DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive as to the rejection of claims 1 and 4, the subject matter of which is presently recited in amended claim 1, under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Enderlin ‘201. However, in its remarks Applicant did not directly address the rejection of claim 4 under 35 USC 103 over Enderlin ‘866 in view of Enderlin ‘201. As discussed further below, the teachings of Enderlin ‘201 provide support to render the subject matter of amended claim 1 obvious. Enderlin ‘866 teaches a first chamber that treats a textile at a first temperature higher than in a second chamber at a second temperature (col. 6, ll. 3-9; a hot chamber where treatment, e.g. thermal fixation, takes place, followed by a cooling chamber). Enderlin ‘201 teaches that a fixing temperature may be in the claimed range of 140-230C (col. 17, ll. 42-57).
Response to Amendments
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10-13 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9, and 17 under 35 USC 103 set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn in order to present new rejections in view of amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5134866 granted to Enderlin in view of U.S. Patent 5891201 granted to Enderlin et al.
As to claim 1, Enderlin teaches a method for improving the colorfastness of a dyed textile, the method comprising conveying the dyed textile along an automated processing line and into a first chamber having a first controllable environment; temporarily storing the textile in the first chamber for a first time period; subsequently conveying the textile into a second chamber having a second controllable environment; and temporarily storing the textile in the second chamber for a second time period, wherein the first chamber comprises a first temperature and wherein the second chamber comprises a second temperature lower than the first temperature (fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 3-18).
Enderlin does not teach particular temperatures, and thus does not teach a first internal temperature between 140C and 230C. However, Enderlin et al. teaches a method of drying/fixing within a chamber at a temperature within the claimed range (col. 17, ll. 42-57). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the drying/fixing temperate taught by Enderlin et al. would be appropriate for the intended purpose and would have had a reasonable expectation of success of drying/fixing at a temperature within the claimed range.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Enderlin does not teach adjusting the first or second controllable environment based on a characteristic of a textile to be dyed, a dyestuff for use in dyeing the textile, and/or the dyed textile. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to adjust the environment based a characteristic of the textile or dyestuff. Enderlin et al. recognizes that an environment of a chamber (i.e. treatment duration) may vary within wide limits and be based on a characteristic of a textile to be dyed, a dyestuff for use in dyeing the textile, and/or the dyed textile (col. 17, ll. 9-10). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Enderlin et al.’s disclosure that an environment should be adjusted based on a particular textile or dyestuff since particular requirements for treatment may vary widely depending on the characteristic.
As to claim 6, Enderlin does not teach particular time periods textiles are stored within process chambers. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious for the second time period to be greater than the first time period. Enderlin et al. teaches that textile may be subject to an environment for a period of 20s and 5min (col. 17, ll. 52-58) and later washed and dried (col. 17, ll. 48-65). Enderlin et al. teaches that drying of wet textiles may be performed at a lower temperature for 1 to 120min (col. 17, ll. 48-51). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to have a second period greater than a first period since Enderlin et al. suggests that a first period for fixing/drying may be relatively short at a higher temperature and that a second period for drying after washing may be a relatively longer at a lower temperature; one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of performing a method with the second period greater than the first period based on Enderlin et al.’s demonstrated success.
As to claim 8, Enderlin et al. teaches that a second time period may be at least 2 hours (col. 17, ll. 48-51).
As to claim 10, Enderlin teaches temporarily storing the textile at a plurality of different temperatures in the second chamber (fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 3-18; a second chamber 1 may have different zones 10 at different temperatures).
As to claim 11, Enderlin teaches conveying the textile through a plurality of different temperatures in the second chamber (fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 3-18; a second chamber 1 may have different zones 10 at different temperatures).
As to claim 12, Enderlin does not teach consolidating a dyed textile into a roll within its first chamber. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to consolidate the textile into a roll in a first chamber, in particular for a fixing operation. Enderlin et al. teaches that fixing may take place by subjecting a rolled textile to an elevated temperature for a period of time (col. 17, ll. 4-12, 52-58). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to consolidate a textile into a roll within the first temperature in order to fix the dye at an elevated temperature for a period time, based on the teachings of Enderlin et al. that demonstrate that is was known to do so with success.
As to claim 13, Enderlin does not teach storing a plurality of dyed textile rolls in the second chamber. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to store textile rolls in a second chamber. Enderlin et al. teaches that rolls may be stored in a chamber 8 subsequent to fixing and drying operations (fig. 1; col. 17, ln. 58 – col. 18, ln. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized as obvious to store dyed textile rolls in a second chamber, in particular subsequent to fixing or drying operations where cooling may occur, based on the teachings of Enderlin and Enderlin et al.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5134866 granted to Enderlin in view of U.S. Patent 5891201 granted to Enderlin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 3776005 granted to Rogers.
As to claim 5, Enderlin does not teach particular temperatures, and thus does not teach a second internal temperature between 120C and 200C. However, Enderlin et al. teaches a method of drying/fixing within a (first) chamber at a temperature within the between 140C and 230C (col. 17, ll. 42-57), and Rogers teaches that after fixing the textile is subjected to a lower, but elevated temperature so that the textile may be more easily washed (col. 4, ll. 12-20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the drying/fixing temperate taught by Enderlin et al. would be appropriate for the intended purpose and would have had a reasonable expectation of success of drying/fixing at a temperature within the claimed range, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a subject treatment temperature should be lower, but still elevated. One of ordinary skill in the art would have has a reasonable expectation of success of trying a temperature between 120C and 200C for the purpose of preparing the textile for washing, as suggested by Rogers. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
As to claim 9, Enderlin does not teach determining a cool down rate and adjusting the environment of the first and/or second chamber based on the rate. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to perform the claimed method. Rogers recognizes that textiles should be subjected to a lower temperate after fixing so that the textile may be more easily washed (col. 4, ll. 12-20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine a cool down rate and adjust the environment accordingly so that the temperature is appropriate for preparation for washing.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5134866 granted to Enderlin in view of U.S. Patent 5891201 granted to Enderlin et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 3401412 granted to Meier-Windhorst.
As to claim 17, Enderlin does not teach a second chamber that may be transported to a new location while the textile is temporarily stored therein. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to transport a chamber. Meier-Windhorst teaches a transporting and storage chamber that may serve as a treating chamber (col. 2, ll. 65-70). Based on this teaching of Meier-Windhorst, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a second treating chamber may be embodied as a storage and transport chamber to achieve the additional capability of transporting textiles. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized as obvious to configure a second chamber as transportable and to transport the chamber as its intended function. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious at its effective filing date.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Spencer Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-9888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571.272.1414. 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.
/SPENCER E. BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711