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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph in the previous office action is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, in view of the present amendment, please see new grounds of rejection below.
Specification
The disclosure stands objected to because of the following informalities: the disclosure does not provide units of measurements for the proportions of the clay particles, modifying stabilisers comprising aliphatic bromides, soluble silver salts, dispersants consisting of ammonium salts of fatty acids, silicone-free deaerating polymers, and urea rheological agent, i.e., whether the respective percentages are by weight or by volume.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 1, lines 5 and 20, it is suggested that “stabilisers” be replaced with “stabilizers” to be consistent with the same word in claim 8, line 7.
b) in claim 4, line 4, the dash “−” before “silver citrates” should be deleted
c) in claim 5, line 4 (last line), it is suggested that “gr/mol” be replaced with “g/mol” to be consistent with those recited in claim 6, line 3, and claim 8, lines 25 and 29
d) in claim 8, line 32 (last line), it is suggested that “modified” be added before “clay particles” to be consistent with lines 12-13.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Claims 1 is indefinite because the proportions of the clay particles comprising bentonite in lines 3-4, the modifying stabilisers comprising aliphatic bromides in lines 5-7, the soluble silver salts in lines 8-9, the dispersants in lines 10-12, the silicone-free deaerating polymers in line 13-14, and the urea rheological agent in lines 15-16 lack units of measurement, e.g., “by weight” or “by volume”.
Claim 2 is indefinite because the proportion of the silver salts in lines 2-3 lacks a unit of measurement, e.g., “by weight” or “by volume”.
Claims 8 is indefinite because the proportions of the bentonite in lines 5-6, the modifying stabilizers comprising aliphatic bromides in lines 7-9, the soluble silver salts in lines 14-15, the dispersants in lines 18-20, the silicone-free deaerating polymers in lines 22-23, the urea rheological agent in lines 26-27, and the “100%” in line 31, lack units of measurement, e.g., “by weight” or “by volume”.
The remaining claims, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
Please note that the amendment to the above claims should be supported by the specification to avoid new matter issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Van Buskirk et al. (US 2015/0330020), the closest prior art of record, as disclosed in the previous non-final rejection, teaches a laundry additive composition which includes antimicrobial actives at levels from 0.5 to 60 weight% of the entire composition (see [0124]), like metal ions such as silver and is available as SilvadurTM 961 (silver nitrate, nitric acid, and acrylic polymer in water) (see [0126]) and quaternary ammonium compound containing alkyl groups which can be bromides, and the alkyl group is preferably dodecyl group, i.e., 12 carbon atoms (see [0160]); viscosity modifiers like organophilic clays, for example, bentonite, at levels from about 0.5% to about 30% by weight, (see [0167]); from about 0.001% to about 20% by weight of dye fixing agent like ammonium compounds such as fatty acid-diamine condensates (see [0176]-[0177]); soil release agents from about 0.05% to about 3% of the composition, for example, copolymer having blocks of terephthalate and polyethylene oxide having a molecular weight in the range from about 5,000 to about 55,000 (see [0149] (which reads on the silicone-free deaerating polymer); preservatives at levels from about 0.0001% to about 0.5%, such as N-[1,3-bis(hydroxymethyl)2,5-dioxo-4-imidazolidinyl]-N,N′-bis(hydroxy-methyl) urea, commonly known as diazolidinyl urea, or N,N″-methylenebis-[N′-[1-(hydroxymethyl)-2,5-dioxo-4-imidazolidinyl]urea] (commonly known as imidazolidinyl urea) (see paragraph [0158]); and water from about 20% to about 80% of the composition, when a concentrated composition is used, or from about 50% to about 99% of the composition, when a dilute composition is used (see paragraph [0106]). Van Buskirk, however, fails to teach, disclose or suggest wherein the silver ions are microencapsulated with the clay particles and modifying stabilizers, i.e., aliphatic bromide. Accordingly, the subject matter, as a whole, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the objection to the specification regarding the lack of units of measurements for the recited ingredients in the specification, Applicant argues that neither the specification nor the claims require distinction between weight percentage and volume percentage, nor does the operability of the invention depend on such a distinction.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because “% of the composition” alone without the units of measurement like “by weight” or “by volume” fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. The terms “% by weight of the composition” and “% by volume of the composition” are two different units of concentrations using different methods of measurements. As is known in the art, “percent by weight” expresses the weight of the solute relative to the total weight of the solution, while “percent by volume” expresses the volume of a solute relative to the total volume of the solution. It is also known that weight and volume are different characteristics of matter and determined using different measurements. Hence, absence of these units of measurements or units of concentrations in the claims, which should find support in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To overcome the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as indicated in paragraph 9 above and the objection to the specification, it is suggested that Applicant files a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) Application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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, 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights