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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
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 21-27 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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is indefinite because the language “…a fibrous first layer having a first layer interior surface and a first layer exterior surface opposing the first layer interior surface, wherein the first layer exterior surface; and a nonwoven fibrous second layer…” is unclear as to the “wherein” clause, which appears to be incomplete. For the purpose of examination on the merits, the Examiner will interpret this claim as reading “…a fibrous first layer having a first layer interior surface and a first layer exterior surface opposing the first layer interior surface
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
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 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20120237576) (already of record) in view of De Smedt et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0079164).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon et al. discloses a method of treating fabric in a dryer (para. 443), the treating including improving cleanliness and/or smell (para. 54), the method comprising:
placing the fabric in the dryer (para. 443); and
delivering probiotic microorganisms into the dryer (the method comprises delivering a nonwoven dryer sheet in the dryer, see para. 92, 443, wherein microorganisms of the genus Bacillus are provided on the nonwoven dryer sheet, see para. 324),
wherein the probiotic microorganisms comprise Bacillus microorganisms (para. 324) and the probiotic microorganisms are delivered into the dryer from a solid carrier wherein the solid carrier comprises a dyer sheet comprising a nonwoven substrate (para. 92, 324, 443).
Gordon et al. does not expressly teach that the probiotic Bacillus microorganisms are cleaning microorganisms comprising Bacillus spores and is silent as to delivering at least about 1x102 CFU of the cleaning microorganisms.
De Smedt et al. discloses a nonwoven substrate including spores (Abstract, para. 73), wherein the spores are Bacillus spores that serve as cleaning microorganisms (para. 32-33). Specifically, De Smedt et al. discloses applying 7.22x107 CFU Bacillus to the nonwoven substrate such that “18.6% of the Bacillus species was still viable on the nonwoven” prior to use of the nonwoven for cleaning (para. 116-121); thus it is understood that the nonwoven substrate includes 7.22x107 x 18.6% =1.34x107 CFU Bacillus. De Smedt et al. further discloses that Bacillus spores are particularly useful in cleaning as they inhibit and even kill pathogenic bacteria (para. 32-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Gordon et al. such that the Bacillus microorganisms comprise 1.34x107 CFU cleaning microorganisms comprising Bacillus spores (falls within the claim amount range), as De Smedt et al. discloses that it was known in the art to provide such cleaning microorganisms on a nonwoven for the purpose of inhibiting or killing bacteria, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a particular microorganism configuration recognized in the art to be effective for cleaning.
Regarding claim 21, Gordon et al. discloses wherein the nonwoven substrate is a dual-layer substrate (para. 426) comprising:
a fibrous first layer having a first layer interior surface and a first layer exterior surface opposing the first layer interior surface (para. 92, 426) (Fig. 4, sheet 2 of 3); and
a nonwoven fibrous second layer joined to the first layer (para. 92, 426) (Fig. 4, sheet 2 of 3), the second layer having a second layer interior surface and a second layer exterior surface opposing the second layer interior surface (para. 426) (Fig. 4, sheet 2 of 3), wherein the second layer interior surface is oriented towards the first layer interior surface (Fig. 4, sheet 2 of 3).
Regarding claim 22, Gordon et al. discloses wherein the microorganisms are part of a treatment composition (para. 14, 53, 324) wherein the treatment composition treats fabric (para. 383, 443), and Gordon et al. in view of De Smedt et al. teaches wherein the microorganisms are cleaning microorganisms, as set forth above; therefore, the prior art combination arrives at the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 23, Gordon et al. discloses wherein the fabric treatment composition is provided on the surface of filaments forming the first layer interior surface (para. 42, 426) (Fig. 4, sheet 2 of 3); thus, the fabric treatment composition is on the first layer interior surface.
Regarding claim 24, Gordon et al. discloses wherein the fabric treatment composition is provided within filaments forming the first layer (para. 41, 426) (Figs. 3-4, sheet 2 of 3); thus the fabric treatment composition reads on partially penetrating into the first layer.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20120237576) (already of record) in view of De Smedt et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0079164) as applied to claim 22, above, and in further view of Potts et al. (US Patent 4,965,000).
Regarding claim 25, Gordon et al. discloses the first layer exterior surface and the fabric treatment composition, as set forth above.
Gordon et al. is silent as to wherein the first layer exterior surface is free from the fabric treatment composition over more than about 60% of the first layer exterior surface.
Potts et al. discloses a fabric treatment composition incorporated into a nonwoven substrate to be used in a dryer (Abstract, col. 4 lines 21-31). Potts et al. further discloses wherein about 5 to about 40 percent of the total surface area of the substrate is pattern bonded to maintain structural integrity (col. 5 lines 13-60). The capacity of the substrate to hold the composition decreases as the pattern bonding area increases and “it is necessary to strike a balance between detergent capacity and web integrity during use” (col. 5 lines 42-60).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). In this case, Potts et al. discloses general conditions of the claim and one of ordinary skill would recognize that the percentage of an exterior surface free from the fabric treatment composition would impact composition capacity and structural integrity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for a percentage of the first layer exterior surface free from the fabric treatment composition.
Regarding claim 26, Gordon et al. discloses the second layer exterior surface and the fabric treatment composition, as set forth above.
Gordon et al. is silent as to wherein the second layer exterior surface is free from the fabric treatment composition over more than about 60% of the first layer exterior surface.
Potts et al. discloses a fabric treatment composition incorporated into a nonwoven substrate to be used in a dryer (Abstract, col. 4 lines 21-31). Potts et al. further discloses wherein about 5 to about 40 percent of the total surface area of the substrate is pattern bonded to maintain structural integrity (col. 5 lines 13-60). The capacity of the substrate to hold the composition decreases as the pattern bonding area increases and “it is necessary to strike a balance between detergent capacity and web integrity during use” (col. 5 lines 42-60).
It has bene held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). In this case, Potts et al. discloses general conditions of the claim and one of ordinary skill would recognize that the percentage of an exterior surface free from the fabric treatment composition would impact composition capacity and structural integrity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for a percentage of the second layer exterior surface free from the fabric treatment composition.
Regarding claim 27, Gordon et al. discloses the fabric treatment composition and wherein the nonwoven substrate is formed from a first layer and a second layer, as set forth above.
Gordon et al. is silent as to wherein the fabric treatment composition is present at a weight ratio relative to the first layer and the second layer combined from about 10:1 to about 1000:1.
Potts et al. discloses a fabric treatment composition incorporated into a nonwoven substrate to be used in a dryer (Abstract, col. 4 lines 21-31). Potts et al. further discloses wherein the fabric treatment composition is present at a weight ratio of preferably from about 2 to about 5 grams of composition per grams of nonwoven (col. 5 lines 43-60) wherein “it is necessary to strike a balance between detergent capacity and web integrity during use” (col. 5 lines 42-60).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). In this case, Potts et al. discloses general conditions of the claim and one of ordinary skill would recognize that the weight ratio of the fabric treatment composition relative to the first layer and second layer combined would impact composition capacity and structural integrity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for the weight ratio.
Conclusion
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 HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights