DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-14, as filed by Preliminary Amendment on 05/30/2024, are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2024 has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy is attached.
Claim Interpretation
4. The present specification, as originally filed, writes the following about these claim terms: “solid fraction” includes both a powder fraction and/or a fibrous fraction (see spec. pg. 4, lines 3-4); “synthetic fiber” also includes semi-synthetic fibers (see spec. pg. 4, lines 10-11); “color-fractions” refer to either an aqueous solution or an aprotic solvent solution with soluble dyes and dye residues (see spec. pg. 4, lines 6-8). The claims have been interpreted and examined using the specification provided definitions for these terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance: Claim 9 recites the broad recitation “temperature within a range of 30-100 degrees Celsius” and the claim also recites “preferably within a range of 50-90 degrees Celsius” and “more preferably within a range of 70-90 degrees Celsius” which are narrower statements of the range. Claim 10 recites the broad recitation “temperature within a range of 20-180 degrees Celsius” and the claim also recites “preferably within a range of 80-160 degrees Celsius” and “more preferably within a range of 100-140 degrees Celsius” which are narrower statements of the range. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flynn et al. (US 2018/0215893 A1).
As to claim 14, Flynn teaches a solid fraction comprising a decolorized textile product produced by a process (see para. 0028-0032: fabric feedstocks such as reclaimed garments and textiles are processed in one or more pre-treatment stages to remove dyes, which results in products suitable for use in a variety of downstream applications). Even though Flynn reasonably teaches the process defined in claim 1 (see citations below), it should be understood that, in a case where a product is specified by a production method, the invention relates to the ultimately obtained product regardless of the method by which the product is produced. The burden of proof is shifted to the Applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the Examiner to show the same method of making. See MPEP 2113 and MPEP 2173.05(p). At present, it has not been demonstrated that a decolorized textile (solid fraction) obtained by the process according to claim 1 is different from a decolorized textile obtained by any other process. Thus, Flynn anticipates the product recited in claim 14.
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.
8. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn et al. (US 2018/0215893 A1).
As to independent claim 1, Flynn teaches a process for providing at least one solid fraction from a colored textile product comprising a natural fiber, a synthetic fiber, or both a natural fiber and a synthetic fiber (see para. 0027-0028), the process comprising the steps of: (i) providing the colored textile product, (ii) performing a first decolorization step of adding a liquid solution of a first decolorizing agent in water to the textile product, thereby providing a first decolorized textile product, (iii) separating the decolorized textile product from a color-fraction (see para. 0043-0046: pretreatment stage involves exposing the textile feed material to a “bleaching” agent, such as an oxidative or reducing agent, e.g. sodium hydrosulfite, in an aqueous solution at an oxidative/reducing agent concentration and for a residence time sufficient to remove materials such as dyes); (iv) performing a second decolorization step of adding a second decolorizing agent comprising an aprotic solvent to the textile product, thereby providing a second decolorized textile product, and (v) separating the second decolorized textile product from a color-fraction, thereby providing the at least one solid fraction (see para. 0047: pretreatment of textile feed materials by exposure to aqueous media containing one or more organic solvents, e.g. dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)), wherein the first decolorizing agent in the first decolorization step (ii) is an aqueous solution of a water-soluble salt of dithionous acid (see para. 0043-0044: sodium hydrosulfite, i.e. sodium dithionite or Na-2S2O4, is a salt of dithionous acid). Flynn teaches that pretreatment of textile feedstock material may implement any of these pretreatment processes, singly or in combination with other pretreatment processes (see para. 0055) and, in batch treatment schemes, one or more pretreatment reagents may be introduced to and withdrawn from a closed vessel during various pretreatment stages, with or without intermediate rinsing or washing stages (see para. 0056-0058).
Flynn fails to anticipate claim 1 because Flynn does not disclose the invention with sufficient specificity. There is some picking and choosing from the options for pretreatment processes and reagents disclosed within Flynn. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed process as Flynn clearly teaches the process steps with the same pretreatment reagents for the same utility, e.g. removing dyes from a textile product (see Flynn para. 0028, 0044 and present specification at pg. 2, line 35 to pg. 3, line 13 and pg. 4, lines 26-34). Selecting the claimed pretreatment process steps and decolorizing agents through routine experimentation would have been achieved by one having ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation. In view of the foregoing, claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the applied art.
As to claims 2-4, Flynn teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the second decolorizing agent in the second decolorization step (iv) is dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (see para. 0048); claim 1, wherein the water-soluble salt of dithionous acid is provided in an aqueous alkaline solution (see para. 0043-0046).
As to claims 5-8, Flynn teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein said colored textile product is subjected to a pre-treatment step before the first decolorization step (ii) or before the second decolorization step (iv), wherein said pre-treatment steps comprise one or more of: an acidic treatment, an alkaline treatment and a hydrogen peroxide treatment (see Flynn para. 0043-0048, 0054-0055: treatment cycles may be implemented using different pH conditions and bleaching agent may be neutralized by a weak acid such as hydrogen peroxide) and followed by a washing step before adding said first or second decolorizing agent (see Flynn para. 0056: in batch treatment schemes, pretreatment reagents are added to a closed vessel with intermediate washing stages). It is further noted that acidic, alkaline and/or hydrogen peroxide treatments are well known in the field of textile bleaching/decolorization.
As to claims 9-10, Flynn teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the first and second decolorization steps are performed at a temperature within the ranges recited in claims 9-10 (see para. 0035-0036, 0038, 0046: multiple treatment cycles may be implemented at different temperatures, as appropriate).
As to claims 11-13, Flynn teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the textile product comprises fibers selected from cotton, polyester, cellulose fibers and mixtures thereof (see para. 0027); claim 1, wherein the textile product comprises: a) fibers selected from cotton, polyester, and/or cellulose fibers and b) fibers of elastane (see para. 0027: cotton-elastane blends and the like); claim 12, wherein the elastane is removed during said process steps, thereby resulting in a solid fraction substantially free from elastane (see para. 0009: one or more pretreatment stages provide removal of contaminants and preparation of mixed textile feedstocks, followed by molecular separation of the primary constituents, e.g. cellulose or polyester polymers; para. 0010, 0026-0027, 0032: remove non-cellulosic constituents, e.g. elastane, from the mixed textile feedstock after pretreatment stages).
Examiner’s Note
9. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or figures in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katie L Hammer whose telephone number is (571)270-7342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9am-5pm 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 on 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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.
KATIE L. HAMMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1761
/KATIE L. HAMMER/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1761 September 29, 2025
