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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed August 29, 2025.. Claims 1-6 and 9-19 are pending. Claims 7 and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 17-19 have been amended.
The rejection of Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1,2,4-6,9-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 2011/0146725) is withdrawn.
Claims 1-6 and 9-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hei (WO 03/005817) 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 0179629A2).
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 one of 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 have been considered and the rejection has been amended to include either Schoenberger or Minder as secondary references. Woo clearly teaches applying odor control and stain removal compositions comprising the claimed components as sprays or treatments for shower plasticized curtain hard surfaces. Miner and Schoenberger teach that these shower plasticized curtains are most often made from plastics coated fabrics, therefore using a known plastics coated fabric shower curtain in the methods of Woo which invites the inclusion of all shower plasticized curtains is obvious. Treating both sides of one of the most abundant types of plasticized shower curtain, specifically a fabric type, would be obvious to reduce malodors and enhance stain removal. Spraying and leaving on the compositions without rinsing is obvious as Woo teaches leave on compositions applied by spray which would provide long term elimination of malodors and stain removal. The entire shower curtain would be sprayed including the front and back sides and the outer surface of the shower curtain facing away from the inside of the bath would not have any water exposure and would not be rinsed and Woo explicitly teaches leave on treatments.
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Hei have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Hei teaches excess solution can be removed by rinsing or centrifuging, and since these are alternative embodiments, centrifuging could be chosen which involves no rinse off. Removing excess treatment by centrifuging and leaving on a saturation level of treatment is not a rinse off step. Rinse off requires an added fluid washing off of the composition. Hei teaches applying the compositions in the final rinse cycle, which is an application step, not a rinsing step, which is the same as applicant’s method of application as defined in claim 3. All washing machine rinse cycles are followed by a spin cycle (not a rinse by a centrifuging) and applicant’s claims are to final rinse cycle of a standard washing machine, which clearly embodies a spin centrifuging after rinsing to enable dewatering and allows for the perfumes, fabric softeners, antistatic agents, and any applied additives to remain on the textiles after spin centrifuging for extended periods of time to provide the benefits after the laundry fabrics are removed from the wash. Applicant’s own example 2 were applied and centrifuged (paragraph 0106, 0114-0116) and applicant’s method permits drying which is essentially what the centrifuging is doing (paragraph 0017). Further applicant defines “the treatment step not followed by a rinse off step” as meaning that the fabric is not exposed to another liquor after it has been exposed to a treatment step” (paragraph 0014). Centrifuging is not exposure to another liquor so it does not mean a rinsing step.
Regarding 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
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