Claims 1-8 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim 1 and 8 recite the phrase “at each instance”. It is unclear what is meant by “at each instance”.?. Clarification or correction is required.
The examiner suggests the amendment of the claims by replacing “at each instance” by “selected from”.
Claims 2-7 are dependent upon a base rejected claim. Therefore, claims 2-7 are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
4 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.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Klaus et al. (Dyeing of m-Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquids) .
Klaus et al. (Dyeing of m-Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquids) teaches a composition for dyeing aramid in ionic liquids, wherein the dyeing composition comprises a compound 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazoliumethyl sulfate having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
428
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Which is identical to the claimed formula, when in the claimed formula, R1 and R2 are alkyl radicals as claimed in claim 1 (see page 2, last paragraph), and wherein the dyeing composition also comprises cationic dyes as claimed in claim 1 (see page 2, last paragraph). Klaus et al. (Dyeing of m-Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquids) also teaches a method of dyeing Aramid by applying the dyeing composition to Aramid at a temperature 120-140 OC as claimed in claims 7-8 (see page 3, first paragraph and page 4, last paragraph). Klaus et al. (Dyeing of m-Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquids) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Klaus et al. (Dyeing of m-Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquids) anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus et al. (Dyeing of m-Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquids) in view of Deavenport et al. (US 9,493,398 B2).
Klaus et al. (Dyeing of m-Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquids) teaches a composition for dyeing aramid in ionic liquids, wherein the dyeing composition comprises a compound 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazoliumethyl sulfate (see page 2, last paragraph).
The instant claim differs from the teaching of Klaus et al. (Dyeing of m-Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquids) by reciting a bis-quaternary amine salts having a cationic formula.
Deavenport et al. (US’ 398 B2) in analogous art of dyeing textiles, teaches dyeing composition comprising a compound having the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
140
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Which is similar to the claimed formula, when X is a halogen and R1, R2 and R3 are alkyl or alkyl substituted radicals as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of the secondary reference of Deavenport et al. (US’ 398 B2), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the dyeing composition of Klaus et al. (Dyeing of m-Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquid) by incorporating the compound as taught by Deavenport et al. (US’ 398 B2) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of the compound as taught by Deavenport et al. (US’ 398 B2) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous dyeing composition taught by Klaus et al. (Dyeing of Aramid Fibers in Ionic Liquids), absent unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights