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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 4/30/2025 and 1/18/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7 are rejected 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).
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.
In the analogous art of treating cellulose with supercritical fluid, Ko et al. establish that it is commonly known to dry cellulosic webs with electronic beam irradiation without causing significant densification or compression in the drying process. See col.7,ln.3-14.
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 Ko et al. to limit the densification and compression of the cellulose. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Takahashi et al. with that of Ko et al. since both are in the analogous art of treating cellulose.
With respect to claims 3 and 7, 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 claim 4 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).
Claims 1-8 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.
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 claims 2 and 8 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 ,5 and 7, 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
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761