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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandzia et al, WO 2017/157774 in view of Hurd et al, U.S. Patent No. 9,677,207 and Lindsay, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0032570.
Kandzia discloses a method of treating a textile to degrade malodors. The treatment is suitable for manmade fabrics such as athletic wear. See page 1, 3rd paragraph. The method involves contacting a fabric with at least one species of Bacillus, such as Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, and or Bacillus atrophaeus, especially bacterial spores of bacilli selected from the groups set forth at the end of page 1 through the first full paragraph of page 2. The contact of the bacterial spores can occur before, during or after a washing process in a washing machine. See page 2, third full paragraph. More than one bacterial strains can be used. See page 2, paragraph 4. Any type of fabric or textile can be treated, including garments and fabrics used in furnishings and vehicles. The fabrics can comprise various types of fibers, including natural, synthetic and man-made fibers, including natural fibers such as wool, cellulosic fibers, regenerated cellulose fibers and polymeric fibers such as polyester and blends thereof. See final paragraph of page 3. The bacterial spores are present in an effective amount. See page 4, 4th full paragraph. An effective dosage of the spores is a final concentration of 1X102 t- 1X109 CFU/g. See page 4, paragraph 5 – page 5, first paragraph. The compositions can have a pH in the range of 5-10 and may include water and other preservatives as needed. See page 5, 4th full paragraph. The composition can be added to a fabric as a liquid, aerosol or emulsion. See page 6, 3rd full paragraph. The composition can further comprise an organic acid and other polymers, (see page 9, second paragraph-page 11, 3rd full paragraph). Kandzia does not require the use of bleach with the composition and does not require the use of fabric conditioning agents, wherein fabric conditioning agents are interpreted as set forth at page 9, lines 1-5 of the instant specification.
Kandzia differs from the claimed invention because while it discloses sport fabrics and fabrics formed from polyester generally, it does not clearly disclose wicking fabrics.
However, Hurd discloses an integrally knitted fabric with two or more layers wherein the denier per filament of the yarns making up the layers progressively get smaller as they face away from the skin contacting layer. The yarns can be polyester. See claims 1-4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have applied the solution of Kandzia to the fabric of Hurd in order to provide the improved properties of eliminating odors to the wicking fabrics of Hurd.
As set forth above, since Kandzia does not require any anionic surfactant, Kandzia would meet the limitation of up to 1% which includes zero. However, if the limitation is interpreted as requiring anionic surfactant to be present, Kandzia does not teach the claimed amount.
However, Lindsay teaches a method of mitigating biofilms and removing odors on clothes and other items. Lindsay teaches treating the clothes and other items with compositions which can include bacteria, enzymes and anionic surfactants. See paragraphs 0006. The enzymes can include an enzyme stabilizing system. See paragraph 0055. The enzyme stabilizers can be present in amounts of up to 7%. See paragraph 0056. The stabilizer can be sodium citrate, sodium formate, calcium chloride or sodium carbonate, etc. See paragraph 0056. Lindsay teaches that anionic surfactants can be present in the system in amounts of 0.01-25% by weight. See paragraph 0098 and 0102.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the particular enzymes and enzyme stabilizers as well as the anionic surfactant in the amounts as taught by Lindsay in the composition of Kandzia in order to provide a composition which reduces malodor and biofilm.
Claim(s) 16is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandzia et al, WO 2017/157774 in view of Hurd et al, U.S. Patent No. 9.677,207 and Lindsay, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0032570 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wang et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0066352.
Kandzia differs from the claimed invention because it does not clearly teach including alkoxylated polyalkyleneimines in the composition. However, Wang discloses incorporating alkoxylated polyalkyleneimines into compositions for cleaning textiles. See paragraph 0219, 0277.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have incorporated alkoxylated polyalkyleneimines into the composition of Kandzia in order to further clean and deodorize the treated textiles.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s summary of the invention and case law has been carefully considered.
Applicant argues that Example 3 provides evidence of nonobvoiusness because it excludes the fabric conditioning agents.
However, Kandzia already teaches an embodiment without fabric conditioning agents. Therefore, while Kandzia neither teaches away from using fabric conditioning agents nor recognizes a problem with using fabric conditioning agents, since Kandzia teaches an embodiment which does not include any fabric conditioning agents, a showing is not able to overcome the Kandzia reference. Kandzia teaches four embodiments, 1) spores with water, 2) spores with water plus detergent, 3) spores with water plus fabric conditioning agents and 4) spores with water, detergent, and fabric conditioning agents. Since Kandzia teaches embodiments which are free of fabric conditioning agents, there is no modification of the composition of Kandzia required to meet the claimed invention. See entire document, especially page 3, lines 1-5; page 3,third paragraph; page 5, third paragraph and page 6, line 1 – third paragraph, which teaches that the spores may be in a solvent, wherein the solvent is water and may be applied to fabrics alone or in combination with other components.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789