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 .
Claims 1-25 are pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on September 5, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should recite “dyeing” instead of “dying”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-5 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should recite “further comprising” instead of “comprising” as they are additional steps. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should recite “wherein drying the garment is performed” instead of “comprising drying the garment” as this limitation is defining a step already disclosed in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 15 recite temperatures in °F and then follow this with temperatures in parenthesis in °C, for example in claim 1 “about 150°F (about 66°C). these numbers are not exactly equivalent as 150°F=65.5556°C even with the term “about” which is an undefined tolerance range which may not lead to exact overlapping values for the °F and °C. The examiner suggests applicant use either the “about 150°F” or the “about 66°C”. Similarly for claim 15 applicant should choose to use either the °F or °C temperatures but not both. Claims 2-14,16 and 17 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
Claims 14,16 and 17 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. Claim 14 teaches “treating the garment with the wax lock” but this step is already present in claim 1 from which claim 14 depends as claim 1 recites “applying a wax lock to the garment”. It is unclear if the wax lock treatment of claim 14 is different form the wax lock application of claim 1. For examination purposes the examiner interpreted the wax lock treatment of claim 14 to be the wax lock application of claim 1. Claims 16 and 17 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 14 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 1,6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020).
Mccullough teaches treating cotton fabrics by cleaning them and removing impurities by a Kier process, followed by bleaching using hydrogen peroxide at temperatures less than 60°C, neutralizing the remaining peroxide with an enzyme (Croszyme PEZ, page 8, lines 3-20; page 10, lines 1-3). Mccullough teaches the pH is adjusted to 6.5 to 7 by adding acetic acid after peroxide bleaching (page 15, lines 5-13). Mccullough teaches making a garment from the cotton fabric (page 5, lines 19-28; page 13, lines 13-22), applying a wax to the cotton (page 10, lines 1-24; page 11, lines 24-32) and dyeing with dyes such as sulfur or reactive dyes at temperatures not exceeding 60°C (page 10, lines 25-35; lines 25-27), rinsing after dyeing, reducing the pH with acetic acid and rinsing again (page 16, line 6-15). Air drying after dyeing naturally occurs by evaporation of water.
Mccullough does not teach treating cotton with soda ash at temperatures of less than about 150°F (about 66°C) and a pH f about 9.5.
Salmon teaches prior to bleaching fabrics such as cotton, a scouring step comprising soda ash (sodium carbonate) is performed at preferably 40-60°C and pH of preferably 9-13 to remove impurities (paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mccullough by prior to bleaching cotton scouring using soda ash at preferably 40-60°C and pH of about 9.5 as Salmon teaches this scouring procedure is conventionally performed prior to bleaching cotton to remove impurities from the cotton and Mccullough invites the inclusion of preliminary steps prior to bleaching to remove impurities. Using a known effective method in removing impurities from cotton before bleaching in another method which invites the inclusion of a cleaning of impurities from cotton step before bleaching to achieve the predictable result of provide a clean cotton to be bleached is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the order of steps of Mccullough by neutralizing the hydrogen peroxide, lowering the pH with acetic acid to pH 6.5 to 7, making a garment from the cotton fabric, applying a wax lock and dyeing the garment, as Mccullough teaches all these claimed steps as being important in the fabrication of flame retardant cotton apparel and each of the steps provides the same benefit to the fabric. The criticality of the order of application has not been demonstrated. Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Hua (CN 103799575).
Mccullough and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough and Salmon do not specify cutting and sewing cotton.
Hua teaches cotton flame retardant clothing is fabricated by cutting and sewing the cotton fabric into a garment (page 3, section (1)-(2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mccullough and Salmon by cutting and sewing cotton fabric into garments as Salmon teaches this is conventional in producing flame retardant garments from cotton fabric and Mccullough invites the inclusion of preparing flame retardant fabrics from cotton fabric. Using known cutting and sewing techniques to prepare garments from cotton cloth is obvious in methods inviting the inclusion of making flame retardant fabrics from similar cotton cloths.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Wang (WO 01/60960).
Mccullough and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough and Salmon do not teach adding bleach activators and sequestering agents to the soda ash.
Wang teaches it is known to pretreat textiles by scouring and hydrogen peroxide bleaching to prepare them for dyeing (page 1, lines 23-31). Wang teaches adding scouring agents, sequestering agents and bleach activators into a single composition to aid in bleaching of textiles such as cotton (page 4, lines 1-4; page 5, lines 8-12) at pH 9.5 to 10.5 (page 11, lines 7-9) and temperatures of about 50-80°C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mccullough and Salmon by utilizing bleach activators and sequestering agents in combinations with the soda ash scouring agents to perform a scouring of the cotton fabric as Wang teaches these components when combined in a hydrogen peroxide bleaching solution effectively bleach cotton at similar temperatures of about 50-80°C and a pH of 9.5. While Wang teaches combining the bleaching and scouring, nothing unobvious is seen in separating the components into two steps as claimed as the same chemicals will be applied to the same fabrics for the same benefits. The combined bleaching and scouring of Wang is performed at the same temperatures as the bleaching of Mccullough and the scouring temperatures and pH of Salmon. Since the conditions are similar for separate steps performed sequentially, nothing unobvious is seen in performing the operations in a single step to save time or performing them sequentially to concentrate on one procedure scouring and then on a second procedure bleaching.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Spicka (New Combined Bio-Scouring and Bio-Bleaching Process of Cotton Fabrics. Materials and Technology, 47 (2013) 4, 409-412).
Mccullough and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough and Salmon do not teach adding arylesterase catalysts.
Spicka teaches it is known to combine arylesterase enzymes with the hydrogen peroxide as an effective commercially available bio-bleaching product (page 409, right column introduction, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mcculluogh and Salmon by adding arylesterase enzymes to hydrogen peroxide because Spicka teaches this combination of components provides bleaching agents which are formed in situ for an known commercially available effective bio-bleaching product for cellulosic fibers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Vogt (EP0835927A2).
Mccullough and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough and Salmon do not teach adding citric acid.
Vogt teaches that after bleaching textiles and before dyeing the hydrogen peroxide must be removed and this is effective accomplished by combining catalase enzymes and adjusting the pH to pH 5-7 with acid (page 3, paragraphs 1 and 2) wherein the pH adjusters are selected from acetates (acetic acid salts) and citrates (citric acid salts) and can be prepared using acetic or citric acid(page 4, paragraph 2,3; page 5, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mcculluogh and Salmon by adding using citric acid as the pH adjusting agent after hydrogen peroxide bleaching as Vogt teaches acetic acid and citric acid are functionally equivalent as buffers to provide removal of hydrogen peroxide in combination with enzymes and reduce the pH to 5-7. Mccullough invites the inclusion of enzyme removal of hydrogen peroxide and adjusting the pH to 6.5 to 7 with acetic acid. Vogt teaches the pH adjustment could be effectively accomplished by a functionally equivalent buffer citric acid to the same pH range. Substitution of art recognized equivalent pH adjusting agents to achieve the desired result of hydrogen peroxide removal and a desired pH solution only requires routine skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Haruta (JPH09279490A).
Mccullough and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough and Salmon do not teach the silicone and acrylic compound wax locks.
Haruta teaches treating fabrics such as cotton (paragraph 0026) with reactive dyes (paragraph 0029) but first pretreating the cotton with water-repellent agents including waxes (paragraph 0011), inorganic salts such as sodium sulfate (paragraph 0023) and adding sodium carbonate to the cotton to control the pH (paragraph 0026, 0057-0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mccullough and Salmon by using applying sodium sulfate, adjusting the pH of the fabric to 9.5 with soda ash (sodium carbonate) and applying the wax lock to the fabric as Haruta teaches the water repellent, sodium sulfate and wax are applied together prior to applying a reactive dye to cotton fabrics to prevent color bleed and provide brilliant colorings. Regarding the order of application, applying the components together is expected to provide similar results to applying the sodium sulfate, soda ash to pH 9.5 and wax in sequence, as the same cotton is produced with an alkaline pH and with a water repellent finish. Similarly applying the dye after the wax to prevent dye bleed is obvious and dyeing the fabric before or after the water repellent has not been demonstrated to be critical as the end result is a dyed water repellent cotton. The criticality of the order of application has not been demonstrated. Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959). Adjusting to the claimed pH 9.5 would be obvious through routine experimentation as Haruta teaches controlling the pH is dependent upon the kind of fabric and dye.
Claims 9,11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Sullins (US 4,092,105).
Mccullough and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough and Salmon do not teach neutralizing the dye solution to a pH of about 6.5, using a pre-reduced dye or adding reducing agent or treating the garment with oxidant.
Sullins teaches it is known to dye fabrics with sulfur dyes with a reducing agent that reduces the dye and an oxidant is added to subsequently oxidize the dye, rinsing the dyed fabric, followed by neutralizing to dye solution to a pH 6-6.8 to separate a precipitate formed of unreacted dye and then recycle the wastewater from the dyeing process, wherein the fabric is further processed after dyeing (abstract; column 4, claim 1; column 1, lines 40-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mccullough and Salmon by drying with sulfur dyes using a reducing agent and oxidizing agent, rinsing the fabric after dyeing, neutralizing the dye bath to pH of about 6.5 and rinsing the garment again as Sullins teaches sulfur dyes are reduced to be in soluble form for dyeing cotton and oxidized after dyeing to convert them to the insoluble form, rinsing is performed after dyeing to remove unbound excess dye and the dye wastewater bath is adjusted to pH 6-6.8 to remove contaminants in the form of precipitates to recycle the spent dyebath. Rinsing again after pH adjusting would be obvious as Mccullough teaches dyed fabrics are first rinsed, pH adjusted and rinsed again with soap and water to clean. It would be obvious to do a first rinse to remove unbound dye and a second rinse with soap to clean the dyed fabric.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and Sullins (US 4,092,105) and further in view of Wang (ES2223232T3).
Mccullough, Salmon and Sullins are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Salmon and Sullins do not teach using a pre-reduced dye or adding mordant to the dye.
Wang teaches sulfur dyes are conventionally used to dye cotton (paragraphs 8 and 9) in pre-reduced form or with a reducing agent and in combination with a mordant (page 9, last paragraph) and then treated with an oxidant (page 9, paragraph 6; page 10, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mccullough, Salmon and Sullins by dyeing with sulfur dyes using a pre-reduced sulfur dye and a mordant as Sullins teaches sulfur dyes used in pre-reduced form or in the presence of a reducing agent and with mordants for dyeing cotton Using reducing agent to reduce sulfur dyes or pre-reduced sulfur dyes would be obvious as Sullins teaches they are functional equivalents and both effective at coloring cotton. Using mordants is obvious as Sullins teaches the mordant is present in the sulfur dye baths. Using known conventional colorants in dyeing cotton is obvious to produce desired color shades.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Reeves (US 3,084,017).
Mccullough and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough and Salmon do not teach the drying temperature.
Reeves teaches that when dyeing cotton fabrics with reactive dyes, the fabrics are dried at temperatures from room temperature up to 180°C, preferably 130-160°C, to provide the maximal amount of dimensional stability (column 5, lines 49-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mccullough and Salmon by drying the fibers at the claimed temperatures after dyeing with reactive dyes as Reeves teaches effectively drying cotton fabrics after reactive dyeing at the claimed temperatures to provide a maximal amount of dimensional stability. Choosing a known effective drying temperature to fix the dyes to the fabric and provide benefits such as dimensional stability is obvious.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Matsumura (EP 3460021).
Mccullough and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough and Salmon do not teach the silicone and acrylic compound wax locks.
Matsumura teaches that waxes, silicone compounds and acrylate compounds are effective water-repellents used in cotton fabric treatment because the show improved strength of water repellency and fabric durability (paragraph 0048,0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Mccullough and Salmon by using silicone or acrylate water repellant compounds as wax locks as Matsumura teaches these compounds are functionally equivalent to waxes in providing fabrics such as cotton with the benefit of improved strength of water repellency and fabric durability. Adding known effective water repellents into the methods of Mccullough which teaches wax coatings on cotton provide preferred characteristics of water repellency is obvious (page 13, lines 23-26).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,987,926 in view of Mccullough (WO 2016/178662). US Patent 11,987,926 teaches the claimed method steps except for making a garment from the cotton fabric, it would have been obvious to make a garment from the fabric as Mccullough teaches this is conventional in producing flame retardant water repellent fabrics from similarly treated cottons. Regarding the order of steps, the criticality of the order of application has not been demonstrated. Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,987,927 in view of Mccullough (WO 2016/178662). US Patent 11,987,927 teaches the claimed method steps except for making a garment from the cotton fabric and dyeing it, it would have been obvious to make a garment from the fabric and dyeing it to a desired color as Mccullough teaches this is conventional in producing flame retardant water repellent fabrics from similarly treated cottons. The additional steps of US Patent 11,987,927 are not prohibited by the comprising language of the instant claims.
Conclusion
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