Claims 1-18 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 .
Priority
2 Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The certified copy of the foreign priority document has not been reported in the Application Data Sheet and wherein the Application Data Sheet is incomplete.
Applicants should provide a whole papers of Application Data Sheet includes a page that show the foreign priority document.
Claim Objections
3 Claims 2-17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-17 should be amended to replace the words “A method” with -- The method--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4 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 7, 8 and 18 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.
Claims 7, 8 and 18 recite the phrase “preferably”. The phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5 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.
6 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, 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Jong et al. (Application of smectite for textile dyeing and fastness improvement).
Jong et al. (Application of smectite for textile dyeing and fastness improvement) teaches a method for dyeing textile comprising treating the fabric with a solution of smectite pigment, and wherein the smectite is the name used for a group of phyllosilicate minerals species and have a chemical composition of T2O5 (T= Si, Al, Be) which is bonded (or coordinated) to independent cations (see page 3, last paragraph), wherein the fabric treated with the smectite solution and the fabric rinsed with water as claimed in claims 1, 11 and 18 (see page 7, last paragraphs and page 8, first paragraph) and wherein the fabric is cotton as claimed in claim 7 (see page 7, Table 2), and wherein the dye fabric is dyed (been wet) for 60 min as claimed in claim 10 (see page 7, last paragraph). Jong et al. teaches a method for dyeing textile fabric of cotton by treating the fabric with same solution of phyllosilicate and inorganic pigment which inherently should have same steps of wetting and drying the fabric as claimed. Jong et al., teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Jong et al. anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7 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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jong et al. (Application of smectite for textile dyeing and fastness improvement) in view of Chen (CN 107083696 A). English translation of the Patent No. CN 107083696 A is used in this Office action.
Jong et al. (Application of smectite for textile dyeing and fastness improvement) teaches a method for dyeing textile comprising treating the fabric with a solution of smectite pigment, and wherein the smectite is the name used for a group of phyllosilicate minerals species and have a chemical composition of T2O5 (T= Si, Al, Be) (see page 3, last paragraph).
The instant claims differ from teaching of Jong et al., by reciting a silicate mineral of phyllosilicate represented by the claimed species sepiolite as claimed in claims 2 and 3.
Chen (CN’ 696 A) on analogous art of fabric dyeing formulation, teaches a method for dyeing fabric comprising applying to the fabric a composition comprising sepiolite as claimed in claims 2 and 3 (see claim 3).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Chen (CN’ 696 A), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize and use any species of phyllosilicate including the claimed sepiolite as taught by Chen (CN’ 696 A) with the reasonable expectation of achieving a favorable result since the species is generated from phyllosilicate as a generic sources taught by Chen (CN’ 696 A), and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a method for dyeing fabric to have similar results to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
8 Claims 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jong et al. (Application of smectite for textile dyeing and fastness improvement).
The disclosure of Jong et al. as described above, does not teach the concentration of the compound in the aqueous solution, the quantity of the aqueous solution and drying the textile using an oven as claimed in claims 12-14.
However, Jong et al., clearly teaches a method for dyeing fabric with a solution comprising a concentration of 2% weight of fiber and a liquor ratio of 1:50 (see page 6, last paragraph).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Jong et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be modified to modify the method of dyeing fabric of Jong et al., by calculation the concentration of the phyllosilicate in the aqueous composition with respect to the quantity of the aqueous solution in order to get maximum effective amounts of the phyllosilicate and inorganic pigment that form the composite compound in a suitable amount for dyeing the fabric and to drying the fabric under any dyeing condition in order to get a better quality of fabric, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a method of dyeing fabric by dyeing compounds similar to those claimed, would results property similar to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
9 Claims 4-6, 9 and 15-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record Jong et al. (Application of smectite for textile dyeing and fastness improvement) does not teach or disclose the limitations of the instant claims, wherein the claimed method recites a textile is procced using rollers and cylinders, wherein the dry comprises first and second heating steps and wherein the method further comprises softening the textile as claimed.
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