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 1-6 are pending. Claims 7-8 are cancelled in the amendment filed 6/16/2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP2010132802A Google Patents English Translation) in view of Ko et al. (US 7,053,131 B2) is withdrawn upon further consideration.
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP2010132802A Google Patents English Translation) in view of Medoff (US20150082556A1) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge that Takahashi et al. (JP2010132802A) do not teach a method for treating a textile.
In response, Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation to a method of scouring a textile product is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Further, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the 2nd paragraph on page 11, Takahashi et al. teach their fabric or textile can be scoured. Also Takahashi et al guide one of ordinary skill to a fluid containing supercritical carbon dioxide (see page 11, paragraphs 6 and 8), a methanol co-solvent (Example 1) and a nonionic surfactant, namely, polyoxyethylene lauryl ether (see page 8, 4th line within last paragraph on the bottom). Examiner maintains that even if the foam textile of Takahashi et al. is first created then scoured, the claimed method of scouring a textile product is still encompassed by Takahashi.
Applicant’s further urge that Medoff teaches irradiation for modifying or decomposing molecular structures of cellulosic material and does not teach supercritical CO2 treatment or scouring.
In response Medoff is used in combination with Takahashi which primary reference discloses the supercritical CO2 and scouring. The claim language is not limited to a supercritical fluid extraction as recited in the arguments, instead, the claims presented for examination require contact with supercritical CO2 which is already taught by Takahashi. The combination with Medoff is pertinent to the claims describing favorably altering various selected properties of cellulosic fibers by applying ionizing radiation at any stage of processing including textile having a sizing or other coating that is to be removed in scouring. See Medoff page 8, [0114-0119] teaching that any of the many additives and coatings used in the textile industry can be added to or applied to the fibrous materials, fabric products [0114] and the additives that can in some cases be cross-linked by irradiation, e.g., lignin and sizing such as starch, may be added or applied to the textile before and/or after irradiation [0116]. Thus, one of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the irradiation of Medoff with the scouring of cotton textile product of Takahashi et al. having the claimed fluid containing supercritical carbon dioxide, a methanol co-solvent and a polyoxyethylene lauryl ether nonionic surfactant, because Medoff specifically teach subsequent textile treatment after the irradiation of the textile. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP2010132802A Google Patents English Translation) in view of Medoff (US20150082556A1).
Takahashi et al. teach scouring (page 11, last line of 2nd paragraph) a cotton textile product (see, last line of 7th paragraph on page 9 of the attached 25 page pdf translation). Takahashi et al. teach claim 1 step (a) of bringing a fluid containing supercritical carbon dioxide (see page 11, paragraphs 6 and 8), a methanol co-solvent (Example 1) and a nonionic surfactant, namely, polyoxyethylene lauryl ether (see page 8, 4th line within last paragraph on the bottom).
Takahashi et al. do not teach a step of irradiating the textile product with an electron beam as required by claim 1. for subsequent treatment of cellulosic or lignocellulosic material.
In the analogous art of treating fibrous cellulosic textile materials, Medoff teach irradiating cellulosic materials at any stage of the processing (see figures 1-3) for example [0199] relatively a high dose of very low energy radiation may be applied to a textile having a sizing or other coating that is to be removed. The penetration depth of the radiation is selected so that only the coating is irradiated. The dose is selected so that the radiation will partly or fully breakdown the coating, e.g., to allow the coating to be rinsed off of or otherwise removed from the textile. Electron beam radiation is generally preferred for this process, as penetration depth can be readily and accurately controlled. See also claims 2-3 and [0045-0050] of Medoff describing benefits to the cellulose at any stage of processing as disclosed in figure 1. It is the Examiner’s position that this also encompasses the claim 2 method step of irradiating before scouring.
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 scouring method of Takahashi et al. with the claimed step of irradiating with an electron beam as claimed and taught by Medoff to favorably alter various selected properties of cellulosic fibers by applying ionizing radiation at any stage of processing including textile having a sizing or other coating that is to be removed in scouring. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Takahashi et al. with that of Medoff since both are in the analogous art of treating cellulose.
With respect to claims 3 and 5, Takahashi et al. teach scouring (page 11, last line of 2nd paragraph) a cotton textile product (see, last line of 7th paragraph on page 9 of the attached 25 page pdf translation).
Takahashi et al. encompass claims 4 and 6 by teaching bringing a fluid containing supercritical carbon dioxide (see page 11, paragraphs 6 and 8), a methanol co-solvent (Example 1) and a nonionic surfactant, namely, polyoxyethylene lauryl ether (see page 8, 4th line within last paragraph on the bottom).
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