the application a separate pH adjusting agent. For purposes of examination the Examiner will only give patentable weight to the definite limitations pertaining to the structure and method.
5. With regard to claim 12, The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition, the Examiner is of the position that dependent claim 12 is inconsistent with claim independent 1. Claim 1 recites a surfactant free emulsion. For purposes of Examination claim 12 will be construed to mean an emulsion that is surfactant free.
6. With regard to claim 18, The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition, the Examiner is of the position that dependent claim 18 is inconsistent with independent claim 17. Claim 17 recites a surfactant free emulsion. For purposes of Examination claim 18 will be construed to mean an emulsion that is surfactant free.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-9, 12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by 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). 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 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 8, it appears that the treatment composition is applied without the use of an acetic solution (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014001252 A.
With regard to claims 10-11, 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 before water is added. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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
13. 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