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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed June 18, 2026. Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1,3-5,8,9 and 11-17 have been amended. Claims 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
All prior claim rejections and objections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584) and 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 of about 9.5. Mccullough does not teach the wax lock configured to form cross-links that hold the natural wax coating on the fibers.
Truesdale III teaches that flame resistant and water repellant fabrics made cotton (paragraphs 0034,0050) conventionally apply acrylic based polymers (paragraph 0006) and paraffin waxes together as a final coating (Table 5, Phobotex RSY and table 10, DWR 2) which imparted significant water repellency to the fabrics which was retained after washing and provided abrasion resistance with no adverse impact on flame resistance (Table 11, paragraphs 0073-0074).
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 adding acrylic polymer to the wax coating compositions as a wax lock (applicant’s preferred wax lock in the specification) as Truesdale III teaches these compounds provide durability of the wax finish and impart water repellency and abrasion resistance to similar cotton fabrics. Mccullough exemplifies the benefit of having water repellency properties in the fire resistant fabrics (page 13, lines 23-26). Combining coating components of waxes and acrylic polymers to provide a durable water repellent and fire resistant treatment is obvious. While Truesdale III doesn’t identify the acrylic polymer as a wax lock, it would inherently have this property as is demonstrated by the laundering durability of the coating, vs Mccullough teaching the waxes applied topically are removed in laundering (page 10, line 19-24). It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, applying a known acrylic polymer material taught to be combined with waxes in coating similar cotton fabrics, for the benefits of providing abrasion resistance, wax durability in laundering and water repellence is obvious to try on fabrics also emphasizing these properties. It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on." In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
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 Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584) and Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Hua (CN 103799575).
Mccullough, Truesdale III and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Truesdale III 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, Truesdale III 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584) and Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Wang (WO 01/60960).
Mccullough, Truesdale III and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Truesdale III and Salmon do not teach adding 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, Truesdale III 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584), Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and Wang (WO 01/60960) and further in view of Zhou (An eco-friendly approach to low-temperature and near-neutral bleaching of cotton knitted fabrics using glycerol triacetate as an activator. Cellulose (2021) 28:8129-8138).
Mccullough, Truesdale III, Salmon and Wang are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Truesdale III, Salmon and Wang do not teach adding glyceryl triacetate with the soda ash.
Zhou teaches bleaching of cotton using hydrogen peroxide is effective accomplished by using glycerol triacetate (glyceryl triacetate) as an activator for the bleach at pH values of 8-10 (Figure 1 , abstract, page 8131, methods, bleaching of cotton fabric).
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, Truesdale III, Salmon and Wang by adding glycerol triacetate to the soda ash as Zhou teaches glycerol triacetate is an effective bleach activator in similar pH values and Wang teaches the bleach activator can be effectively applied with the scouring agents in a single bath at the claimed pH and temperature ranges. Salmon teaches that soda ash is an effective scouring agent applied to cotton prior to bleaching. Using the combined effective soda ash scouring and glycerol triacetate bleach activator in a single composition to apply to cotton for scouring to remove impurities followed by bleaching wherein the glycerol triacetate would activate the peroxide bleach is obvious to perform an efficient scouring bleach process on cotton. Combining known elements from effective techniques to scour and bleach cotton into a single method is obvious to try.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584) and 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, Truesdale III and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Truesdale III 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, Truesdale III 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 Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584) and Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Vogt (EP0835927A2).
Mccullough, Truesdale III and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Truesdale III 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, Truesdale III 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 Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584) and Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Haruta (JPH09279490A).
Mccullough, Truesdale III and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Truesdale III and Salmon do not teach the sodium sulfate.
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, Truesdale III 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 Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584) and Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Sullins (US 4,092,105).
Mccullough, Truesdale III and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Truesdale III 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, Truesdale III 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 Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584) and Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and Sullins (US 4,092,105) and further in view of Wang (ES2223232T3).
Mccullough, Truesdale III, Salmon and Sullins are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Truesdale III, 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, Truesdale III, 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.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccullough (WO 2016/178662) in view of Truesdale III (US 2020/0367584) and Salmon (US 2006/0042020) and further in view of Matsumura (EP 3460021).
Mccullough, Truesdale III and Salmon are relied upon as set forth above.
Mccullough, Truesdale III 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, Truesdale III 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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. Claim 14 is allowable because the prior art do not teach or fairly suggest methods wherein no surfactants are used in the making of the water-resistant cotton garments. Claim 15 is allowable because it depends form claim 14 and includes the same prohibition of surfactants in the process.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on June 18, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patents 11987926 and 11987927 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they apply to the new rejection including Truesdale III. Truesdale teaches that if acrylic polymers are applied in compositions with waxes the coating become durable to laundering and Mccullough teaches waxes alone are not durable to laundering. Truesdale III teaches applicant’s preferred wax locks, acrylic polymers, as other chemicals as providing a composition which locks waxes onto the surface of the textiles as evidenced by their wash durability. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, applying a known acrylic polymer material taught to be combined with waxes in coating similar cotton fabrics, for the benefits of providing abrasion resistance, wax durability in laundering and water repellence is obvious to try on fabrics also emphasizing these properties. It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on." In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
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 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
Prosecution Insights