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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grifoni article “UV protective properties of cotton and flax fabrics dyed with multifunctional plant extracts”.
Grifoni is directed to UV protective properties of cotton dyed by multifunctional plant extracts. Grifoni teaches states that the safest protection from UV radiation is offered by textiles and dyeing the fabric with tannin based mordant increased UV protection level (page 279, ABST). Grifoni teaches that vegetable tannins or tannic acid can be the natural dye used to improve the UV protection factor (page 280,1st col, lines 13-15). Grifoni article “UV protective properties of cotton and flax fabrics dyed with multifunctional plant extracts” (page 90, 1st column, lines 1-20) also teaches natural dyeing with tannic acid or other vegetable tannins. Tannic acid is a type of polyphenol (page 90, bottom of first column).
The fabrics are mordanted prior to dying to increase affinity for the dye. The mordants can be tannins (col. 90, col. 2, section 2.4). The secondary dyes are equated with capping agents.
As to claims 2-5, Grifoni teaches the UV absorbing chemical is tannic acid.
As to claim 6, Grifoni teaches phenolic dye classes are bonded to the tannic acid mordant treated fabric. Phenolic dye classes are equated with a monophenol as claimed. For example the rubia extracts are anthroquinones (page 92, column 1, paragraph 2) and monophenols. As to claim 9, Grifoni teaches UV protective fabrics and fabrics are known in the art to be used for garments.
As to claim 10, Grifoni teaches the cover factor of the fabrics is greater than 94% and this overlaps the range of 97% to 100% (page 90, col. 2, section 2.3).
As to claim 11, Grifoni teaches a cotton fabric which is equated with an organic porous substrate.
Claims 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grifoni article “UV protective properties of cotton and flax fabrics dyed with multifunctional plant extracts” in view of in view of and in further view of He et al (CN 105970672)
As to claims 13 and 14, Grifoni teaches the cotton fabric is treated with the tannin mordant and were well wrung out and dyed. The process of mordanting with tannin were in a solution and applied to the fabric (page 90 section 2.4). Then the dyeing process, equated with capping was performed via a dye solution (page 91, section 3.1).
Grifoni does not teach drying the fabric.
He is directed to a vegetable dye dyeing process for wool or cotton which comprises the steps of immersing the fabric in the vegetable dye, heating to a temperature of 80-85C and then reacting, adjusting the pH and then taking out the fabric. The fabric is then immersed in a bath and heated and then taking out the fabric and drying at 80-90C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to dry the fabric in a heated temperature motivated to dry the fabric after dyeing.
As to claim 15, Grifoni teaches tannic acid.
As to claims 18 and 19, Grifoni differs and does not teach drying the fabric.
He is directed to a vegetable dye dyeing process for wool or cotton which comprises the steps of immersing the fabric in the vegetable dye, heating to a temperature of 80-85C and then reacting, adjusting the pH and then taking out the fabric. The fabric is then immersed in a bath and heated and then taking out the fabric and drying at 80-90C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to dry the fabric in a heated temperature motivated to dry the fabric after dyeing.
As to claim 20, Grifoni teaches a textile substrate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grifoni article “UV protective properties of cotton and flax fabrics dyed with multifunctional plant extracts” and in further view of Son article “Tannin-Titanium Oxide Multilayer as Photochemically Suppressed Ultraviolet Filter”.
Grifoni differs and does not teach an inorganic component in the form of nanoparticles, coatings or fibers.
Son is directed to tannin-titanium oxide multilayer UV screening materials. Son teaches a new type of anti-UV coating with the suppression of ROS by redox chemistry, with layer-by-layer (LbL) self-assembly of TiO2 NPs with tannic acid (TA), which is a commercial form of tannin. Tannic acid serves as a key component for the conformal coating of colloidal TiO2 NPs while controlling their redox photochemistry. TA is one of the polyphenols that are widely found in foods. Also, TA can be easily deposited on various materials via the coordination of metal ions (e.g., Fe, Cu, Al, and Zr) with galloyl moieties (3,4,5-trihydroxyphenyl groups).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ an inorganic titanium UV screening material with tannic acid motivated to improve the UV properties of the fabric.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach a capping agent that is a protein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to Pisitsak have been fully considered and are persuasive and the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn. As Pisitsak differs and does not teach the whey protein is a capping agent.
The Objection to the Specification and the 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claim to clarify the function of the capping agent.
New grounds of rejection over Grifoni is presented herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (CN 111286980) is directed to a UV fabric treated with gallic acid and then rutin (a flavonoid).
Jiang “Protein-tannin interactions towards fabricating flame retardant, UV resistance, antibacterial and mechanical-reinforced PA66 fabric” (2024).
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 JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789