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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-5, and 9-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbels et al. (EP2009175A2) translation attached) is maintained.
The rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbels et al. (EP2009175A2) in view of Fuugoo et al. JPS60231687A - Manufacture of pentaerythritol phosphorous acid ester - Google Patents is maintained.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbels et al. (EP2009175A2) in view of Wang et al. (CN108071009A) translation available at CN108071009B - Method for reducing hairiness of polyester yarn - Google Patents is mainatained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants arguments citing background art DE 195 03 480 A1 are not persuasive as DE 195 03 480 A1 is not being relied upon in the instant rejection. Applicant’s arguments that Gibbels teach away from an alkaline aqueous solution is not found persuasive because Gibbels teach a mixture for decolorization and degumming laundry the mixture having a pH in aqueous solution in a range of about 5 to about 9 which range is inclusive of an alkaline range (ie pH 8-9). See claim 14. Accordingly the claim amendments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbels et al. (EP2009175A2) translation attached.
With respect to the claim 1, Gibbels et al. teach a method for degumming and decolorizing a polyester fabric (1st paragraph under the Description heading in the Google Patents Translation).
With respect to the claim 1 degumming operation, comprising a catalyst solution consisting of a catalyst and an alkaline aqueous solution, Gibbels et al. teach a method for decolorizing a polyester fabric, [0004] comprising treating a dyed polyester fabric with a mixture comprising at least one dithionit-containing bleach (sodium hypochlorite) and at least one disulfite-containing agent [0007] in a quaternary ammonium solution [0012-0014,0018]. Claim 14 teaches the mixture has a pH in the range of 5-9 encompassing the claimed alkaline aqueous solution. It is the Examiner’s position that this encompasses claim 1 limitation to mixing a catalyst in an alkaline aqueous solution [0010] to prepare a catalyst solution; and immersing the dyed polyester fabric into the catalyst solution to remove the gum-film or the surface treatment agent and obtaining a degummed polyester fabric.
With respect to the claim 1 reduction decolorization solution and an oxidation decolorization solution, Gibbels et al. teach a commonly known decolorizing operation with thiourea dioxide in [0002] and guide one of ordinary skill to use sodium thiosulfate in [0012] which teaching encompasses the claim 1 reduction decolorization solution. The claim 1 oxidation decolorization solution is met by the sodium hypochlorite bleach. [0007]. Thus, encompassing claim 1 limitation to immersing the degummed polyester fabric into the oxidation decolorization solution to obtain a degummed and decolored polyester fabric.
Gibbels et al. do not exemplify degumming as required in the method of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed degumming because Gibbels et al. teach treating the same dyed polyester with the same reagents and one of ordinary skill would reasonable expect the same reagents to degum as claimed because page 2, 5th paragraph from the bottom teaches the very purpose of the mixture is to decolor and degum the items in the laundry.
With respect to claim 2 Gibbels et al. teach typical laundry items based on plastic fibers or other fabrics such as cotton fabrics, including mixed fabrics. [0004] And it is well understood in the art that ‘plastic fibers’ polyester fibers from polyethylene terephthalate See attached search notes of the state of common knowledge. And the mixed fibers of the laundry items disclosed by Gibbels et al. would necessarily encompass those of claim 2.
With respect to claim 3 Gibbels et al. [0018] teach a mixture comprising 10 g/l to 20 g/l sodium dithionite, 2 g/l to 10 g/l sodium bisulfite and 2 g/l to 10 g/l sodium carbonate and/or sodium bicarbonate as alkali metal agent.
With respect to claims 4-5, Gibbels et al. teach a quaternary ammonium salt catalyst comprising trimethyl ammonium chloride [0014].
With respect to claim 9, Gibbels et al. teach a mixture comprising 10 g/l to 20 g/l sodium dithionite as bleach, 2 g/l to 10 g/l sodium bisulfite as disulfite-containing agent and 2 g/l to 10 g/l sodium carbonate and/or sodium bicarbonate as alkali metal agent which encompasses claim 9 limitation to wherein a concentration of the catalyst solution is 0.5 to 20 g/L. Claim 9 limitation to a weight ratio of the catalyst solution to the first polyester fabric is 5:1 to 50:1 is met by [0010] teaching a ratio of the concentrations of alkali agent to dithiothreitol-containing agent in a range of about 2:1 to 1:2 also leads to good deinking results.
With respect to claims 10,13,15-16 Gibbels et al. teach a reaction temperature of at least 30oC and guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed 60 to 140°C in [0019] teaching the decolorizing is carried out over a period of at least 10 seconds. It can be stated in principle that at a higher temperature the discoloration proceeds more quickly. Thus, at a temperature of about 90°C, the deinking process will be completed after about 10 to 20 seconds, whereas at a temperature in a range of about 40°C to about 50°C, the deinking process will be practically completed after about 2 to 3 minutes. Examiner notes that while Gibbels et al. do not specifically teach a reaction time of 5 to 60 minutes, [0019] guide one of ordinary skill to a direct relation to temperature and time to decolorization of the same material with the same reagents as claimed. If range of prior art and claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the range are close enough that one would not expect a difference in properties, In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to the claim 11 limitation to wherein the reduction decolorization solution comprises a reducing agent and water, Gibbels et al. [0012] teaches aqueous mixture of sodium thiosulfate.
With respect to claim 12, [0012] teach mixtures in concentrations in a range from 0.001 g/l to about 0.6 g/l which range overlaps with the claimed range and one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the claimed weight ratio of the reduction decolorization solution to the degummed polyester fabric is 5:1 to 50:1 as Gibbels et al. is treating the same type of polyester with the same reagents.
With respect to claim 14 Gibbels et al. teach sodium hypochlorite bleach [0018].
With respect to claims 17-18, merely reversing or changing the order of the steps in a process does not impart patentability when no unexpected result is obtained. Ex Parte Rubin (POBA) 128 USPQ 440 Cohn V. Comr. Pats. (DCDC 1966) 251 FSUPP 378, 148 USPQ 486 ; 29 USPQ 493 ; 38 USPQ 181. Since Haeimann et al. Mixture has both the same reagents as claimed and decolorizes as claimed, it would necessarily provide the same degumming as required by the claims.
With respect to claim 19 Gibbels et al. is silent as to the claimed drying temperature, however, one of ordinary skill reading Gibbels et al. understands that laundry is commonly dried and it is well known that in a standard automatic dryer cycle, the internal air temperature typically reaches 80–90 °C (176–194 °F) during the high‑heat phase. See attached search notes of common knowledge in the art as drying clothes is well known.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbels et al. (EP2009175A2) as applied to claim 1-5 and 9-19 above, and further in view of Fuugoo et al. JPS60231687A - Manufacture of pentaerythritol phosphorous acid ester - Google Patents translation attached.
Gibbels et al. is relied upon as set forth above for teaching a method for decolorizing a polyester fabric, [0004] comprising treating a dyed polyester fabric with a mixture comprising at least one dithionit-containing bleach (sodium hypochlorite) and at least one disulfite-containing agent [0007] in a quaternary ammonium solution [0012-0014,0018].
However Gibbels et al. do not teach the claims 6-7 limitations to the quaternary ammonium base the quaternary phosphonium salt.
In the analogous art of crown ether catalysts, Fuugoo et al. teach the crown ether reaction is commonly known to be carried out in the presence of tetraethylammonium bromide or tetrabutylammonium bromide (see claim 9) and the claimed quaternary ammonium base catalysts are taught on page 2, last paragraph. Thus, the limitations of claims 6-7 do not provide a contribution over the art of record.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the quaternary catalyst of Gibbels et al. with the quaternary base and/or salt as required by claims 6-7 because Fuugoo et al. teach the crown ether reaction is commonly known to be carried out in the presence of the same ammonium hydroxides and quaternary phosphonium salts and Gibbels et al. teach treating the same dyed polyester with same reagents. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Gibbels with that of Fuugoo et al since both are in the analogous art of improving catalyzing reactions with quaternary salts in general.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbels et al. (EP2009175A2) as applied to claim 1-5 and 9-19 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN108071009A) translation available at CN108071009B - Method for reducing hairiness of polyester yarn - Google Patents.
Gibbels et al. is relied upon as set forth above for teaching a method for decolorizing a polyester fabric, [0004] comprising treating a dyed polyester fabric with a mixture comprising at least one dithionit-containing bleach (sodium hypochlorite) and at least one disulfite-containing agent [0007] in a quaternary ammonium solution [0012-0014,0018].
Gibbels et al. do not teach the claim 8 limitation wherein the crown ether comprises at least one selected from 12-crown-4, 15-crown-5, 18-crown-6, dibenzo-18-crown-6, and diaza-18-crown-6.
In the analogous art of treating polyester fabrics, Wang et al. teach the claimed crown quaternary compounds reduce polyester yarn hairiness. See abstract and page 5, 3 paragraphs from the bottom teaching the method for reducing the hairiness of the polyester yarns with 2-hydroxymethyl-12-crown-4, 15-crown-5 or 2-hydroxymethyl-15-crown-5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gibbels et al. with the claim 8 crown ether because Gibbels et al. teach treating the same dyed polyester with similar reagents in general and Wang et al. teach the same -hydroxymethyl-12-crown-4, 15-crown-5 or 2-hydroxymethyl-15-crown-5 ethers for treatment of polyester yarns provides the benefit of reduced hairiness. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Gibbels with that of Wang since both are in the analogous art of treating polyester fabrics.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights