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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed August 26, 2025. Claims 9-23,29 and 31-35 are pending. Claims 1-8, 24-28 and 30 have been cancelled. Claim 35 is new. Claims 9 and 31-33 have been amended. Claims 12-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
All prior rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 9-11,29 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (US 2022/0120032) in view of Kubo (JP 2006265783A) 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 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.
Kubo teaches it is effective to partially cationize cotton yarns to be colored by acid (anionic) dyes to provide irregular washed-out or worn out appearances of denims (page 1, abstract; page 3, last paragraph; page 6, first paragraph) wherein the cotton can be treated on the outer surface with a spray of cationizing agent such as quaternary ammonium salts such that only the surface of the yarn is dyed with acid dyes and the inner area remains uncationized and undyed (page 3, first paragraph; page 5, last two paragraphs; page 6, first paragraph). Kubo teaches the outer surface of the yarn which is cationized is 10-50% of the cross sectional area and the inner yarn is 90% to 50% of the cross sectional area of the yarn, which meets the claimed thickness ratio of the outer layer of the yarn to the inner layer of the yarn of about 10:1 to 1:10 (page 5, next to last paragraph).
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 cotton yarn with acid (anionic) dye and leave the uncationized inner core undyed because Kubo teaches this selective surface cationizing of cotton yarns with similar quaternary ammonium salt cationizing agents is effective in producing ring dyed finished which provide irregular washed-out or worn out appearances of denims. Mok is also directed towards cationizing cellulosic yarns with quaternary ammonium agents to produce denim like finishes.
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. Schlanger emphasizes this type of dyed fabric has better wearability, more softness, a more pleasant feel and better washing resistance (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claims 31-35, 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. 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 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (US 2022/0120032) in view of Kubo (JP 2006265783A) 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).
Mok, Kubo, Schlangen and Shangdong Tiancheng Chemical Co document are relied upon as set forth above.
Mok, Kubo, Schlangen and Shangdong Tiancheng Chemical Co document do not teach slasher machines, padding, squeezing heating as claimed in claims 31-34.
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.
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, Kubo, 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, padding to a wet pick up of 100%, squeezing through horizonal squeeze rolls and heating a steam chamber to fix the cationic agent 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. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on Kubo to demonstrate a cotton yarns cationized in a ring portion on the outer surface at the claimed ratios wherein the acid (anionic) dye only color the cationized outer ring of the yarn. This reference is combinable with Mok as both references are directed towards cationizing cellulosic fibers to produce denim like weaves and effects.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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