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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 35-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method and use of the textile composition, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-34 in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Weber does not eliminate the special technical feature and that Weber does not establish that this claimed technical relationship lacks contribution of the prior art wherein the coating degrades at least 60% after 28 days and Weber does not teach the coating enhances the textile biodegradablity. A second argument that the office action does not explain the lack of unity for each group and that no serious search or examination burden has been identified. This is not found persuasive because Weber teaches all of the requirements, structural and material, of the independent claims and that is the burden for unity of invention under 371. Restriction under 371 does not require a search burden be presented, but merely that unity of invention is not met.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 23 and 24 require a deaerating agent and the specification describes the deaerating agent as agents for increasing the hydrophilicity of yarns and the preferred agent is LAVA WET MDF. It is not clear what LAVA WET MDF is [0033]-[0034].
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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 synthetic polymer weight recites the broad recitation 10-30%, and the claim also recites in particular 15-25% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. In the present instance, claim synthetic polymer weight recites the broad recitation 90-70%, and the claim also recites in particular 85-75% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "comprises a synthetic polymer and indigo" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 which recites a synthetic polymer and cotton, it is not clear if the synthetic polymer of claim 5 is the same or an additional synthetic polymer.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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 starch weight recites the broad recitation 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5% to maximum of 9, 8, 7 or 6%, and the claim also recites preferably 2-10% and particularly preferred of 3-8% and most preferably 4-6% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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 2-hydroxy-3-(trimethylammonia)propyl ether in weight recites the broad recitation 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.6 or 0.8% to maximum of 4, 3, 2, or 1%, and the claim also recites preferably 0.3-3% and particularly preferred of 0.5-2% and most preferably 0.6-1% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim starch weight recites the broad recitation 2 to 15 times to maximum of 3-12 times, and the claim also recites preferably 4-10 times and particularly preferred of 5-8 times which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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 deaerating agent weight recites the broad recitation 3, 5, 6, 7, or 8% to maximum of 18, 16, 14, 12 or 10%, and the claim also recites preferably 3-16% and particularly preferred of 5-12% and most preferably 7-10% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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 emulsifier weight recites the broad recitation 4, 6, 8, 10, 12% to maximum of 24, 20, 16, 14%, and the claim also recites preferably 6-20% and particularly preferred of 8-16% and most preferably 10-14% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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 crosslinking agent weight recites the broad recitation 120, 30, 50, 65, 70 or 72.5% to maximum of 90, 80 or 75%, and the claim also recites preferably 50 to 90% and particularly preferred of 65-80% and most preferably 70-75% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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 organic acid recites as the broad recitation and the claim also recites in particular carboxylic acid which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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, claims an organic acid as a broad recitation 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0 or 1.2% to maximum of 5, 3, 2 or 1%, and the claim also recites preferably 0.5 -3 % and particularly preferred of 0.8-2% and most preferably 1-1.5% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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 synthetic polymer weight recites the broad recitation at least 2%, preferably 3, 4, 5 or 6% which is the narrower and the claim also recites biodegrades at least 95% and preferably 96, 97, 98, 99% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), 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 composition in weight content recites the broad recitation 0.5-25% and the claim also recites preferably 1-20% and more preferably 2-15% and most preferably 3-10% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is not clear what the deaerating agent is and whether it is a defoamer and/or an emulsifier or surfactant. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the deaerating agent will be equated with a defoamer, which can also be an emulsifier or surfactant.
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.
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, 4, 9, 10-21, 27, 28, 32, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (US 20080171482).
Weber is directed to an environmentally friendly textile coating that comprises a textile substrate made from a blend of cotton and polyester fibers [0018]. The biodegradable coating comprises a polymer and biodegradable plasticizers [0019] wherein the composition comprises a starch [0024]. The biodegradable composition is coated on the textile substrate and cured (ABST).
Weber teaches the biodegradable composition 106 may be at least partially adhered or adsorbed onto the surface of the fibers. The specific formulation for the biodegradable composition 106 may be modified depending upon the characteristics of the fibers in the textile substrate 102 [0018]. While Weber is not specific to absorbing on the cotton fibers, as Weber teaches the composition is absorbed onto the surface of the fibers, Weber meets the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to absorb the composition on the cotton fibers as the composition is absorbed into the woven fabric of cotton and polyester.
As to claim 4, Weber teaches a woven fabric [0018].
