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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/15/2026 and 05/24/2026 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are included with the mailing of this office action.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to papers filed 04/21/2026 in which claims 1-5 were canceled; and claim 7 was amended. All the amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and entered.
Claims 6-9 are under examination.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The Examiner has re-weighted all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Maintained-Modified Rejection
Modification Necessitated by Applicant’s Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the Markush group recited in claim 7 renders the claim indefinite because the Markush group recites cedarwood oil. Claim 7 is dependent from claim 6, and the combination of essential oils in claim 6 include Melaleuca alternifolia oil (tea tree oil), lavender oil (Lavandula officinalis oil), cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil), clove oil (Eugenia caryophyllus oil), lemongrass oil (Cymbopogon flexuosus oil), cedarwood (or cedar) oil (Juniperus virginiana oil), and thyme oil (Thymus vulgaris oil). Thus, it is unclear how the formulation in the method of claim 7 can further comprise … cedar oil (cedarwood oil), when the combination of essential oils of claim 6 already contains cedarwood (or cedar) oil (Juniperus virginiana oil). Clarification by amendment in claim 7 is required.
As a result, claim 7 does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of patent protection desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Claim 7 has been amended so as to no longer recite cinnamon oil, cedar oil (cedarwood oil), clove oil, lemongrass oil, lavender oil, tea tree oil, thyme oil, or the duplicated recitation of mint oil, which eliminates the overlap with the combination of essential oils already required by claim 6, thereby overcoming this rejection.” (Remarks, page 4, 1st paragraph).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. While claim 7 has been amended to remove cinnamon oil, cedar oil, clove oil, lemongrass oil, mint oil, lavender oil, tea tree oil, and thyme oil, “cedarwood oil” in line 6 of claim 7 has not been removed.
Accordingly, claim 7 remained rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for the reason of record.
Maintained Rejection
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cropper et al (US 2017/0181935 A1; previously cited) in view of Markus et al (US 2016/0050914 A1; previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Cropper teaches a method of controlling malodor or neutralizing malador in textile or fabric comprising applying to the textile or fabric a composition comprising a carrier, and nanocapsules containing therein a pre-formed blends of oils comprising cedarwood oil (Juniperus virginiana oil), clove oil (Eugenia caryophyllus oil), lavender oil (Lavandula officinalis oil), lemongrass oil (Cymbopogon flexuosus oil), and thyme oil (Thymus vulgaris oil) (Abstract; [0011]-[0133] and [0190]-[0200]; claims 1-12). Cropper teaches capsules in nanosize favor deposition onto fibrous substrates, and such use of nanocapsules of essential oils on fabrics or textiles control malodor or neutralize malodor on said fabrics or textiles by inhibiting the growth of microbials, as these essential oils are antimicrobials (Cropper: Abstract; [0011]-[0133] and [0190]-[0200]; claims 1-12).
While Cropper does not expressly mentioned cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil) as part of the blends of oils, it would have been obvious to include cinnamon oil in the blends of oils of Cropper in view of the guidance from Markus.
Markus teaches the application of a composition comprising a carrier, and microcapsules containing therein at least one essential oils including cinnamon oil, cedarwood oil, clove oil, lavender oil, lemongrass oil, tea tree oil, thyme oil or any combination thereof, to clothing to inhibit or reduce microbial growth (Abstract; [0003]-[0067], [0089]-[0114], [0127]-[0165], [0183]-[0216] and [0231]-[0281]; claims 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil) in the blend of oils of Cropper, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Markus provided the guidance to do so by teaching that cinnamon oil as a suitable essential oil for use in mixture with other essential oils including cedarwood oil, clove oil, lavender oil, lemongrass oil, tea tree oil, and thyme oil so as to form combination of essential oils that can be encapsulated and such encapsulated essential oils are suitable for application to clothing to inhibit or reduce microbial growth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in including cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil) in the blend of oils of Cropper because cinnamon oil was listed in Cropper as one of the suitable essential oils for encapsulation in nanocapsules (Cropper: [0091], [0220]; claim 1-7). Thus, an ordinary artisan would have looked to including cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil) in the blend of oils of Cropper with a reasonable expectation of providing nanocapsules having enhanced inhibiting or reducing malodor effect on clothing due to the additive effects provided by the blend of essential oils containing cedarwood oil (Juniperus virginiana oil), clove oil (Eugenia caryophyllus oil), lavender oil (Lavandula officinalis oil), lemongrass oil (Cymbopogon flexuosus oil), thyme oil (Thymus vulgaris oil), and cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil), all known to have antimicrobial properties, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Cropper teaches the composition further contains Bergamot, geranium, guaiac wood, jasmine, lavender, lily of the valley, lime, neroli, musk, orange blossom, patchouli, peach blossom, petitgrain or petotgrain, pimento, rose, and rosemary ([0062]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 8, Cropper teaches the composition further contains fragrance ([0062]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Cropper teaches nanocapsules of essential oils on fabrics or textiles control malodor or neutralize malodor on said fabrics or textiles by inhibiting the growth of microbials, as these essential oils are antimicrobials.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the in art the before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Cropper provides no teaching or guidance toward selecting any specific combination of essential oils as the mechanism of malodor control, let alone the defined combination as instantly claimed.” Applicant further alleges “Markus does not disclose or suggest any specific selection or combination of essential oils for use in inhibiting malodor in fabrics.” Applicant further alleges cinnamon oil in Cropper was “listed among approximately 40 chemically and functionally disparate agents identified as known insect repellents derived from natural sources, ranging from Achillea alpina and Callicarpa americana to Solanum villosum berry juice and Pyrethrum.” Thus, Applicant alleges that “[t]he mere appearance of cinnamon oil in an undifferentiated list of approximately 40 insect repellent agents does not constitute a teaching or suggestion to incorporate it into Cropper's malodor-control blend for any particular technical purpose.” Applicant goes on to allege that “[t]he Examiner has not identified any such reason grounded in the cited disclosures” and that “[t]he listing of cinnamon oil among dozens of insect repellent agents in Cropper in a context entirely unrelated to malodor control, does not provide the required articulated reason to specifically select cinnamon oil and incorporate it into Cropper's malodor-control blend, and accordingly cannot support a conclusion of obviousness.” Thus, Applicant alleges that “he proposed modification is not based on any teaching in the prior art, but rather on selecting components from broad, undifferentiated lists and inserting them into another reference's formulation without any articulated technical reason grounded in the cited disclosures.” As such, Applicant alleges that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness was based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (Remarks, pages 4-7).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. While independent claim 6 recites “the combination of essentials oils…comprises Melaleuca alternifolia oil, Lavandula officinalis oil, Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil, Eugenia caryophyllus oil, Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, Juniperus virginiana oil, and Thymus vulgaris oil,” the claimed combination of essential oils is not particularly limited to “Melaleuca alternifolia oil, Lavandula officinalis oil, Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil, Eugenia caryophyllus oil, Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, Juniperus virginiana oil, and Thymus vulgaris oil,” due to the open-ended “comprises” language. It is noted that MPEP §2111.03(I) states: [t]he transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[L]ike the term ‘comprising,’ the terms ‘containing’ and ‘mixture’ are open-ended.").
It is noted that "comprising" is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim. Thus, claim 6 is not limited to “specific combination of essential oils” as alleged by Applicant. Even if the prior art recited a list of essential oils for selection to be used in mixtures or combinations, any one of the listed essential oils can be selected including the claimed essential oils or all of the listed essential oils can be selected and still form the construct with the scope of the claimed combination of essential oils, as the “comprising” language (“comprises”) does not limit the combination to the claimed essential oils, nor does the “comprising” language exclude the addition of other essential oils that still form the construct of the claimed combination of essential oils.
To this end, the claimed method is merely using a combination of essential oils that is encapsulated for inhibiting malodor in fabrics, textiles or clothing. The use of combination or mixture of essential oils in encapsulation form to inhibiting malodor in fabrics, textiles or clothing is well-established by Cropper, as discussed in the 103 rejection. Cropper established that nanocapsules of essential oils are used on fabrics or textiles control malodor or neutralize malodor on said fabrics or textiles by inhibiting the growth of microbials, as these essential oils are antimicrobials. See 103 rejection, page 5-7 of this office action. The blend of essential oils disclosed in Cropper at paragraph [0089] encompassed almost all of the claimed essential oils (cedarwood oil (Juniperus virginiana oil), clove oil (Eugenia caryophyllus oil), lavender oil (Lavandula officinalis oil), lemongrass oil (Cymbopogon flexuosus oil), and thyme oil (Thymus vulgaris oil)). Like Cropper, Markus indicated that cinnamon oil, cedarwood oil, clove oil, lavender oil, lemongrass oil, tea tree oil, and thyme oil are all known essential oils and any one of these essential oils can be used in combination to inhibit or reduce microbial growth in clothing (see 103 rejection, pages 6-7 of this office action). As discussed in the pending 103 rejection, while Cropper does not disclosed cinnamon oil as part of the oil blend, it is not a trivial matter to add cinnamon oil or any other known essential oils to the oil blends of Cropper, as all of the claimed essential oils are known antimicrobial agents used for inhibiting or reducing malodor effect on clothing, and any one of the essential oils can be selected and used in combinations per Cropper and Markus (See 103 rejection, page 5-7 of this office action).
Applicant alleged that cinnamon oil was indicated in Cropper as an insect repellant per paragraph [0091]. However, it is noted that all the claimed essential oils were indicated in paragraph [0091] as having the function of insect repellant. Just because Cropper classified cinnamon oil, cedarwood oil, clove oil, lavender oil, lemongrass oil, tea tree oil, and thyme oil as also having insect repellant properties, such classification does not change the structures of cinnamon oil, cedarwood oil, clove oil, lavender oil, lemongrass oil, tea tree oil, and thyme oil, as a combination of these oils would still be a combination of essential oils. Cinnamon oil, cedarwood oil, clove oil, lavender oil, lemongrass oil, tea tree oil, and thyme oil are known essential oils per Markus ([0039] and claim 2 of Markus). Note that Cropper also teaches that mixtures of benefit agents including essential oils and insect repellant agents are contemplated (Cropper: [0066]).
As such, as discussed in the standing 103 rejection, it is maintained that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil) in the blend of oils of Cropper, and produce the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Markus provided the guidance to do so by teaching that cinnamon oil as a suitable essential oil for use in mixture with other essential oils including cedarwood oil, clove oil, lavender oil, lemongrass oil, tea tree oil, and thyme oil so as to form combination of essential oils that can be encapsulated and such encapsulated essential oils are suitable for application to clothing to inhibit or reduce microbial growth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in including cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil) in the blend of oils of Cropper because cinnamon oil was listed in Cropper as one of the suitable essential oils for encapsulation in nanocapsules (Cropper: [0091], [0220]; claim 1-7). Thus, an ordinary artisan would have looked to including cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil) in the blend of oils of Cropper with a reasonable expectation of providing nanocapsules having enhanced inhibiting or reducing malodor effect on clothing due to the additive effects provided by the blend of essential oils containing cedarwood oil (Juniperus virginiana oil), clove oil (Eugenia caryophyllus oil), lavender oil (Lavandula officinalis oil), lemongrass oil (Cymbopogon flexuosus oil), thyme oil (Thymus vulgaris oil), and cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil), all known to have antimicrobial properties, and achieve Applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
The above obviousness analysis based on the combined teachings of Cropper and Markus is indeed proper to render obvious Applicant’s claimed method and is also not based on impermissible hindsight because a motivation to combine/modify the cited prior arts and a reasonable expectation of success in do so have been provided in the obviousness analysis using knowledge gleaned only from the teachings of Cropper and Markus.
Accordingly, it is maintained that based on the combined teachings of Cropper and Markus, an ordinary artisan would have looked to including cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil) in the blend of oils of Cropper with a reasonable expectation of providing nanocapsules having enhanced inhibiting or reducing malodor effect on clothing due to the additive effects provided by the blend of essential oils containing cedarwood oil (Juniperus virginiana oil), clove oil (Eugenia caryophyllus oil), lavender oil (Lavandula officinalis oil), lemongrass oil (Cymbopogon flexuosus oil), thyme oil (Thymus vulgaris oil), and cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil), all known to have antimicrobial properties. Thus, the use of a combination of essential oils including cinnamon oil, cedarwood oil, clove oil, lavender oil, lemongrass oil, tea tree oil, and thyme oil, encapsulated in nanocapsules for inhibiting malodor in fabrics, textiles or clothing is reasonably obvious based on the combined teachings of Cropper and Markus. In the absence of evidence of unexpected superior results not appreciated by the prior art, it is maintained as discussed above that, it is not trival to add cinnamon oil or any other known essential oils to the oil blends of Cropper, as all of the claimed essential oils are known antimicrobial agents used for inhibiting or reducing malodor effect on clothing, and any one of the essential oils can be selected and used in combinations per Cropper and Markus.
As a result, for at least the reasons discussed above, claims 6-9 remain rejected as being obvious and unpatentable over the combined teachings of Cropper and Markush in the standing 103 rejection as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOAN THI-THUC PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3288. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Brian Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/DOAN T PHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights