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 .
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 24-46 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 24 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably” in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear if the textile is a knit or any textile. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any textile: knit, woven, nonwoven, fleece or scrim.
Claim 24 is rendered indefinite because of the term ”preferably” in line 2. It is unclear if the natural fibers are cellulose fibers or other natural fibers such as wool, silk, mohair, camel hair or cashmere. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer any natural fiber cellulosic or non-cellulosic.
All claims dependent upon claim 24 are indefinite as claim 24 is indefinite.
Claim 26 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably”. It is unclear if the claim refers to the chemical functionalization performed by exposing the textile to at least one bath selected from a perfluorocarbon solution and/or a silicone compound solution OR some other method for chemical functionalization. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any method that provides chemical functionalization.
Claim 30 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably”. It is unclear if the recovery angle after creasing is greater than or equal to 130 º OR some other angle. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the recovery angle after creasing being any angle.
Claim 31 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably”. It is unclear if the claim refers to the solution comprising between 6 g/L and 12 g/L OR 8.4 g/L of 35% concentrated hydrogen peroxide OR between 2 g/L and 6 g/L OR 4 g/L of sodium hydroxide. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to a solution comprising between 6 g/L and 12 g/L.
Claim 34 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably”. It is unclear if the dyed textile comprises only cotton fiber OR a majority of cotton fibers. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the dyed textile comprising a majority by mass of cotton fibers.
Claim 35 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably”. It is unclear if the claim refers to any synthetic fiber OR fibers selected from elastane filaments, polyamide fibers and polyester fibers. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to any synthetic fiber.
Claim 40 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably” and the phrase “even more preferable”. It is unclear if the recovery angle after creasing is greater than or equal to 130 º OR greater than or equal to 135 º OR greater than or equal to 140 º OR greater than or equal to 145 º. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the recovery angle after creasing is greater than or equal to 130 º.
Claim 41 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably” and the phrase “even more preferable”. It is unclear if the recovery angle after creasing is greater than or equal to 130 º OR greater than or equal to 135 º OR greater than or equal to 140 º OR greater than or equal to 145 º OR greater than or equal to 148 º. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the recovery angle after creasing is greater than or equal to 130 º.
Claim 42 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably” and the phrase “even more preferable”. It is unclear if the recovery angle after creasing is greater than or equal to 130 º OR greater than or equal to 135 º OR greater than or equal to 140 º OR greater than or equal to 145 º. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the recovery angle after creasing is greater than or equal to 130 º.
Claim 43 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably” and the phrase “even more preferable”. It is unclear if the recovery angle after creasing is greater than or equal to 130 º OR greater than or equal to 135 º OR greater than or equal to 140 º OR greater than or equal to 145 º. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the recovery angle after creasing is greater than or equal to 130 º.
Claim 44 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably” and the phrase “even more preferably”. It is unclear if the spray test results in of at least 3 measured according to ISO 4920 OR at least 4 measured according to ISO 4920 OR at least 5 measured according to ISO 4920. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to at least 3 measured according to ISO 4920.
Claim 45 is rendered indefinite because of the phrase “in particular”. It is unclear if the textile has a weight between 80 and 220 g/m2 OR between 80 and 170 g/m2 OR 80 and 160 g/m2 OR 80 and 150 g/m2 OR 80 and 140 g/m2. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the textile weight ranging from 80 and 220 g/m2.
Claim 46 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably” in line 3. It is unclear if the textile is any fabric OR a knit. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the textile being any fabric.
Claim 46 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably” in line 4. It is unclear if the natural fibers are cellulose fibers or other natural fibers such as wool, silk, mohair, camel hair or cashmere. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer any natural fiber cellulosic or non-cellulosic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24, 32, 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Vermeersch et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 2012/0088291.
Regarding claims 24, 32 34 and 38, Example 4 [0100-010] discloses indigo dyed denim swatches with 0.5 g/l CLARITE [bleaching]. Example 4 discloses subsequently the bleached, dyed textile is treated with hydrogen peroxide Paragraph 0080 discloses that CLARITE is a bleaching processor. Paragraph 0001 discloses dyed cellulosic textile, denim dyed with indigo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Jennifer Boyd, can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786