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 June 22, 2026. Claims 1-6 and 9-19 are pending. Claims 7 and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 17-19 have been amended.
All prior rejections are maintained for the reasons set forth below.
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 1,2,4-6,9-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 2011/0146725) in view of Schoenberger (US 2,755,535).
Woo teaches methods of treating shower plasticized curtains (paragraph 0129) with aqueous liquors (paragraph 0014) comprising 0.01-5% (100-50000ppm) formic acid, 0.1-12% citric acid (1000-120000ppm) with a pH 2.01-3.6 (which would be measured at room temperature 25°C since no heat is applied; paragraphs 0016-0021), 0.1-15% (1000-150000ppm) anionic surfactant (paragraph 0048) selected from alkyl sulphates (paragraph 0052), 0.1-15% nonionic surfactants (paragraph 0044) selected from alcohol ethoxylates (paragraph 0045), additional surfactants (paragraph 0085), dyes (paragraph 0094) and perfumes (paragraph 0097, 0122). Woo teaches diluting the liquid composition with water 10 to 400 times, particularly 1.2% (paragraph 0135). Woo teaches dispensing the composition by spraying (paragraph 0137) and applying as a leave on treatment (paragraph 0111). Leave-on treatment meets the claimed limitation of treating a shower plasticized curtain and not following treatment with a rinse off step.
Woo does not specify fabrics and does not teach all the claimed embodiments in a single example but the claimed invention can be arrived at from selection of the teachings of Woo.
Schoenberger teaches that shower curtains are conventionally made from plastic coated fabrics (shower plasticized curtain; column 2, lines 3-7 and 29-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed concentrations and ratios of citric acid, formic acid and alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant and add an alcohol ethoxylate nonionic surfactant, additional surfactants, perfumes and dyes as Woo teaches 0.1-15% surfactant including anionic alkyl sulphate surfactants and 0.1-15% nonionic alcohol ethoxylate surfactants can be effectively combined with mixtures of 0.01-5% (100-50000ppm) formic acid, 0.1-12% citric acid to form a leave on product applied by spray to a shower plasticized curtain wherein no rinsing is performed after application. Using known effective surfactants, acidulants and laundry additives in art recognized concentrations to apply to shower curtains for stain removal and malodor removal and with the benefit that no rinsing steps needs to be performed is obvious in view of the teachings of Woo.
Selection from the ranges of Woo to prepare a concentrated solution and dilution of the concentrated solution to a use solution to arrive at the claimed amounts of surfactant and acid is obvious through routine experimentation as Woo teaches the same components, combined in art recognized concentration ranges for the benefit or spraying on plasticized shower curtains with leave on treatment products to remove stains and eliminate malodor.
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 Woo by treating plasticized fabric shower curtains as Woo clearly teaches applying leave on treatments comprising the claimed components to shower plasticized curtains and Schoenberger teaches plasticized shower curtains are conventionally made of fabric material with a plastic coating for tear resistance and water repellency.
Claims 1,2,4-6,9-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 2011/0146725) in view of Minder (EP 0170629A2).
Woo teaches methods of treating shower plasticized curtains (paragraph 0129) with aqueous liquors (paragraph 0014) comprising 0.01-5% (100-50000ppm) formic acid, 0.1-12% citric acid (1000-120000ppm) with a pH 2.01-3.6 (which would be measured at room temperature 25°C since no heat is applied; paragraphs 0016-0021), 0.1-15% (1000-150000ppm) anionic surfactant (paragraph 0048) selected from alkyl sulphates (paragraph 0052), 0.1-15% nonionic surfactants (paragraph 0044) selected from alcohol ethoxylates (paragraph 0045), additional surfactants (paragraph 0085), dyes (paragraph 0094) and perfumes (paragraph 0097, 0122). Woo teaches diluting the liquid composition with water 10 to 400 times, particularly 1.2% (paragraph 0135). Woo teaches dispensing the composition by spraying (paragraph 0137) and applying as a leave on treatment (paragraph 0111). Leave-on treatment meets the claimed limitation of treating a shower plasticized curtain and not following treatment with a rinse off step.
Woo does not specify fabrics and does not teach all the claimed embodiments in a single example but the claimed invention can be arrived at from selection of the teachings of Woo.
Minder teaches that shower curtains are most frequently made from plastic coated fabrics (shower plasticized curtain; page 1, lines 11-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed concentrations and ratios of citric acid, formic acid and alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant and add an alcohol ethoxylate nonionic surfactant, additional surfactants, perfumes and dyes as Woo teaches 0.1-15% surfactant including anionic alkyl sulphate surfactants and 0.1-15% nonionic alcohol ethoxylate surfactants can be effectively combined with mixtures of 0.01-5% (100-50000ppm) formic acid, 0.1-12% citric acid to form a leave on product applied by spray to a shower plasticized curtain wherein no rinsing is performed after application. Using known effective surfactants, acidulants and laundry additives in art recognized concentrations to apply to shower curtains for stain removal and with the benefit that no rinsing steps needs to be performed is obvious in view of the teachings of Woo.
Selection from the ranges of Woo to prepare a concentrated solution and dilution of the concentrated solution to a use solution to arrive at the claimed amounts of surfactant and acid is obvious as Woo teaches the same components, combined in art recognized concentration ranges for the benefit or spraying on plasticized shower curtains with leave on treatment products to eliminate malodor and remove stains.
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 Woo by treating plasticized fabric shower curtains as Woo clearly teaches applying leave on treatments comprising the claimed components to shower plasticized curtains and Minder teaches plasticized shower curtains are most often made of fabric material with a plastic coating. Even though Minder teaches disadvantages of the plastics-coated shower curtains, Minder acknowledges that these are the most common types of shower curtains produced, therefore spraying or treating the shower plasticized fabrics curtains of Minder with the compositions of Woo would be obvious as Woo teaches treating shower plasticized curtains and the fabric types of these curtains are the most often produced. Treating a known plastic fabric coated shower curtain with the treatments of Woo that desires to treat plasticized shower curtains would be beneficial. All disclosures of the prior art, including non-preferred embodiment, must be considered. See In re Lamberti and Konort, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1967); In re Snow 176 USPQ, 328, 329 (CCPA 1973). Non-preferred embodiments can be indicative of obviousness, see Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc. 10 USPQ 2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Lamberti, 192 USPQ 278(CCPA 1976); In re Kohler, 177 USPQ 399.
Claims 1-6 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hei (WO 03/005817).
Hei teaches compositions that are introduced into the rinse water of a laundering rinse cycle for a time sufficient to sanitize the fabrics (total immersion of the fabric in the aqueous liquor; page 42, lines 16-25). Hei teaches the use composition (diluted for use) has 50-1000 ppm anionic surfactant (page 11, lines 7-14; page 12, last line, page 13, first line), acidulants and solvents (page 10, lines 14-19). Hei teaches undiluted (high concentration solutions) comprising 0.1-25% surfactants (page 15, lines 7-10) selected from anionic alkyl sulfates (page 13, line 25-page 14, line 5), alcohol ethoxylated nonionic surfactants (page 14, line 19-31), 0-20% pH maintaining buffers to keep the pH below about 4 selected from citric acid and blends of citric and formic acid (page 23, lines 1-2, 20-25; page 18, line 29-page 19, line 7) at 0.5 to 80 wt. % (5000-800000ppm; page 25, lines 3-6). Hei teaches the composition can be a liquid, solid or aerosol (spray; page 19, lines 30-32). Hei teaches 0.5 (5000ppm) -80% mixtures of carboxylic acid selected from citric and formic acid can be used (page 23, lines 1-2, 20-24; page 25, lines 3-6). Hei teaches additives selected from additional surfactants, hydrotopes, wetting agents, dyes, antimicrobial agents can be included in the composition (page 31, lines 6-17). Hei teaches the high concentration solutions can be diluted to prepare use solutions and the dilution is based in the intended dilution factor and desired activity of the carboxylic acid for example 0.2-50oz or 3-20oz concentrate to 100 gallons water (page 38, lines 9-25). Hei teaches solutions of pH =3 and 200ppm citric acid (page 50, line 1).
Hei does not teach all of the claimed embodiments in a single example, however, ordinary skill in the art can arrive at the claimed invention by selecting from the teachings of Hei.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time t invention was made to select the claimed anionic alkyl sulfate surfactants, nonionic alcohol ethoxylate surfactants, citric and formic acids and adjust to the claimed concentrations, ratios and pH below 4 because Hei teaches these components when combined at the claimed concentrations in solid or aqueous liquid form can be diluted into use solution which sanitize and provide antimicrobial benefits to laundry in a rinse cycle. Hei teaches overlapping ranges of components can be selected and then diluted to arrive at 50-1000 ppm anionic surfactant and 200ppm or 5000ppm acid. Selection from the ranges of Hei and dilution from a concentrated solution to a use solution to arrive at the claimed amounts of surfactant and acid is obvious as Hei teaches the same components, combined in art recognized concentration ranges for the benefit or spraying on or injecting into the rinse cycle of a washing machine to sanitize, disinfect and sterilize the fabrics. Hei teaches combinations of more than one carboxylic acid and teaches formic and citric acid as examples.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Woo in view of either Schoenberger or Minder have been considered but are not persuasive. The examiner argues that applicant’s claims are to any fabric and have not specified that the fabric must be uncoated, treating a coated fabric meets the limitation of treating the fabric as the coating material is part of the fabric as a whole. Applicant’s arguments that the plastic coating prevents the fabric from being treated rely on the assumption that the fabric is defined as an uncoated fabric material. Applicant’s limitation of “fabric” in the claims is not defined or limited and includes any fabric material in any form including a plastic-coated fabric. Furthermore, treating any surface of the fabric, which in the case of a plastic-coated fabric, includes the plastic coating still meets the limitation of treating a fabric as the coating is a part of the fabric structure. As Minder indicates even plastic-coated fabrics which are shower curtains can have water penetration and bacterial development and Woo teaches antibacterial elements in the shower curtain treatment composition (paragraph 0025). Minder teaches shower curtains can be plastic-coated or made impermeable, the “or” suggests impermeability is not a feature of all plastic shower curtains. Therefore, some can still be porous and permeable. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would certainly have been motivated to apply a known chemical treatment composition, taught as being effective for being sprayed onto plasticized shower curtains on a known and conventional type of plastic covered fabric shower curtain. Applicant’s claims make no mention of the bacterial growth suppression of the composition, however the same composition applied to the same substrates would have the same benefit. Minder would motivate one of ordinary skill to apply a leave on antibacterial spray on a plastic shower curtain as the reference recognizes that the fabrics can become wet and bacteria laden, which is motivation to provide an antibacterial spray to prevent this bacterial growth.
Regarding Hei, the broad teachings of the reference permit selection of formic acid and citric acid in the claimed concentration ranges. Applicant alleges the claimed ratios of citric acid to formic acid provide unexpected results but the data in the examples is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The data in table 2 are only tested with one species of anionic surfactant and contain acidulants outside of the 100-7000 ppm range required in the claims (0.01-0.7%). Most of the acidulant concentrations tested far exceed the combined total acidulant claimed of 0.01-0.7%. In the absence of persuasive demonstration of unexpected results for the citric acid to formic acid weight ratio, applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of this ratio. The prior art teaches the overlapping amounts of citric acid and formic acid mixtures such that selection from the ranges disclosed in the prior art can produce the claimed ratio and this selection can be achieved through routine experimentation. In the absence of evidence that selection of one ratio over another is critical, nothing unobvious is seen in selecting from an art acknowledged effective amounts to arrive at the claimed ratio. In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MFEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05I.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights