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 § 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 1-7, 9, 11-22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlow (EP 1481118) in view of Rao (PG Pub. 2005/0183218).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 12-14, Marlow teaches a floor covering (carpet or textile composition) comprising a yarn comprising a first single strand and second single strand with each being dyeing and the dyed first single polyamide strand is darker than the dyed second single polyamide strand in the same dyebath [0007 and 0014]. The polyamides of the first and second polyamide strands are different and teaches one is nylon 6 and the other is nylon 66 and therefore they differ in crystallinity (and the first single strand has a lower crystallinity than the second single strand) [0018]. The denier ratio between the first single strand and the second single strand is greater than 1 [0019-0020] (Marlow teaches either the first or second strand can be larger by teaches either can be non-circular). Marlow states plainly “Alternatively or additionally, one of the polyamides may contain anionic end groups, such as sulfonate or carboxylate end groups, that render the polyamide cationic-dyeable.” Therefore either of the first or second strands are taught as being cationic dyed in paragraph 0015. Marlow also teaches either of the first or second strand can be non-circular [0019] and teaches the “In certain preferred embodiments the non-circular filaments are trilobal with modification ratio greater than 1.2 and less than 2.4, preferably from 1.4 to 1.8.” and therefore teaches the claimed denier ratio. Marlow teaches “The AEG number influences how deeply the polyamide is dyed by anionic dyes.” Therefore, Marlow teaches wherein the first single strand and second single strand have differ sulfur contents and the second single strand has a higher sulfur content than the first single strand and the first strand is darker than the second strand. In the alternative, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Marlow to arrive at the claimed he first single strand and second single strand have differ sulfur contents, the second single strand has a higher sulfur content than the first single strand and the first strand being darker than the second strand in order to affect the properties of the yarns including strength, color and location of the varied yarn to affect aesthetics and mechanical properties of the strand and fabric. Marlow teaches either the first or second single strand is darker than the other strand and teaches anionic moieties are different between the first single strand and second single strand and also teach denier differences between the first and second single strands in the claimed range, therefore it is clear that the claimed color depth in the claimed conditions. Further, it is noted the claimed color difference as small as 2 which a mere modest difference and clearly taught by Marlow. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed color depth in order to make the color difference at least noticeable and visual in the yarn and arrive at the claimed invention. Marlow is silent regarding the claimed vat dyestuff. However, Rao et al. teaches using a process using pigments followed by dyeing using dyes including vat dyestuff as an alternative to cationic dyes on polyamide fibers in the same vat dye in order to provide improved light fastness and dyeing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Rao et al. including the vat dyestuff in Marlow in order to provide improved light fastness and dyeing and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the polyamide of the first single strand has a differing number of amine end groups relative to the polyamide of the second single strand [0015].
Regarding claim 9, Marlow teaches the amine end group content of the first and second polyamide strands are different and thus teach the polyamide of the first single strand and the polyamide of the second single strand of polyamide exhibit a difference in wetting speed of the vat dyestuff because higher amine end group content can lead to faster wetting in a vat dye bath due to increased surface polarity and hydrogen bonding.
Regarding claim 11, Marlow teaches the first single strand and the second single strand have differing Ti02 contents [0014].
Regarding claims 15 and 17-21, Marlow teaches a method of dyeing a yarn comprises providing a first single polyamide strand and a second single polyamide strand contacting the yarn with dyeing composition in the same dyeing bath wherein the dye first single strand exhibits a darker color than the second single strand and the denier ratio between the first single strand and the second single strand is greater than 1 [0007, 0014 and 0019-0020]. The polyamides of the first and second polyamide strands are different and teaches one is nylon 6 and the other is nylon 66 and therefore they differ in crystallinity (and the first single strand has a lower crystallinity than the second single strand) [0018]. Marlow states plainly “Alternatively or additionally, one of the polyamides may contain anionic end groups, such as sulfonate or carboxylate end groups, that render the polyamide cationic-dyeable.” Therefore either of the first or second strands are taught as being cationic dyed in paragraph 0015. Marlow also teaches either of the first or second strand can be non-circular [0019] and teaches the “In certain preferred embodiments the non-circular filaments are trilobal with modification ratio greater than 1.2 and less than 2.4, preferably from 1.4 to 1.8.” and therefore teaches the claimed denier ratio. Marlow teaches “The AEG number influences how deeply the polyamide is dyed by anionic dyes.” Therefore, Marlow teaches wherein the first single strand and second single strand have differ sulfur contents and the second single strand has a higher sulfur content than the first single strand and the first strand is darker than the second strand. In the alternative, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Marlow to arrive at the claimed he first single strand and second single strand have differ sulfur contents, the second single strand has a higher sulfur content than the first single strand and the first strand being darker than the second strand in order to affect the properties of the yarns including strength, color and location of the varied yarn to affect aesthetics and mechanical properties of the strand and fabric.
Marlow is silent regarding the claimed vat dyestuff. However, Rao et al. teaches using a process using pigments followed by dyeing using dyes including vat dyestuff as an alternative to cationic dyes on polyamide fibers in the same vat dye in order to provide improved light fastness and dyeing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Rao et al. including the vat dyestuff in Marlow in order to provide improved light fastness and dyeing and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed dye being a vat dye in reduced form and oxidizing the vat dye on the yarn. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a vat dye given the limited number of types of dyes and the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and oxidizing the vat dyes applied to the yarn are well known and necessary to vat dyeing. In the alternative, Fu et al. teach using vat dyes (which would include reducing the vat dye and oxidizing the dye applied to the yarn as such is necessary to vat dyeing) to achieve high color fastness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the vat dye of Fu et al. in the previous combination in order to achieve high color fastness and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, Marlow teaches either the first or second single strand is darker than the other strand and teaches anionic moieties are different between the first single strand and second single strand and also teach denier differences between the first and second single strands in the claimed range, therefore it is clear that the claimed color depth in the claimed conditions. Further, it is noted the claimed color difference as small as 2 which a mere modest difference and clearly taught by Marlow. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed color depth in order to make the color difference at least noticeable and visual in the yarn and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, the polyamide of the first single strand has a differing number of amine end groups relative to the polyamide of the second single strand [0015].
Regarding claim 24, Marlow teaches the amine end group content of the first and second polyamide strands are different and thus teach the polyamide of the first single strand and the polyamide of the second single strand of polyamide exhibit a difference in wetting speed of the vat dyestuff because higher amine end group content can lead to faster wetting in a vat dye bath due to increased surface polarity and hydrogen bonding.
Regarding claim 26, Marlow teaches the first single strand and the second single strand have differing Ti02 contents [0014].
Claims 10, 25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlow (EP 1481118) in view of Rao (PG Pub. 2005/0183218) in view of Godau US Pat. (4,118,183).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, the previous combination is relied upon for the rejections of claims 1 and 15 which are fully incorporated herein by reference. Marlow and the previous combination are silent regarding the claimed wax. However, Godau et al. teach incorporation of a hydrophobizing agent in order to provide water repellant properties. Wax is a commonly known in the art as a hydrophobizing agent and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydrophobizing agent of Godau, including wax in Marlow or the previous combination in order to provide water repellant properties to either the first single strand, the second strand or both strands and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 27 and 29-30, Marlow teaches a yarn comprising a first ply (first single strand) and a second ply (second single strand) with each dyed in the same dyebath. Marlow teaches “The AEG number influences how deeply the polyamide is dyed by anionic dyes.” Therefore, Marlow teaches wherein the first ply and second ply have differ sulfur contents and the second single strand has a higher sulfur content than the first single strand and the first strand is darker than the second strand. In the alternative, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Marlow to arrive at the claimed he first single strand and second single strand have differ sulfur contents, the second single strand has a higher sulfur content than the first single strand and the first strand being darker than the second strand in order to affect the properties of the yarns including strength, color and location of the varied yarn to affect aesthetics and mechanical properties of the strand and fabric. Marlow is silent regarding the claimed vat dyestuff. However, Rao et al. teaches using a process using pigments followed by dyeing using dyes including vat dyestuff as an alternative to cationic dyes on polyamide fibers in the same vat dye in order to provide improved light fastness and dyeing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Rao et al. including the vat dyestuff in Marlow in order to provide improved light fastness and dyeing and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is relied upon for the rejections of claims 1 and 15 which are fully incorporated herein by reference. Marlow and the previous combination are silent regarding the claimed wax. However, Godau et al. teach incorporation of a hydrophobizing agent in order to provide water repellant properties. Wax is a commonly known in the art as a hydrophobizing agent and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hydrophobizing agent of Godau, including wax in Marlow or the previous combination in order to provide water repellant properties to either the first single strand, the second strand or both strands and arrive at the claimed invention.
The cited art teaches the wax and dyeing. Even if the cited art does not disclose the claimed waxing prior to dyeing it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that cited art meets the requirements of the claimed yarn, the cited art clearly meet the requirements of present claims yarn.
Regarding claim 28, the first and second yarn are twisted around each other in a barberpole construction as twisting of the first and second strands is taught as part of the false twisting. The claim language does not require the twisting to remain.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Marlow distinguishes between basic/cationic and acid/anionic dyeable polymers and the sulfur containing groups are tied to the cationic/basic polymers, and the first group with the higher dtex is made with basic/cationic polymer and the second group with the lower dtex is made of acid/anionic polymer. Applicant has argued a specific embodiment of Marlow. Marlow is relied upon for all that is taught and is not limited to specific embodiments. Marlow states plainly “Alternatively or additionally, one of the polyamides may contain anionic end groups, such as sulfonate or carboxylate end groups, that render the polyamide cationic-dyeable.” Therefore either of the first or second strands are taught as being cationic dyed in paragraph 0015. Marlow also teaches either of the first or second strand can be non-circular [0019] and teaches the “In certain preferred embodiments the non-circular filaments are trilobal with modification ratio greater than 1.2 and less than 2.4, preferably from 1.4 to 1.8.” and therefore teaches the claimed denier ratio. Therefore, Marlow teaches wherein the first single strand and second single strand have differ sulfur contents and the second single strand has a higher sulfur content than the first single strand.
Applicant argues the importance of the process of applying wax prior to dyeing is to change the color. Applicant is pointed to MPEP 2144.04 I which states “In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).” and MPEP 2113 I which states “"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. Therefore, the claimed process is not patentable over the cited art.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights