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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 9/18/25 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-14 are pending, of which claims 9-14 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 9-14 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions of claims 1-8 and 9-14 are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed the inventions as claimed are not capable of use together and have a materially different mode of operation, since the first invention requires the steps of removing a stain from fabric by applying a composition consisting of Bacillus spores and water and the newly added invention requires the steps of creating a treated fabric with Bacillus spores before it becomes stained and laundering the stained fabric after. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits.
Accordingly, claims 9-14 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/12/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOLLINARO (US 2006/0247150) with evidence of GIANOLLA (WO 2020/008053) both as supplied on the IDS dated 7/5/22 and further in view of TSINGER (US 2003/0049832).
a. Regarding claim 1, MOLLINARO discloses a composition that can be used for fabric pre-treatment to remove stains (method of facilitating stain removal from fabric)[0265], wherein the composition can digest or degrade soils such as fat, protein, carbohydrate or like (stain comprises carbohydrate and/or fat and protein) [0008, 0036], comprising pre-treatment (prior to a laundry process) of the fabric in contact with the product (treating the fabric directly) [0265]; in which the composition includes one or more of spores [0008], the suitable spores include Bacillus spores [0037-38], and also using a composition for laundry washing [0052-53].
While MOLLINARO discloses the composition is used for pre-treatment, it does not explicitly disclose subsequently subjecting the fabric to a laundry process.
However, GIANOLLA discloses a composition comprising a probiotic which can be a blend of bacterial spores (page 7, lines26-page 8, line 6, example), in which the composition may be used in stain removal from fabrics and applied directly to the stain, alternately or in addition the composition may be used prior to laundering as a pretreatment in soaking conditions (Page 12, lines 13-22). Based on the evidence of GIANOLLA, it is clear the definition of pretreatment, such as disclosed by MOLLINARO, means followed by a subsequent laundry process.
MOLLINARO discloses a pre-treatment composition as discussed above [0008, 0265] and discloses control compositions consisting of bacterial spores and water (see Table 1, 2 [0271-274])., but does not explicitly disclose using the control compositions without additives for treating stains.
However, TSINGER discloses using a composition of a pure culture of bacillus microorganisms in a liquid formulation to degrade fats, oils and grease (0015, 0022, 0025, 0042). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pre-treatment composition in the method of MOLLINARO to use a composition of bacterial spores without additives such as the control composition consisting of water and bacterial spores of MOLLINARO because as taught by TSINGER such a pure liquid formulation is capable of degrading fatty acids (0067) and grease (0075).
b. Regarding claim 2-3, MOLLINARO discloses the Bacillus spores can be Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus megaterium, or Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and the like [0038, 0042].
c. Regarding claim 4, MOLLINARO discloses the composition can be used on fabric that has stains (treating with bacterial spores after fabric has been stained) [0265].
d. Regarding claim 6, MOLLINARO discloses applying the composition in the form of a spray [0255, 0263].
e. Regarding claim 7, MOLLINARO discloses it was known to wash fabric with a laundry detergent [0052, 0252].
f. Regarding claim 8, MOLLINARO discloses laundry detergents are known to contain enzymes [0052].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOLLINARO (US 2006/0247150) as applied above, and further in view of GIANOLLA (WO 2020/008053) both as supplied on the IDS dated 7/5/22.
Regarding claim 5, MOLLINARO discloses pre-treatment of the fabric where the fabric has time to be in contact with the product [0265] but does not explicitly disclose the amount of time is about 15 mins before laundering.
However, GIANOLLA discloses a composition comprising a probiotic which can be a blend of bacterial spores, specifically Bacillus (page 7, lines26-page 8, line 6, example), in which the composition may be used in stain removal from fabrics and applied directly to the stain, alternately or in addition the composition may be used prior to laundering as a pretreatment in soaking conditions for a period of time from 0-5hrs (storing the treated fabric before subjecting it to a laundry process) (Page 12, lines 13-22, Example, Table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pre-treatment method of MOLLINARO to include the step of storing the treated fabric as taught by GIANOLLA because the bacterial spores being living organisms require time to break down the components of the stain.
Neither MOLLINARO nor GIANOLLA specifically disclose the storing takes place for about 15 minutes before the laundry process. However, it would have been matter of routine optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the minimum period of time to allow pretreatment to succeed in removal of a stain because it would have only required the skilled artisan to try soaking in various increments of more than 0 hours and less than 5 hours as disclosed by GIANOLLA in order to determine the minimum effective soaking time to remove the stain. 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DANIELLE B HENKEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5505. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 11-7 EST, Alt. Fridays.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/DANIELLE B HENKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights