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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on September 22, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-15 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. Claim 1 should define AM/AV as “antimicrobial/antiviral” in the first occurrence to make clear what the acronym stands for. Further the “/” in claims 1,3-5,8,10,13 and 15 is unclear as to if the compound must be both antimicrobial and antiviral or just one of the two. Additionally claim 11 should define RV as relative viscosity to clarify its meaning. Claim 7should define “PA” as polyamide. Claims 2,6,7,9,11,12 and 14 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
Claims 12 and 13 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. Claim 12 is unclear as to what meets the limitation of a wash cycle or where the wash cycle is present in the invention of claim 1. Is the wash cycle the maintenance in the wash solution for a wash time greater than 10 seconds? For examination purposed the examiner interpreted the first wash with the antimicrobial/antiviral compound as the addition step and subsequent washes with the antimicrobial/antiviral agent as the maintenance step wherein the addition step and maintenance step make up a wash cycle. Claim 13 is also rejected for being dependent upon claim 12 and inheriting the same deficiency.
Claim 4 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. Claim 4 is confusing as it recites the difference between the washed AM/AV metal content and the initial AM/AV content is greater than the wash solution AM/AV metal content. Since the initial AM/AV content is that present in the article and the only additional AM/AV content comes from the AM/AV amount in the wash solution, it is unclear how the difference in these two levels can be increased by more than the addition of the AM/AV content from the wash solution into the article? The only available additional AM/AV content to be applied into the article is from the wash solution. Applicant’s specification paragraph 0025 first states the final zinc concentration in the wash article exceed the initial concentration of zinc in the wash solution, which makes sense since the washed article has a level of AM/AV in it before being introduced into the wash solution. The examiner however does not agree the “Said another way, the difference between the washed zinc content and the initial zinc content is greater that the wash solution zinc content. How can additional zinc be created? Is the applicant claiming the amount of the zinc that goes into the article from the wash solution is greater than the amount of zinc remaining in the wash solution after the 10 second wash time, in other words more zinc from the wash solution transferred into the article than remained in the wash solution?
Claim 6 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. Claim 6 recites a log reduction but does not define a log reduction of what.
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 1,3-6,8,10,12,13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brezoczky (US 2018/0155222).
Brezoczky teaches treating fabrics such as nylon polymer fabric during laundering with antimicrobial metal ions solutions such as zinc (addition step) and repeating the wash cycles until a sufficient concentration of antimicrobial agent is applied on the laundry to achieve a predetermined antimicrobial efficacy (maintenance steps, abstract; Figure 7, paragraphs 0004,0058). Brezoczky teaches treating nylon fabrics (polymer fabrics, table 1, paragraph 00613). Brezoczky teaches treating with 2000-15000ppm solutions and treating for 30 sec to 2.5 min (paragraphs 0064-0065). Brezoczky teaches using municipal water (paragraph 0052).
Brezoczky does not teach all the claimed embodiments in a single example but it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed invention by selecting from the teachings of Brezoczky.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made by selecting treating nylon polymers in a first wash cycle with an initial amount of zinc ion dissolved in municipal water to provide an initial antimicrobial zinc content to the nylon as an addition step and following with multiple wash cycles to increase the amount of the antimicrobial level of zinc on the nylon to a desired level of log reduction, wherein the cycles are repeated until a desired concentration of antimicrobial zinc is present in the nylon and a predetermined antimicrobial efficacy of the zinc treated nylon is achieved as Brezoczky teaches this method as effective in applying antimicrobial levels of zinc during laundering using municipal water to nylon fabrics for the benefit of achieving log reductions in species such as S. aureus (Figure 9). It would have been obvious to produce at least a 10% increase in the initial antimicrobial level in the final washed article or at least 50% increase after 40 wash cycles and an increase of log reduction of at least 1.0 in the final washed article from the initial article as this could be achieved through routine experimentation because Brezoczky teaches these values can be optimized through routine experimentation to achieve a desired concentration of antimicrobial zinc is present in the nylon and a predetermined antimicrobial efficacy of the zinc. Brezoczky also teaches performing incremental increases in zinc as a discrete amount can be added in a single cycle and cycles repeated until a final concentration of a predetermined amount is reached. It would have been obvious to have more zinc partition from the laundering solution into the fabric than the zinc that remains in the wash solution as the purpose of the invention is to transfer the zinc ions in the laundering solution into the laundered fabric. Maximizing the transfer of the zinc ion from the wash solution into the laundered article would be desirable so as to produce maximum zinc transfer and increase the antimicrobial efficacy of the laundered fabric.
Claims 2,7,11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brezoczky (US 2018/0155222) in view of Osborn (US 2020/0187494).
Brezoczky is relied upon as set forth above.
Brezoczky does not teach log reductions of Klebsiella pneumonia as determined by ISO20743:2013, a washed article with greater than 600 ppm zinc of a RV greater than 2 or PA 6 PA66, PA10,PA12,PA6T or PA6I.
Osborn teaches polyamide fibers comprising PA 6 PA66, PA10,PA12,PA6T or PA6I (paragraph 022-0023), zinc in amounts of greater than 300wppm to less than 1000wppm (paragraph 0032) and relative viscosity values of at least 25 (paragraph 0010), have a log reduction in Klebsiella pneumonia as determined by ISO20743:2013 of 1.1-3.6 (paragraph 0111, Table 9) and are fabrics that are subject to daily use and washing in healthcare, hospitality and athletics facilities (paragraphs 0004-0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to modify the methods of Brezoczky by treating PA 6 PA66, PA10,PA12,PA6T or PA6I polymer containing fabrics with relative viscosity values of at least 25 to replenish the amount of zin to greater than 600 ppm and a log reduction of greater than 1.5 or 3 of Klebsiella pneumonia as determined by ISO20743:2013 as Osborn teaches these antimicrobial fabrics are subject to daily use and laundering in multiple wash cycles and the level of antimicrobial zinc needs to be maintained to provide the claimed antimicrobial efficacy of a log reduction of greater than 1.5 or 3 of Klebsiella pneumonia. Using the zinc addition and maintenance methods of Brezoczky to reload the fabrics of Osborn with zinc to a desired degree of antimicrobial efficacy is obvious so that the fabrics continue to reduce Klebsiella pneumonia in fabrics used in healthcare, hospitality and athletic facilities to keep them disinfected.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brezoczky (US 2018/0155222) in view of Lin (US 2014/0187466).
Brezoczky is relied upon as set forth above.
Brezoczky does not teach the pH of the wash solution.
Lin teaches laundering detergents comprising antimicrobial agents (paragraph 0076) and zinc oxide (paragraph 0071) which are stable in an alkaline environment (alkaline is basic pH from pH above 7 to 14, paragraph 0079) and in wash solutions at high pH such as pH 11.2 (paragraph 0081).
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 Brezoczky by preparing a wash solution of greater than 3.5 pH as Lin teaches laundry detergents which apply antimicrobial agents and zinc oxides to textiles are conventionally used at high pH and in an alkaline environment (pH from greater than 7 to 14). Using the laundering methods of Brezoczky at conventional laundering pH values is obvious to try to achieve deposition of the zinc antimicrobials on the laundered fabrics.
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