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 1-24 are pending. Claims 1,4,14 and 21 have been amended.
The rejection of Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claim.
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colwell (US 2021/0071358) in view of Colwell (US 2022/0120033) 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 1-24 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 teaches ring dyeing (paragraph 0007) a cotton (cellulosic, paragraph 0022)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 wherein the water is clean water (fresh water; water has a pH =7; paragraph 0006, 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’358 teaches garments (paragraph 0079). Colwell’358 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’358 further 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’358 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’358 teaches oxidizing dyed yarns to fix the dyes (paragraph 0068, claim 20).
Colwell ‘358 does not specify the concentration of the sulfur dye or dye temperature or skying time and pH of the indigo dye bath or rinses or using fresh water. Colwell ‘358 does specify 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 8 g/L sulfur dye such as sulfur black (paragraph 0090, 0096) for about 7 to about 18 seconds at 70°C (paragraph 0021,0076,0079), 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). Colwell ‘033 teaches rinsing with fresh water (clean water flow) to remove as much sulfur dye as possible so as to reduce contamination in the indigo dye boxes (paragraph 0077) and freshwater dye rinses (paragraph 0082).
Colwell ‘033 teaches using a single sulfur dye box (paragraph 0090, 0067). Colwell ‘033 teaches combined scouring (caustic solution) and sulfur dyeing in a single box, rinsing, immersing in indigo dye baths and skying (paragraphs 0067-0070; Figure 1). Colwell ‘033 teaches it is known to scour with caustic chemistry, rinse after scouring, performing a single immersion in a dye vat, sky and rinse (paragraph 0091). Colwell ‘033 teaches it is known to optimize the immersion time in dye boxes to up to 24 seconds based on yarn diameter, yarn twist, tension maintained on the dye range, target shade and dye vat chemistry (paragraph 0052) and skying time of sulfur and indigo dyes to convert the soluble form of the dyes to the insoluble form effectively bonding the dyes to the yarn (paragraph 0055). Colwell ‘033 teaches dye immersion times to oxidation (skying) time ratios of 1:5 or about 1:6 to about 1:18.
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 maintenance values, continuous fresh water flow at room temperature, and mv values as Colwell’033 teaches these parameters are conventional and effective for optimizing sulfur dye bottoming followed by indigo dyeing yarns 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to treat open-end, ring spun cellulosic 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 rinsing in fresh water, dyeing in a single dye box of sulfur dyes, washing the dyed yarn and dyeing with indigo dye as Colwell’358 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, immersing the yarn in a single dye box for the claimed immersing time, skying times is obvious as Colwell’358 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.
Colwell’358 and Colwell’033, both using CleanKore technology, teach a method treating cellulosic ring spun or open-end yarns by treating in caustic , skying, rinsing, immersing in sulfur dye, skying rinsing, immersing in indigo dye, skying and rinsing using the claimed concentration caustic and dye baths at the same treating and rinsing pH values and for the same skying times as the prior art clearly teach this order of steps for dyeing cotton fibers to produce CleanKore fibers with an optimized white core. The prior art further teach each of the treatment variables can be optimized to lower the amount of water exposure to the yarns and to optimize the white core and fixation of the dyes in a ring pattern.
Colwell ‘033 teaches it is known to optimize the immersion time in dye boxes to up to 24 seconds based on yarn diameter, yarn twist, tension maintained on the dye range, target shade and dye vat chemistry (paragraph 0052) and skying time of sulfur and indigo dyes to convert the soluble form of the dyes to the insoluble form effectively bonding the dyes to the yarn (paragraph 0055). Colwell ‘033 teaches dye immersion times to oxidation (skying) time ratios of 1:5 or about 1:6 to about 1:18. Since the broadest teaching of immersion time in the dye vat is up to 24 seconds (any value from above 0 to 24 sec), one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at applicants immersion in sulfur dyes for 6-14 seconds, skying for less than 30 seconds, rinsing in fresh water, immersing in indigo for 6-14 second and skying for 30-140 seconds for example if 4-5 seconds was chosen for the single sulfur dye vat immersion (25-about 30 sec, skying) and if 6-7 seconds was chosen for indigo dyeing (36-about 42 seconds, skying).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Colwell ‘358 by using a single sulfur dye vat, immersing in that dye vat for up to 4-5 seconds to achieve a particular dye penetration level and shade, skying for 25 to about 30 seconds to oxidize the indigo dye, rinsing in fresh water to remove the extra unreacted sulfur dye to avoid contamination in the indigo dye boxes and indigo dyeing in dye vats with immersion times in the indigo dye of 6-7 seconds and skying for 36-about 42 seconds to oxidize and bind the indigo dye to the yarns is obvious as Colwell ‘033 teaches these methods are effective for coloring cellulosic yarns. Using known immersion times, skying times and fresh water to enhance the dyeing process is obvious.
Colwell ‘358 and ‘033 are not limited to the preferred embodiments but must be considered for their broadest teaching such as immersion in dye vats for up to 24 seconds (any value from 1-24 sec) and a subsequent skying at a ratio of 1:5 or about 1:6 to 1:18 of this immersion time. The word “about” permits some tolerance. At least about 10% was held to be anticipated by a teaching of a content not to exceed about 8%, see In re Ayers, 154 F 2d 182,69 USPQ 109 (CCPA 1946). A pressure limitation of 2-15 pounds per square inch was held to be readable on a reference which taught a pressure of the order of about 15 pounds per square inch, see In re Erickson, 343 F 2d 778, 145 USPQ 207 (CCPA 1965). While Colwell ‘033 teaches a single vat with a combined scour and sulfur dye, it also teaches it is known to separate the sulfur dyeing and scouring stages. Both references teach using multiple dye vats but that more than one dye can be applied in different vats, allowing for the selection of how many vats to use for each dye. Since one immersion in a scour sulfur dye vat is sufficient to provide sulfur bottoming, it would also be expected to be sufficient in a separated scour and sulfur dyeing. Using a single dye vat is within routine skill in the art to determine. Since the fabrics are continuously passed through the rinse vats in fresh water in the prior art, this is continuous fresh water flow and Colwell ‘033 emphasizes the freshwater flow must be effective in rinsing dye adequately and optimizing freshwater flow in dye rinses (Figure 1, paragraph 0060, claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Colwell ‘358 in view of Colwell ‘033 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the new amendment regarding fresh water (clean water flow) is taught in Colwell ‘033 in paragraph 0077 and paragraph 0082 for the benefit of removing as much sulfur dye as possible so as to reduce contamination in the indigo dye boxes. Nothing in the claims prohibits caustic pretreatment before sulfur dyeing as based on the “comprising” language of the claims which allows for additional steps. The contents of the sulfur dye box is also not limited as the contents have not been limited to “consisting of” so caustic can be present in the sulfur dye box. Claim 21 does not teach the identity of the caustic solution, rather just any caustic solution. Applicant’s claims and specification also do not teach sodium hydroxide and caustic soda, however caustic soda is another name for sodium hydroxide and they are the same thing. Since the fabrics are continuously passed through the rinse vats in fresh water, this is continuous fresh water flow and Colwell ‘033 emphasizes the freshwater flow must be effective in rinsing dye adequately and optimizing freshwater flow in dye rinses (Figure 1, paragraph 0060, claim 1). Colwell ‘358 teaches it is known to scour, rinse and dye in a dye tank (singular, paragraph 0006) and using sulfur bottoming (sulfur dyeing first) and indigo dyes (on top of sulfur dyeing) in multiple dye boxes (paragraph 0065). Using the single combined scour and sulfur dyeing in a single box as taught by Colwell ‘033 in the teachings of Colwell ‘358 is obvious as this method provides an effective way of scouring and sulfur bottoming prior to indigo dyeing.
