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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 5, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 31-33 and 36-38 are pending. Claims 1-30,34 and 35 have been cancelled. Claims 36-38 are new. Claim 31 has been amended.
All prior rejections are withdrawn.
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 31-33 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (US 2022/0120032) in view of Correia (Surface functionalization of greige cotton knitted fabric through plasma and cationization for dyeing with reactive and acid dyes. Cellulose (2021) 28: 9971-9990) and Schlangen (US 2006/0085926).and as evidenced by Shangdong Tiancheng Chemical Co document. (Ecofast CR-2000; https://www.tianchengchemical.com/3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyltrimethyl-ammonium-chloride/58613177.html).
Mok teaches preparing fabrics from a first yarn of substantially colorless greige (greige defined by applicant in the specification as meeting the limitation of substantially colorless, pgpub, paragraph 0010), cationically modified cellulose fibers and a second yarn of cellulosic fibers which are not cationically modified to prepare a denim appearance (abstract, paragraphs 0013-0016,0035, claims 1-3,5-7,9). Mok teaches that the cationic modifier can be Ecofast CR-2000 (paragraph 0017, which is 3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride as evidenced by the Shangdong Tiancheng Chemical Co document. Mok teaches the first yarn (cationic cellulose) is the warp yarn and the second yarn (unmodified cellulose) is the weft yarn, wherein the yarns are woven to make a face and back side wherein the warp is predominantly visible on one side or the fabric and the weft is predominantly visible on the other side of the fabric (paragraph 0018,0020, 0020,0029-0036,0043). Mok teaches the fabric can be dyed (paragraph 0036). Mok teaches cationizing the first yarn in a solution of cationic agent and alkali (sodium hydroxide, paragraph 0045-0047) wherein the ratio of cationic agent to alkali is 2.5:1 to 15:1 for 0.5-3% cationic modifier in aqueous solution (paragraph 0027) to 2g/L sodium hydroxide (0.2%) (paragraphs 0027,0047).
Mok does not specify the anionic dye is stained on the outer surface of the warp and the inner surface of the warp is free of dye the thickness ratio of the outer layer to the inner layer of about 10:1 to about 1:10. Mok does not teach dyeing with anionic dye to achieve a fabric having a mélange effect.
Correia teaches cationizing cotton yarns with 3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride (CHPTAC) and dyeing with anionic (acid ) dyes, page 9971, abstract, page 9972, right column last paragraph). Correia teaches treating greige cotton (greige defined by applicant in the specification as meeting the limitation of substantially colorless, pgpub, paragraph 0010), cationizing with CHPTAC to form covalent bonds with the cellulose of the cotton (page 9981, left column, last paragraph) and dyeing with C.I. Acid Blue 260 (page 9974, left column, materials) and produce ring dyeing effects (page 9980, right column, paragraph 2).
Schlangen teaches that similar denim fabrics (paragraph 0047) of cationized cellulose fibers and uncationized cellulose fibers (paragraphs 0011-0015) are effectively colored with acid dyes and acid reactive dyes (anionic dyes, paragraph 0023-0025) to achieve specific mélange effects and optics (paragraphs 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cationization of the fabrics of Mok to the claimed thickness ratio amounts so as to only dye the outer cationized surface of the griege cotton yarn with acid (anionic) dye and leave the uncationized inner core undyed because Correia teaches this selective surface cationizing of cotton yarns with similar quaternary ammonium salt cationizing agents is effective in producing covalent bonds with the cellulose on the surface and acid dyeing allows for coloration of the cationized portions of the cotton in a ring dyed finish pattern. Mok is also directed towards cationizing cellulosic yarns with quaternary ammonium agents to produce denim like finishes. The degree of cationization and penetration into the outer surface of the yarn of the cationizing agent allowing for covalent bonding of cationizing agent to the cotton determines the degree of dyeing as this impacts how much or the cotton yarn will interact and bind the acid dyes. This can be controlled through routine experimentation to produce a desired degree of outer cationized ring of the cotton and inner not cationized core and achieve applicant’s thickness ratio of the outer layer to the inner layer of 10:1 to 1:10.
Mok permits any combination of cationically modified cellulose warp and unmodified cellulose weft, to be woven into a fabric particularly with a denim appearance, wherein the warp is the face of the fabric and the weft is the back of the fabric. Mok emphasizes the yarn type is very much dependent upon the final fabric to be achieved (paragraph 0026) and that optical appearance of the denim fabric depends of the visibility of the first and second surface (paragraph 0018). One of ordinary skill in the art could through routine experimentation adjust the thickness ratio of the outer layer to the inner layer to the claimed values based on the teachings of Kubo to achieve a desired mélange appearance of the fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the denim fabrics of Mok by dyeing with anionic dyes to produce mélange effects as Schlangen teaches this is conventionally done to produce denim fabrics of similar cationic cellulose and unmodified cellulose construction to effectively produce mélange optical effects. Schlangen emphasizes this type of dyed fabric has better wearability, more softness, a more pleasant feel and better washing resistance (paragraph 0037).
Regarding the process step limitations of claims 31 and 32, it is noted these claims are product by process and the examiner has found a similar product, therefore the burden lies with applicant to demonstrate the criticality of the method of producing the fabric. Mok teaches combining the same fibers in the same denim woven fabric with one side having cationically modified cellulose surface and the second side having an unmodified cellulose surface. Correia teaches ring dyeing the cotton cationized with the same cationizing agents and acid dyes in a controllable ring pattern. Burden is on applicants to show product differences in product by process claims, see In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972). Any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Claims 31-33 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (US 2022/0120032) in view of Correia (Surface functionalization of greige cotton knitted fabric through plasma and cationization for dyeing with reactive and acid dyes. Cellulose (2021) 28: 9971-9990) and Schlangen (US 2006/0085926).and as evidenced by Shangdong Tiancheng Chemical Co document. (Ecofast CR-2000; https://www.tianchengchemical.com/3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyltrimethyl-ammonium-chloride/58613177.html).and further in view of Nikam (WO 2021/158540) and Hasuly (US 4,421,566).
Mok, Correia, Schlangen and Shangdong Tiancheng Chemical Co document are relied upon as set forth above.
Mok, Correia, Schlangen and Shangdong Tiancheng Chemical Co document do not teach slasher machines, padding, squeezing and heating on dry can column.
Nikam teaches that cationizing cellulose with 3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride in the presence of base such as alkali metal hydroxide (alkali) (page 2-3) at a ratio of 1:1.8 to 1:5 can be effectively achieved by immersing in a padding bath (page 4, claims 12,13,17), mechanically removing excess solution from rollers (squeezing, page 4; page 6, 20-26) and heated steam fixing at 100 degrees C in a steam treatment apparatus (page 7,14). Nikam teaches a wet pick up of greater than 50% (page 13). Nikam teaches dyeing with anionic dyes (page 17). See example 1, page 20 for the whole process. Nikam teaches a continuous process using a conveyor (page 6, lines 20-26).
Hasuly teaches that cotton yarns can effectively be treated with cationic agents in slasher machines and by drying using drying cans ((column 6- example 6, column 4-example 2; column 5-lines 20-21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to produce mélange effects with anionic dyes in the cationic fabrics of Mok, Correia, Schlangen and Shangdong Tiancheng Chemical Co and use the method steps of immersing the cellulose fiber in a cationic agent solution with alkali at the claimed ratios in a slasher machine, padding to a wet pick up of 100%, squeezing through horizonal squeeze rolls and heating a steam chamber over a column of dryer cans to fix the cationic agent in a continuous apparatus using a conveyor as Nikam teaches all these steps are effective at applying the same cationic agent to the cellulose fibers at the claimed wet pick up levels before dyeing with anionic dyes and Hasuly teaches cationic agents are applied to yarns effectively in slasher machines and dried over heated cans. Adjusting the amount of cationic treatment solution to untreated cellulose fiber would be obvious to impact the anionic dye uptake and produce mélange effects. Using the same cation fabric construction of Mok and treating with cationic agent and anionic dyes of Nikam would produce similar mélange effects as this is a result of the dyeing pattern of the interaction of the anionic dyed and the portions of the cationized cellulose of the fabric. Using a column of drying cans would be obvious as this is just a design choice and drying can are arranged in a row.
Regarding the process step limitations of claims 31 and 32, it is noted these claims are product by process and the examiner has found a similar product, therefore the burden lies with applicant to demonstrate the criticality of the method of producing the fabric. Mok teaches combining the same fibers in the same denim woven fabric with one side having cationically modified cellulose surface and the second side having an unmodified cellulose surface. Correia teaches ring dyeing the cotton cationized with the same cationizing agents and acid dyes in a controllable ring pattern. Schlangen teaches producing mélange effects on cotton. Burden is on applicants to show product differences in product by process claims, see In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972). Any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art as they apply to the new rejections above have been considered and addressed below. New reference Correia teaches it is well established to produce ring dyeing effects on cotton yarns with applicant’s claimed cationizing agent covalently bonded to the outer surface of the cotton yarns and then dyed with acid dyes. Correia recognizes the degree of cationization on the outer ring impacts the degree of dyeing as only the cationized ring will interact with the dye leaving an undyed non-cationized cotton core. Hasuly teaches that slasher machines are conventionally used to apply cationic agents to cottons and these machines contain heated cans to dry the treated yarns. Using known cationizing apparatus with known drying means for treating the same yarns is obvious to arrive at cationically treated yarns and combining these methods and apparatus elements with those of Nikam to produce the desired ring dyed pattern is obvious. Using different method and apparatus elements as well as substituting different cationizing agents known as effective in accepting acid dyeing to produce yarns and fabrics with desired fabric dyeing patterns is obvious as diverse methods, apparatus and cationizing agents can be effective at producing similar effects. It is noted any of the process steps are product by process and since the same products are obtained by the prior art, the burden is on applicant to demonstrate the process of making the product materially effects the invention. The same cotton yarns treated with the same cationizing agents in ring dyed patterns can be adjusted through routine experimentation to produce mélange effects on the fabrics as these are conventionally desired patterns on dyed cottons. Producing known desired mélange effects on cotton ring dyed yarns is obvious.
Burden is on applicants to show product differences in product by process claims, see In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972). Any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Conclusion
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 on 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