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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks dated 11/19/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been entered. At this time the pending claims are Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 33.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31, 32 are cancelled and Claims 18-21, 25, 26, 28 and 30 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112-2nd rejection made over claims 1-4,7,9,11,13,16-17 and 33 from the previous office action Applicant’s remarks are that wash durable means that the antimicrobial composition is bonded to the fabric in a more permanent fashion and will sustain several wash cycles, rather than a temporary coating or a surface treatment.
The previously made 112-2nd rejection is withdrawn. It should be noted that WO 2019195616A1 teaches a wash durable antimicrobial materials that retain antimicrobial properties for at least 104 aggressive wash cycles [0012].
Applicant’s next contention is the art rejection made over WO 2019195616A1 issued to Avalon Polymills in view of USPUB 20100115706A1 issued to Bender. The gist of the arguments is that amended claim 1 is not directed to a single self-polymerizing biocidal binding agent that functions as both a biocide and a binder. A new 112-2nd rejection is set forth below over the phrase “self polymerizing.” As it is not clear what it means and secondly Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 only partially closes up the language. The closed part is only for the antimicrobial composition. The amendment did not effectively close the language in the entire claim. As such, the claim is still open and any additional binder or component which is not part of the antimicrobial composition but is a separate component is still permissible and the art rejection would still be maintained. Additionally, as the combination rejection compositionally is the same then the bonding would also be the same. Applicant’s arguments are not found to persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (new)
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 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 33 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.
There are two separate requirements set forth in 35 USC 112(b) which are-
(A) the claims must set forth the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention; and
(B) the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.
Specifically, claim 1, has been amended to state Claim 1 states a biocidal binding agent, which is a self-polymerizing biocidal binding agent that functions as both a biocide and a binder, the biocidal binding agent is a quaternary ammonium moiety coupled to silicon, wherein at least a portion of the antimicrobial composition is chemically bonded to the textile substrate at 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100 degrees C- Applicant has not defined what is meant by self-polymerizable. This phrase is vague and indefinite. The disclosure does not provide enough information on/for what this means as the claim also recites that a specific temperature is needed for bonding to occur. . Any other claims dependent from claim 1, i.e. 2-4,7,9,11,13,16-17 and 33 are also rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,7,9,11,13,16-17 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019195616A1 (USPUB 20210156080A1 is being used to cite paragraph numbers) issued to Avalon Polymills in view of USPUB 20100115706A1 issued to Bender.
Regarding Claim 1-3 and 33; USPUB 20210156080A1 issued to Avalon Polymills teaches compositions and methods are described that provide cellulosic and non-cellulosic fabrics with durable antimicrobial properties. Application of a coating that includes an antimicrobial composition of a cationic biocide (e.g. polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB), polyaminopropyl biguanide (PAPB), quaternary ammonium salts, benzalkonium salts, chlorhexidine salts, cetylpyridinium salts, and/or cetyltrimethylammonium salts), a hydrophilic biocompatible polymer (e.g. polyethylene glycol (PEG), poly(N-isopropylacrylamide), polyacrylamide, poly(2-oxazoline), polyethylenimine, poly(acrylic acid), polymethacrylate, poly(ethylene oxide), poly(vinyl alcohol), and/or poly(vinylpyrrolidone)), and, in some embodiments, a binder to a fabric followed by drying and curing was found to provide antimicrobial properties that are retained through over 100 washings under aggressive hospital washing conditions. In addition, tactile properties and tear resistance of the treated fabrics are maintained or improved. [Abstract, 0012]. The wash-durable antimicrobial textile, comprises a textile substrate and an antimicrobial composition comprising a cationic biocide and a hydrophilic polymer, wherein at least a portion of the antimicrobial composition is chemically bonded to the to the textile substrate, and wherein the wash-durable antimicrobial textile exhibits antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal properties [see claim 1 and examples 1-10 in table 1, 0012]. The chemical bonding takes place from 50-140 degrees C [0015]. However, temperature adjustments are routinely made through routine experimentation.
USPUB 20210156080A1 does teach using Quat salts but does not specifically teach that the antimicrobial agent is a compound owning a quaternary ammonium moiety coupled to a silicon.
Thus, a skilled artisan would look to the prior art to such an alternative. This is remedied by the teachings of Bender et al.
Both references are from the same art of endeavor as they both teach antimicrobial finishings used on textiles with an extended wash cycle.
USPUB 2010/0115706A1 issued to Bender et al. teaches an antimicrobial textile obtained by functionalizing a fabric with dimethyl octadecyl[3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyl] ammonium chloride thus the specific compounds to which the application refers to. See example 19 ¶ 0153-0158. The antibacterial effect is retained for 20 wash cycles at least, see ¶ 0157-0158.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to have found a suitable alternative and used the antimicrobial agent is a compound owning a quaternary ammonium moiety coupled to a silicon motived by the reasoned expectation of provided a permanent antimicrobial finish as taught by Bender [see abstract]. Regarding the amount of the polymer; it is the position of the Office that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 4; USPUB 2010/115706A1 issued to Bender et al. discloses the coating is applied to the fabric by a pad-dry- cure method.
Regarding Claim 9; USPUB 20210156080A1 issued to Avalon Polymills discloses the antimicrobial agent to be dimethyloctadecyl [3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl]l ammonium chloride, which is the same substance disclosed in the application, therefore it can act as a microbial or viral species claim 9 refers to.
Regarding Claim 7; USPUB 20210156080A1 issued to Avalon Polymills discloses the properties are maintained after dry pressing see claim 34 and ¶ 0015.
Regarding Claim 11; USPUB 20210156080A1 issued to Avalon Polymills discloses that the antimicrobial properties are maintained after 104 washings performed according to hospital stringent hygiene protocols. See ¶0014-0015.
Regarding Claim 13; USPUB 20210156080A1 issued to Avalon Polymills discloses the tearing strength is improved upon functionalization, see ¶0034 and claim 17 and dry pressing see claim 34 and ¶ 0015.
Regarding Claim 16: USPUB 2010/115706A1 issued to Bender et al. discloses the functionalized material is a polyester fabric, see ¶ 0156.
Regarding Claim 17: USPUB 2010/115706A1 issued to Bender et al. discloses the functionalized material is a polyester fabric, see ¶ 0020. Regarding the amount being 20% to 100%, it is the position of the Office that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPUB 20060217515A1, USPN 4504541 and WO 2015028852A1 issued to Swamy et al.
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 Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights