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 .
Non-Final Rejection
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
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 1-19 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 1 recites limitation to performing a degumming operation in line 4, but the line 2 recites the polyester fabric is attached with gum or a surface treatment. It is unclear how a degumming operation can happen if the gum film is not necessarily present. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 1 is interpreted as requiring a dye and a gum-film and optionally a surface treatment agent. Appropriate correction is required.
Also, the recitation of first, second and third polyester fabrics in the claim 1 and dependents is unclear and indefinite. Examiner suggests using the terms dyed polyester having gum film as the starting material, degummed polyester and decolored polyester as the intermediate products and the final product is the degummed and decolored polyester.
Claims 2 is unclear and indefinite because it uses ‘and’ operators dependent on claim 1 using ‘or’ operators. Claims 3-19 depend from claim 1 and have similar terminology making them unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
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]. 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 first polyester fabric into the catalyst solution to remove the gum-film or the surface treatment agent, and obtaining a second polyester fabric attached with the dye.
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 decorlorization solution. The claim 1 oxidation decolorization solution is met by the sodium hypochlorite bleach. [0007].
Gibbels et al. do not teach 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.
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 second 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 Heitman is silent as to the claimed drying temperature, however, one of ordinary skill reading Heitman 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
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