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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed September 17, 2025. Claims 1-28 are pending. Claims 1,5 and 20 have been amended.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of applicant’s corrected drawings filed September 17, 2025.
Claims 1-3,5,7,8,10,11,15-17,20-25 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colwell (US 2021/0071358) for the reasons set forth below.
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colwell (US 2021/0071358) in view of Colwell (US 2022/01020033) for the reasons set forth below.
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 1-3,5,7,8,10,11,15-17,20-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colwell (US 2021/0071358).
Colwell teaches ring dyeing (paragraph 0007) an open-end or ring spun yarn (paragraph 0005, 0024) wherein the yarns are immersed in a caustic bath of 60g/L or less caustic (paragraph 0031) at 30-45°C (paragraph 0030) for 21-18 seconds (paragraph 0032), skying the yarns by removing the yarns from the treatment bath and exposing to air (paragraph 0033), rinsing the scoured yarn in a rinse tank in water (water has a pH =7; paragraph 0034), dyeing the yarn with indigo or sulfur dye in a dye box (paragraph 0037, 0025, 0065) and washing after dyeing (paragraph 0007) wherein air drying is obvious. No heat was required in rinsing with water , which would then occur with room temperature water. Colwell teaches garments (paragraph 0079). Colwell teaches limiting the exposure of the yarn to water by reducing the water or vat size, immersion time or other embodiments to optimize the white core (paragraph 0034). Colwell furth teaches reducing or controlling the dwell time between the scouring tank and the rinse tank, which is the skying time to optimize the white core (paragraph 0033). Colwell teaches sulfur dye bottoming or sulfur dye topping steps can be performed such that a first sulfur dyeing step occurs prior to or after indigo dyeing (paragraph 0065). Colwell teaches oxidizing dyed yarns to fix the dyes (paragraph 0068, claim 20).
Colwell does not teach all the claimed embodiments in a single example, but one of ordinary skill in the art can arrive at the claimed invention by selection from the teachings of Colwell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to treat open-end or ring spun yarns by first treating in a caustic bath of the claimed caustic concentration at the claimed temperature and for the claimed immersion time followed by skying, rinsing, dyeing in a single dye both of indigo or sulfur dyes, washing the dyed yarn and air drying as Colwell teaches all of these dyes, caustic solutions, concentrations and temperatures are effective for producing ring dyed yarns with a white core for use in producing stone washed garments. Selecting the rinsing time of 6-40 seconds, immersing the yarn in a single dye box, immersing in the dye box for 7-10 seconds, skying for 1-18 or 1-14 seconds is sulfur dye is to be applied or 30-140 seconds if indigo dye is to be applied is obvious as Colwell teaches limiting the exposure of the yarn to water by reducing the water or vat size, immersion time or other embodiments and reducing or controlling the dwell time between the scouring tank and the rinse tank, which is the skying time after scouring or after dyeing are all variables which are used to optimize the white core. The times could be determined through routine experimentation to optimize the white core and fix the dye. Using room temperature water in the methods of Colwell is obvious as no heat is taught to be applied, indicating water at room temperature. Further air drying of the dyes yarns is obvious as they dry naturally in time after being exposed to air.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colwell (US 2021/0071358) in view of Colwell (US 2022/0120033).
Colwell ‘358 is relied upon as set forth above.
Colwell ‘358 does specify continuous flow 7 seconds immersion in a caustic bath, washing with continuous water flow at room temperature, scour rinsing time the pH of the water in the dye box, eliminating wetting agents from the dye bath, the skying time after dyeing and the mv applied to sulfur dye.
Colwell ‘033 teaches it is effective to scour yarns by immersing in caustic for 4-20 seconds (paragraph 0010-0011), dye yarns by immersing in indigo or sulfur dye for about 7 to about 18 seconds (paragraph 0021,0079), rinse the scoured yarn by immersing in water for about 7 to about 12 seconds (paragraph 0075, 0082) and optimizing the water flow rates to maintain sufficient cleaning of the yarn (paragraph 0046, 0082) using room temperature water (paragraph 0045). Colwell’033 teaches drying after dyeing (paragraph 0007, 0038). Colwell‘033 teaches the sulfur dye and indigo dye vats have a pH of 11.5-12.5 (paragraph 0053,0076). Colwell teaches maintaining the pH of the rinse water is maintained at about 7 to about 11 (paragraph 0061). Colwell‘033 teaches removing the wetting agents from the dye (paragraph 0058,0078). Colwell‘033 teaches oxidation (skying) for 5 times as much time as immersion and also oxidizing to optimize dye time (paragraph 0055,0059) and to reduce the dwell time (skying time ) between scouring and rinsing to the shortest time (paragraph 0047). Colwell ‘033 teaches maintaining the sulfur dye at -675- -775 mv (paragraph 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Colwell ‘358 by incorporating the immersion times, skying times, pH values, continuous water flow at room temperature, drying after dyeing and washing, and mv values as Colwell’033 teaches these parameters are conventional and effective for optimizing sulfur and indigo core dyeing by using similar CleanKore technology to optimize white core retention. Using known effective parameters in the same CleanKore technology to produce the same ring dyed yarns for use in garments is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Colwell ‘358 alone or in view of Colwell ‘033 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner argues that Colwell ‘358 clearly teaches that caustic concentrations of 60 g/L of 50% concentration or even higher can be used so long as the immersion time, temperature, dwell time, rinse time and nip pressure were still controlled to deliver a core that was not scoured (paragraph 0038) and that conventionally caustic mixtures of 180 g/L at 50% concentration have been used (paragraph 0006, 0031). It is the examiner’s position that Colwell ‘358 recognizes the immersion time and caustic concentration, rinse time all as result effective variables which are controlled such that the core of the yarn is left unscoured. Colwell ‘358 further teaches using concentration above 60 g/L of 50% concentration and the 180 g/L of 50% concentration is conventional, so using any of the 90-30g/L (100% concentration) would be obvious as using non-preferred embodiments or conventional amounts and values above 30g/L to 90 g/L adjusted with optimized immersion time to ensure a unscoured core. Colwell ‘358 clearly recognizes these are result effective variable and is not unexpected or novel to adjust them through routine experimentation to achieve a untreated core yarn. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodrufl 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Colwell ‘358 further must be considered for all it teaches including concentrations above 60 g/L at 50% concentration and conventional values which have been traditionally been used of up to 180 g/L at 50% concentration. All disclosures of the prior art, including non-preferred embodiment, must be considered. See In re Lamberti and Konort, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1967); In re Snow 176 USPQ, 328, 329 (CCPA 1973). Non-preferred embodiments can be indicative of obviousness, see Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc. 10 USPQ 2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Lamberti, 192 USPQ 278(CCPA 1976); In re Kohler, 177 USPQ 399. Applicant argues higher caustic produces higher soda-cellulose and swelling and increases in yarn diameter but has not demonstrated in the form of experimental data in a manner commensurate in scope with the claims and comparing to the closest prior art of record the unexpected results. Applicant’s arguments are conclusory statements not supported by factual evidence, see In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972).The examiner further argues these adjustments to caustic concentration and immersion time are not unexpected as Colwell ‘358 teaches they are recognized variable which must be adjusted for the same benefit as applicant requires, to give an unscoured core of yarn which would be unreceptive to dye.
Applicant does not claim any steps with no upper limit to caustic concentration. Colwell ‘358 teaches rinsing after scouring (paragraph 0038). As can be seen from figure 4-5c the yarn after scouring is exposed to air prior to rinsing, which meets the limitation of skying. Since the yarn must travel from the scour box to the rinsing box, the time of this travel is controlled, as Colwell ‘358 teaches the dwell time between the scouring box and rinse tank must be controlled to get an optimal percentage of the while core (paragraph 0033). Again Colwell ‘358 is acknowledging that skying time between scouring and rinsing is a result effective variable that can be optimized to maintain the white core. Colwell ‘358 recognizes the importance of dye penetration and fixation only to the outside perimeter of the yarn and that this can be accomplished first with sulfur dyes as a “sulfur bottom” and then with indigo dyes (paragraph 0064-0065). Colwell ‘358 emphasizes reduction in dye penetration as a beneficial impact for aesthetics of the yarn and for later laser or sanding steps to create intricate wear patterns (paragraph 0067). Selecting the number of dye boxes for dye strike and dye penetration depth would be obvious and air oxidation for dye fixation would be result effective variable as recognized by Colwell ‘358 (paragraph 0065).. Colwell ‘358 teaches rinsing or washing dyed denim (paragraph 0007, 0027.0066).
Regarding Colwell ‘033, the reference also acknowledges 150 g/L caustic is conventional as is 12-90g/L with 1-40 g/L being preferred (paragraph 0043). Colwell ‘033 should be considered for all it teaches and not just preferred embodiments. Using known conventional and lower concentrations is obvious as they are taught to be controlled to keep the core unscoured and less receptive to dye. Combining the teachings of Colwell ‘358 and Colwell ‘033 to provide a method to scour in caustic with only a ring of scouring agent penetration and dye penetration is obvious as both references are directed to ring dyeing and white cores. Colwell ‘358 teaches the concentrations of caustic can be above 30 g/L and are conventionally up to 90 g/L and are adjusted as is immersion time, skying time and dyeing to arrive at an optimal white core of the yarn, dyed sulfur bottom and indigo top with minimal dye penetration to be easily worn through laser and sanding steps for aesthetically pleasing stonewashed denim. Applicant only provides conclusory arguments with no experimental data demonstrating unexpected results and the examiner argues that the prior art in combination recognizes adjusting the same parameters for the same benefit of reduced dye penetration and ease of producing worn patterns on denim. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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 AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm EST.
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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761