DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it contains multiple periods, which is improper.
Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 3 is objected to because the phrase “to removed” reads awkwardly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 16, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Praechter et al (20140345062).
In regards to Claim 1, Praechter teaches a method of processing cotton fiber (Paragraph 17: polyester/cotton), the method comprising:
washing cotton with an acidic solution to remove metals, microorganisms, herbicides, pesticides, or a combination thereof (Abstract: HEDP);
rinsing the cotton with water (Paragraph 6: rinse step);
neutralizing the cotton with a basic solution (Paragraph 6, standard alkaline laundering); and
drying the cotton to produce a cleaned, non-scoured cotton (would begin to dry after being processed).
In regards to Claim 2, Praechter teaches the acidic solution is limited to 1 to 3 components (Paragraph 12).
In regards to Claims 4 and 5, Praechter teaches the use of oxalic acid as the acidic solution (Paragraph 2).
In regards to Claim 16, Praechter teaches a cleaned cotton (Paragraph 17).
In regards to Claim 23, Praechter teaches a cotton product comprising cotton (Paragraph 17).
In regards to Claim 24, Praechter teaches additional fibers selected from the group consisting of: polyester, polypropylene, polylactic acid, polyhydroxyalkanoate, bicomponent fibers, regenerated cellulose, natural cellulose, and a combination thereof (Paragraph 17).
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.
Claim(s) 7-14 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Praechter et al.
While Praechter essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the myriad of properties of the resultant cotton. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the resultant cotton of Praechter would have the same properties as claimed, since the properties are the direct result of the method steps of Claim 1, which Praechter teaches. Claims 7-14 and 17-22 depend from Claim 1, meaning that the properties result from the steps of washing with an acidic solution, rinsing with water, neutralizing with a basic solution, and drying, all of which Praechter teaches.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Praechter et al in view of Heifetz (5331801).
In regards to Claim 3, while Praechter essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach mechanically cleaning the cotton to remove extraneous plant components prior to washing the cotton. Heifetz, however, teaches that when dealing with cotton fiber, it is well known to utilize a carding machine to mechanically clean the cotton to remove extraneous plant components (Column 3, lines 54-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have carded the cotton fibers, so as to properly clean them. It is well known in the textile arts that cotton fibers must be carded to remove plant material. This carding would occur prior to the garment being formed, which would be “prior to step a”, which is washing the cotton garment.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Praechter et al in view of Genisot et al (20130047350).
In regards to Claim 6, while Genisot essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the basic solution comprises sodium carbonate. Genisot, however, teaches that when dealing with washing garments which have been subjected to an acidic treatment, it is well known to utilize sodium carbonate (Paragraph 36). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized sodium carbonate, so as to neutralize the acid of the previous treatment. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated the ability to better neutralize the acid, and known to utilize the sodium carbonate as taught.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least Kurauchi et al (WO 0192632) Example 1 teaches elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