The dye immersion times, skying times and skying steps are taught by Colwell ‘033. Colwell ‘033 teaches it is known to scour with caustic chemistry, rinse after scouring, performing a single immersion in a dye vat, sky and rinse (paragraph 0091). Colwell ‘033 teaches it is known to optimize the immersion time in dye boxes to up to 24 seconds based on yarn diameter, yarn twist, tension maintained on the dye range, target shade and dye vat chemistry (paragraph 0052) and skying time of sulfur and indigo dyes to convert the soluble form of the dyes to the insoluble form effectively bonding the dyes to the yarn (paragraph 0055). Colwell ‘033 teaches dye immersion times to oxidation (skying) time ratios of 1:5 or about 1:6 to about 1:18. Since the broadest teaching of immersion time in the dye vat is up to 24 seconds (any value from above 0 to 24 sec), one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at applicants immersion in sulfur dyes for 6-14 seconds, skying for less than 30 seconds, rinsing in fresh water, immersing in indigo for 6-14 second and skying for 30-140 seconds for example if 4-5 seconds was chosen for the single sulfur dye vat immersion (25-about 30 sec, skying) and if 6-7 seconds was chosen for indigo dyeing (36-about 42 seconds, skying).
It is the examiner’s position that modifying Colwell ‘358 by using a single sulfur dye vat, immersing in that dye vat for up to 4-5 seconds to achieve a particular dye penetration level and shade, skying for 25 to about 30 seconds to oxidize the indigo dye, rinsing in fresh water to remove the extra unreacted sulfur dye to avoid contamination in the indigo dye boxes and indigo dyeing in dye vats with immersion times in the indigo dye of 6-7 seconds and skying for 36-about 42 seconds to oxidize and bind the indigo dye to the yarns is obvious as Colwell ‘033 teaches these methods are effective for coloring cellulosic yarns. Using known immersion times, skying times and fresh water to enhance the dyeing process is obvious. Colwell ‘358 and ‘033 are not limited to the preferred embodiments but must be considered for their broadest teaching such as immersion in dye vats for up to 24 seconds (any value from 1-24 sec) and a subsequent skying at a ratio of 1:5 or about 1:6 to 1:18 of this immersion time. The word “about” permits some tolerance. At least about 10% was held to be anticipated by a teaching of a content not to exceed about 8%, see In re Ayers, 154 F 2d 182,69 USPQ 109 (CCPA 1946). A pressure limitation of 2-15 pounds per square inch was held to be readable on a reference which taught a pressure of the order of about 15 pounds per square inch, see In re Erickson, 343 F 2d 778, 145 USPQ 207 (CCPA 1965). While Colwell ‘033 teaches a single vat with a combined scour and sulfur dye, it also teaches it is known to separate the sulfur dyeing and scouring stages. Both references teach using multiple dye vats but that more than one dye can be applied in different vats, allowing for the selection of how many vats to use for each dye. Since one immersion in a scour sulfur dye vat is sufficient to provide sulfur bottoming, it would also be expected to be sufficient in a separated scour and sulfur dyeing. Using a single dye vat is within routine skill in the art to determine.
It is the examiner’s central position that both Colwell ‘358 and Colwell ‘033 teach many preferred embodiments of scouring, rinsing, sulfur bottoming, skying, rinsing, indigo dyeing and skying, but also teach broader teachings of what is known in the art as standard dyeing processes. Combining known method steps from these prior art references, whether they are standard practice or improved methods is obvious to try to effectively color cellulosic yarns with sulfur dyes followed by indigo. Applicant has not provided any evidence in the form of experimental data that is commensurate in scope with the claims and compared to the closest prior art of record, demonstrating the criticality of dyeing in a single dye box, the dye immersion time and skying time. Based on the broad teachings of Colwell ‘033 these single sulfur dye boxes, immersion times in dye baths, and skying times can be achieved through routine experimentation absent a showing of unexpected results for the criticality of these parameters.
Accordingly, the rejection is 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
Prosecution Insights