As to claim 9, Weber teaches a biodegradable composition on a fabric. Weber is not specific with regard to anaerobic, however as Weber teaches the same materials and structure and property of biodegradable, it is reasonable to presume that the composition inherently has the claimed property. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 10, Weber teaches the amount of biodegradable composition 106 coated onto the textile substrate 102 will vary depending on the desired application [0033]. The biodegradable composition 106 contains polymer in an amount between about 1 percent and about 99 percent, between about 10 percent and about 90 percent, or between about 30 percent and about 70 percent. The percentages described herein may be on a dry or wet weight basis [0021]. Weber teaches the amount of polymer that overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-10%.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claims 11-14, Weber teaches the biodegradable composition 106 comprises one or more carbohydrates coupled to the polymer. Typically, the one or more carbohydrates are covalently attached to the polymer backbone. However, the one or more carbohydrates may be coupled by other mechanisms such as hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions, etc. In one embodiment, the one or more carbohydrates comprises a sugar such as fructose, glucose, sucrose, galactose, or combinations thereof. Other examples of carbohydrates include without limitation, monosaccharides, disaccharides, polysaccharides, lactose, glycogen, cellulose, maltose, or combinations thereof.
Weber teaches it is believed that the carbohydrate may enhance the biodegradability of the biodegradable composition 106 by making the polymer component more attractive to biological processes and microorganisms [0025]- [0026]
Weber also teaches a swelling agent of starch [0008]; [0024]; which is a polysaccharide and a complex carbohydrate. Weber also teaches the polymers can be polylactic acid [0019]. Weber teaches biopolymers that have hydrolysable linkages that promote biodegradability, e.g. the carbohydrates.
As to claims 11-14 and 15-19, Weber teaches a polymers that are biodegradable [0019] and therefore teaches biopolymer and biodegradable polymer that is a polysaccharide and a starch that promotes biodegradability. A biopolymer and biodegradable polymer are equivalent.
As to claims 20-21, Weber teaches starch can be used in amounts of 0.1 to 20%, 1-15% and 5-10% [0024].
As to claims 27 and 28, Weber teaches a catalyst can be used in amounts of 0.1 to 25% [0032]. A catalyst is equated with a crosslinking agent because both serve to create a reaction and bond the polymer and materials together to form the film coating.
As to claim 32, Weber teaches a woven or knitted fabric that is a blend of synthetic fibers and cotton fiber yarns that has a biodegradable coating on at least a portion of the yarns as claimed.
As to claim 33, Weber teaches for applications where a high degree of non-slip property is sought, such as shelf liners, a greater amount of biodegradable composition 106 may be applied onto the textile substrate 102. In applications where a lesser degree of non-slip property is required, a lesser amount of biodegradable composition 106 may be applied onto the textile substrate 102. In various embodiments, the thickness of the biodegradable composition 106 on the textile substrate 102 ranges from about 1 thousandth of an inch (mil) to about 350 mils, from about 10 mils to about 200 mils, or from about 20 mils to about 100 mils [0033]. Weber does not teach the add on weight of the composition, however Weber teaches that depending on the application it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of composition on the fabric motivated to achieve higher and lower degrees of non-slip properties.
As to claim 34, Weber teaches the synthetic polymers used in the yarns and fabric are polyester [0018].
Claims 2, 3, 5-8 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (US 20080171482) in view of Kumar et al (US 20140308865).
As to claims 2 and 3, Weber is not specific with regard to the yarns in the fabric [0018] but teaches a woven or knitted fabric of a blend of cotton and polyester fibers.
Kumar is directed to a stretchable woven fabric made from polytrimethylene terephthalate (PTT) based core spun yarns. The yarns provide for a stable woven fabric that has stretch properties suitable for denims, bottom fabrics and suiting fabric [0013]-[0014]. Kumar teaches the PTT based staple fibers are in combination with a second staple fiber selected from cotton, polyester, viscose, nylon, modal, Tencel and in one embodiment the PTT based staple fibers are in combination with cotton and viscose [0020].
Example 1 is polytrimethylene terephthalate staple fibers (35 kg, 38 mm fiber length, 1.5 Denier) and staple cotton (from combed sliver) fibers (65 kg, 31 mm upper quartile mean length, 4.0 .mu.g/inch) were used. The fibers were opened manually, and then mixed together. The fibers were mixed by laying 2 layers of cotton and 1 layers of PTT. This process is called a stack mixing process. Then the entire fiber mass was taken from the stack by vertically withdrawing the material, and fed into a blow-room line [0125]-[0126].
Weber teaches an aspect of the invention is the method of manufacturing the core spun yarn wherein, the sheath is a bicomponent fiber comprising PTT and cotton staple fibers, the process comprises the steps of: [0037] (a) blow-room process for the cotton staple fiber; [0038] (b) carding for the cotton staple fiber; [0039] (c) sliver lapping; [0040] (d) ribbon lapping, lap formation of the cotton staple fiber; [0041] (e) combing of the cotton staple fiber; [0042] (f) opening of the PTT based fiber and cotton staple fiber obtained from the combing step; [0043] (g) mixing of the two fibers; [0044] (h) blow-room process; [0045] (i) carding; [0046] (j) drawing; [0047] (k) roving; [0048] (l) yarn manufacturing; [0049] (m) winding; and [0050] (n) conditioning [0036].
There is cotton and PTT in the outer sheath and the percentage of PTT in the outer sheath is 10-60% [0021] and therefore the percentage of cotton in the outer sheath is 90-40%. The core of the fiber is spandex and accounts for 2-10% [0023]. An example of a yarn with 2% spandex, and 98% outer sheath is 0.98x10% or 9.8 PTT and then remainder of the outer sheath is 0.98x90% is 88.2% of the cotton and in the claimed range. The amount of cotton in the yarn is reasonably in the range of 70-90%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a cotton and polytrimethylene terephthalate blended fiber motivated to produce a strength woven fabric.
As to claims 5-7 and 32, Weber teaches a woven fabric of blended cotton and polyester yarns that is coated with a biodegradable coating. Weber is not specific with regard to coating on the warp or weft yarns but as Weber teaches the biodegradable coating is applied to the yarns it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the coating to the yarns as claimed. Weber teaches applying the coating to the yarns that are blend of synthetic polymer and cotton and therefore applies the coating to the synthetic polymer yarns.
Weber does not teach indigo dyeing of the yarns.
Kumar teaches the cotton/PTT blended yarn is indigo dyed [0072]; [0120]; [0121]. Kumar teaches warp and weft yarns and at least a part of the yarns are indigo dyed [0072]; and the warp was 100% indigo dyed cotton staple fibers [0170].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to coat and dye at least a part of the yarns with indigo dye motivated to produce a dyed fabric as Kumar teaches the cotton staple fibers in the composite yarns are 100% indigo dyed.
With regard to claim 8, Kumar teaches the yarns of cotton and PTT in the outer sheath and the percentage of PTT in the outer sheath is 10-60% [0021] and therefore the percentage of cotton in the outer sheath is 90-40%. The core of the fiber is spandex and accounts for 2-10% [0023]. An example of a yarn with 2% spandex, and 98% outer sheath is 0.98x10% or 9.8 PTT and then remainder of the outer sheath is 0.98x90% is 88.2% of the cotton and in the claimed range. The amount of cotton in the yarn is reasonably in the range of 70-90%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a cotton and polytrimethylene terephthalate blended fiber motivated to produce a strength woven fabric.
As to claim 31, Weber is not specific with regard to the amounts of synthetic polymers in the textile.
Kumar teaches the amount of PTT is 10-60% which is in the claimed range of at least 2%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a cotton and polytrimethylene terephthalate blended fiber motivated to produce a strength woven fabric.
Claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (US 20080171482) in view of Moe et al (GB 2363614).
As to claim 22, Weber does not teach 2-hydroxy-3-(trimethylammonio)propyl ether nor the weight ratio with the polymer.
Moe is directed to compositions and methods which utilize certain modified chitosan-based polymer and/or oligomer materials as fabric treatment agents that can impart fabric appearance and integrity benefits to fabrics and textiles laundered in washing solutions which contain such materials (ABST).
The laundry and/or fabric care compositions herein comprise from about 1 % to 80 % by weight of a detersive surfactant, from about 0 1 % to 80 % by weight of an organic or inorganic detergency builder and from about 0 1 % to 5 % by weight of the modified chitosan-based polymer and/or oligomer materials of the present invention The detersive surfactant and detergency builder materials can be any of those useful in conventional laundry detergent products.
Preferably, the laundry and/or fabric care compositions comprise from about 0.0001 %, preferably from about 0.001 %, more preferably from about 0.01 % by weight of the laundry and/or fabric care compositions of one or more modified chitosan-based polymer and/or oligomer materials of the present invention, to about 10 %, preferably to about 2 %, more preferably to about 1 %, most preferably to about 0 1 %.
Moe teaches use of cyclodextrin such as 2-hydroxy-3-(trimethylammonio)propyl ether. Highly water-soluble cyclodextrins are those having water solubility of at least about 10 g in 100 ml of water at room temperature, preferably at least about 20 g in 100 ml of water, more preferably at least about 25 g in 100 ml of water at room temperature the availability of solubilized, uncomplexed cyclodextrins is essential for effective and efficient odor control performance. Solubilized, water-soluble cyclodextrin can exhibit more efficient odor control performance than non-water-soluble cyclodextrin when deposited onto surfaces, especially fabric.
Typical levels of cyclodextrin in usage compositions for usage conditions are from about 0.01 % to about 5 %, preferably from about 0 1 % to about 4 %, more preferably from about 0 5 % to about 2 % by weight of the composition. Compositions with higher concentrations can leave unacceptable visible stains on fabrics as the solution evaporates off of the fabric This is especially a problem on thin, colored, synthetic fabrics In order to avoid or minimize the occurrence of fabric staining, it is preferable that the fabric be treated at a level of less than about mg of cyclodextrin per gram of fabric, more preferably less than about 2 mg of cyclodextrin per gram of fabric The presence of the surfactant can improve appearance by minimizing localized spotting.
Moe teaches a composition for fabric with cyclodextrin, specifically 2-hydroxy-3-(trimethylammonio)propyl ether in amounts of 0.01 % to about 5 %, preferably from about 0.1 % to about 4 %, more preferably from about 0.5 % to about 2 % by weight of the composition and a chitosan polymer amount of 10 %, preferably to about 2 %, more preferably to about 1 %, most preferably to about 0.1 %. The amount of polymer is in range of 2 to 15 times as 0.1 to 1% is 10 times; 4% to 10% is 2.5 and in the claimed range (page 49-50, lines 10-35 and 4-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate a 2-hydroxy-3-(trimethylammonio)propyl ether in the claimed amounts motivated to control the odor of the fabric.
As to claims 23, Weber does not teach a deaerating agent. The biodegradable composition 106 formulation may optionally comprise one or more additives. For example, the formulation may comprise a colorant, dye, or pigment, so as to meet the aesthetic demands of the consumer. The colorant may be any color, including black, white, gray, brown, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, or combinations thereof. Other suitable additives include: resins, odor absorbing agents, processing aids, antioxidants, and surfactants [0031].
Moe teaches it is preferred that a no foaming, or low foaming, agent is used, to avoid foam formation during fabric treatment.
As to claims 25 and 26, Weber teaches the biodegradable composition 106 formulation may optionally comprise one or more additives. For example, the formulation may comprise a colorant, dye, or pigment, so as to meet the aesthetic demands of the consumer. The colorant may be any color, including black, white, gray, brown, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, or combinations thereof. Other suitable additives include: resins, odor absorbing agents, processing aids, antioxidants, and surfactants [0031].
Moe teaches the composition can include emulsifiers and surfactants and can include the surfactants can be in 1-80% by weight (page 11). The surfactants, equated with an emulsifier, and referred to as dispersing agents can be polyethylene glycols (page 12 and 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the claimed emulsifiers motivated to improve the dispersibility of the composition.
As to claims 29 and 30, Weber does not teach organic acids.
Moe teaches the composition includes organic acids such as citric, malic, succinic, and benzoic (page 53) which are used to reduce microbes when used in suitable concentrations. The amounts can be in the range of 0.5% to 20% (page 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ organic acids motivated to reduce grown of microbes on the fabric.
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (US 20080171482) in view of Moe et al (GB 2363614) and in further view of Shim et al (KR 20210111188).
As to claims 24, Weber does not teach a deaerating agent. The biodegradable composition 106 formulation may optionally comprise one or more additives. For example, the formulation may comprise a colorant, dye, or pigment, so as to meet the aesthetic demands of the consumer. The colorant may be any color, including black, white, gray, brown, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, or combinations thereof. Other suitable additives include: resins, odor absorbing agents, processing aids, antioxidants, and surfactants [0031].
Moe teaches it is preferred that a no foaming, or low foaming, agent is used, to avoid foam formation during fabric treatment.
Moe is silent with respect to the amount of defoaming agent.
Shim is directed to a method of making biodegradable articles and a coating layer is formed on the substrate through a coating process (ABST). The substrate is a fabric or nonwoven fabric with a biodegradable coating layer (page 3). The biodegradable coating composition comprises a polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) resin and the solids content of the biodegradable coating composition may be 10% by weight to 60% by weight. For example, the solids content of the biodegradable coating composition is 10 wt% to 60 wt%, 15 wt% to 55 wt%, 20 wt% to 55 wt%, 25 wt% to 50 wt%, 30 wt% to 45 wt% % by weight or between 35% and 45% by weight (page 8 of machine translation). The biodegradable polymer can also be a thermoplastic starch (page 8).
The biodegradable coating composition may further include at least one additive selected from the group consisting of a surfactant, a rheology control agent, a crosslinking agent, an antioxidant, a stabilizer, and a pH control agent (page .
The surfactant can be 0.01-30% (page 9). The antifoaming agent is 0.0001 wt% to 5 wt% which overlaps the claimed range of at least 3%. The antifoaming agent is an additive for preventing or reducing foaming. As long as the anti-foaming agent does not impair the effects of the present invention, a conventionally used anti-foaming agent may be used (page 10).
For example, the anti-foaming agent may be at least one selected from the group consisting of alcohol-based anti-foaming agents, polar compound-based anti-foaming agents, inorganic particle-based anti-foaming agents and silicone-based anti-foaming agents, ethyl alcohol, 2-ethylhexanol, polysiloxane, dimethyl polysiloxane, silicone paste , silicone emulsion, silicone treatment powder, fluorosilicone, distearic acid, ethylene glycol, and may be at least one selected from the group consisting of natural wax (page 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the defoamer in the claimed amount motivated to reduce foaming in the coating.
As to claim 27, Weber and Moe differ and do not teach a crosslinking agent.
Shim teaches a crosslinking agent can be used (page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a crosslinking agent motivated to react the polymer material together to produce a biodegradable coating.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (US 20080171482) in view of Moe et al (GB 2363614) and Fuhry (US 20100055471)
As to claims 27 and 28, Weber teaches a catalyst can be used in amounts of 0.1 to 25% but is not specific with regard to a crosslinking agent.
Moe differs and does not teach a crosslinking agent.
Fuhry is directed to waterborne polyurethane dispersion comprising biomass derived from polylol and coatings comprising the same (Title). Fuhry teaches The present invention includes a water-based polyurethane dispersion comprising the reaction product of: a polyol component; and a polyisocyanate component; wherein the polyol component comprises at least some biomass derived polyol; wherein the polyol component does not comprise epoxy or alkyd; and wherein the reaction product itself does not contain sufficient functionality to undergo oxidative cure [0003]-[0005].
Fuhry teaches a biodegradable coating [0026]. Fuhry teaches the substrates are fabrics [0047].
The coatings of the present invention can comprise 70 to 99 weight %, such as 85 to 95 or 90 to 93 weight % of any of the water-based polyurethane dispersions described above with weight % based on total solid weight of the coating. The coatings can comprise 1 to 30, such as 5 to 15 or 7 to 10 weight % of crosslinker, with weight % based on total solid weight [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a polyurethane crosslinker in the claimed amount motivated to produce a biodegradable coating composition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Altmann et al WO 0008249 A1
Haverhals et al (US 20180291536) is directed to yarn substrate of cellulose materials and polymers and indigo dye.
Usher et al (WO 2023214966) is directed to spinning of a biodegradable polyester copolymer filament involves polymerizing terephthalic acid, ethylene glycol, caprolactone monomer, calcium carbonate, and polybutylene succinate to form a biodegradable polyester copolymer melt, and spinning the biodegradable polyester copolymer melt into the biodegradable polyester copolymer filament (ABST).
Usher teaches formation of textured biodegradable polyester copolymer blended yarn, which involves spinning the textured biodegradable polyester copolymer staple fiber with one or more of cotton fiber and rayon fiber;
Goldstein (US 20200385903) is directed to a spun-yarn of polyester and cotton that has a percentage of polyester.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights