FINAL 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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to papers filed 11/10/2025 in which claims 1-5 were canceled; claim 6 was amended; and claims 7-9 were newly added. 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Withdrawn Objections/Rejections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 Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “cedar oil” in line 2 is the same product as “cedarwood oil” in line 6 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: mint oil is recited twice in claim 7. See lines 3-5 of claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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 cinnamon oil, cedar oil (cedarwood oil), clove oil, lemongrass oil, lavender oil, tea tree oil, and thyme 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 … cinnamon oil, cedar oil (cedarwood oil), clove oil, lemongrass oil, lavender oil, tea tree oil, and thyme oil, when the combination of essential oils of claim 6 already contains 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). 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.
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 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Below is the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments as they pertain to the pending 103 rejection.
Applicant argues that neither Cropper nor Markus teaches or suggest the combination of essential oils as claimed and the beneficial effect provided by said combination of essential oils. (Remarks, pages 5-6).
In response, the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above in the pending 103 rejection, Cropper teaches 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). Markus was used for providing guidance for including cinnamon oil (Cinnamomum zeylanicum oil) in the blend of oils of Cropper. As discussed above in the pending 103 rejection, 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.
Given that cinnamon oil was listed in Cropper as one of the suitable essential oils for encapsulation in nanocapsules, 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.
Accordingly, the combined teachings Cropper and Markus sufficiently render obvious Applicant’s claimed invention.
As a result, for at least the reason discussed above, claims 6-9 remain rejected as being obvious and unpatentable over the combined teachings of Cropper and Markus in the pending 103 rejection as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 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