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 .
Claims 1-18 and 21-23 are pending. Claims 19 and 20 have been cancelled. Claim 23 is new. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10,17,18 and 21 and 22 in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Claim 17 depends from claim 11 and claim 1. This is not found persuasive because claim 17 is a different class of invention than claim 11. Claim 17 is directed to a use method of the apparatus of Invention II and Invention II is an apparatus claim. The apparatus of Invention II can be used in other methods than those of or uses than removing disperse dyes from polyester, such as treating any substrate or fabric with any solvent or chemical, for example applying scouring agents to cottons. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 11-16,19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. New claim 23 will be examined as part of Invention I.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the claim should say “consisting of” not “consisting in”. The claim should also end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: Claim 17 provides for the use of a plant (apparatus) to remove disperse dyes from a polyester dyed textile, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 22 and 23 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. The term “reduced” in claim 22 and 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the examiner interpreted “reduced” pressure to encompass any pressure below atmospheric pressure.
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 1,2,4-7,9,10,18,21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch (US 2003/0056296).
Hirsch teaches a method of removing indigo dyes (paragraph 0023) from waste cotton .or removing dyes from unfinished or finished cellulose fiber clothing (pre-consumer garments; paragraph 0031, 0126, 0132), particularly denim, by putting the waste cotton into a fabric containment basket (extraction chamber) on a support plate, applying a compression plate to the top surface to form a thickness of denim scrap into a compact cake (static condition during applicant’s step b) and c), paragraph 0018,0027,0036), passing a heated dye removal solvent selected from dimethyl formamide (paragraph 0085) heated to a temperature of 100-150°C (paragraph 0090) through the compact scrap cake to remove the dye (paragraph 0046). Hirsch teaches recirculating the dye by using a diverter valve to cause the dye removal liquid to be pumped into the bottom of the extraction chamber, through the perforated containment basket, through the fabric bed (feeding the solvent exiting the extraction chamber back to the extraction chamber to increase the amount of dyes removed from the waste textile (paragraph 0031, 0037-0038). Hirsch teaches heating the extraction chamber and recovering the dye from the used extraction solvent (paragraph 0116-0117). Hirsch teaches evaporating in a holding tank under reduced pressure as it is depressurized afterwards (evaporation chamber) and condensing the dimethyl formamide in a tube exchanger (condensing chamber) to prepare clean dimethylformamide which is placed in the clean extraction solvent holding tank for reuse (feeding the condensed solvent indirectly to the extraction chamber; paragraph 0118). Hirsch teaches repeating the process until all the dye is removed (paragraphs 0119-0121). Since the textiles of Hirsch are being compressed the flow and removal of solvent by dropping is being performed under a condition of pressing and squeezing.
Hirsch does not teach all the claimed limitations in a single embodiment but one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed invention by selection from the teachings of Hirsch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed steps of extracting indigo dye from cotton fabrics in an immobilized static orientation in a extraction chamber by heating the chamber and extraction solvent, circulating extraction solvent selected from dimethyl formamide through the waste scrap of unfinished clothing and recirculating until the dye is completely removed followed by removing the used dye laden solvent and recycling the solvent through evaporation and condensation under reduced pressure to obtain clean solvent for further decolorizing batches as Hirsch teach these steps provide a highly effective process for treating denim scrap with extraction solvents and extracting the majority of dye from the denim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch (US 2003/0056296) in view of Howa (JP 2019167644A).
Hirsch is relied upon as set forth above.
Hirsch does not teach polyurethane.
Howa teaches that indigo dyed denims conventionally contain polyurethane and cotton fibers (filaments) and are subject to decoloring (page 9, paragraph 8). Howa teaches the polyurethane adds elasticity to the denim (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Hirsch by decoloring indigo dyed denim containing cotton and polyurethane as Howa teaches that indigo dyed denims conventionally contain polyurethane and cotton fibers and are subject to decoloring. Treating a combination of polyurethane and cotton fibers (filaments) in decoloring indigo dyed denim is obvious as Hirsch teaches decoloring indigo dyed denims with cotton and Howa teaches polyurethane fibers are conventionally present in indigo dyed denims for elasticity benefits.
Claims 1,2,4-10,17,18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch (US 2003/0056296) in view of Sidebotham (US 4,137,393), Sidebotham (US 4,003,881) and Li (CN 108951233A).
Hirsch is relied upon as set forth above.
Hirsch does not teach removing disperse dyes from polyester or using reduced pressure in the extraction chamber or the evaporation chamber pressure and temperature.
Sidebotham ‘393 teaches polyester fabrics are conventionally recycled by stripping the dye from the polyester fabrics held in a static position (column 4, lines 3-15) using a dye stripping solvent such as dimethyl formamide and performing the extraction of the dye using a heated solvent at reduced pressure (column 2, lines 6-14; column 4, lines 30-40, claim 8). Sidebotham ‘393 teaches recirculating the dye and repeating the process to remove more dye (column 3, lines 65-68- column 4, lines 1-2). Sidebotham ‘393 teaches separating the solvent after use by evaporating (column 2, lines 21-24). Sidebotham ‘393 teaches the solvent removal is conducted under pressure (claim 10). Sidebotham ‘393 teaches the dye removal may be performed under pressure (column 4, lines 30-35). Sidebotham ‘393 teaches the importance of adjusting the temperature and vacuum during solvent removal ((column 5, lines 15-31).
Sidebotham ‘881 teaches dimethyl formamide can be used for dye stripping only at temperatures above 80°C and not dye dissolution (column 7, example 3; column 3, lines 35-41).
Li teaches that polyester fabric dyed with disperse dyes is known to be decolored with dimethylformamide (page 2, last 3 paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Hirsch by using the extraction apparatus of Hirsch to remove disperse dyes from polyester with dimethyl formamide at 80°C and/or under reduced pressure as Sidebotham ‘393 teaches dyes can be removed from polyester waste by treating with dimethyl formamide at temperatures above 80°C and the extraction can be performed under vacuum and Li teaches polyester fabrics dyed with disperse dyes can be decolored using dimethylformamide solvent. It would have been further obvious to evaporate the dimethyl formamide of Sidebotham ‘393 under the claimed temperatures and pressures to recycle the clean solvent for reuse as Sidebotham. ‘393 teaches the importance of adjusting the temperature and vacuum during solvent removal and these values could be determined through routine experimentation to remove the maximal amount of solvent from the polyester under the most efficient evaporation conditions. While Sidebotham ‘393 teaches decoloring and dissolving the polyester, Sidebotham ‘881 teaches dimethylformamide can be used in methods to strip the dye only and dissolution does not need to occur. Therefore it would have been obvious to use dimethyl formamide to simply decolor the dye and not dissolve the polyester fabric. Using the apparatus of Hirsch to treat the fabrics of Sidebotham ‘393 is obvious as Hirsch teaches treating fabric scrap with the same solvent and similar extraction temperatures to remove dyes followed by solvent recovery using evaporation and reuse of recycled solvent. While Hirsch exemplifies indigo dye removal from cotton denim, the apparatus can be used for the extraction of disperse dyes from polyester as the same solvent are used and any fabric can be placed in the containment basket.
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 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761