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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-17, 21 and 22 are pending. Claims 18-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1,2,4,10 and 11 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
All prior rejections are maintained for the reasons set forth below.
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 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn (US 2020/0187494) in view of Toreki (WO 2010/144503).
Osborn teaches preparing base antimicrobial and/ or antiviral fiber blends comprising a polymer such as polyamides like PA-6,6 (synthetic polyamide, paragraph 0026) and 5wppm to 1000wppm ionic zinc compounds such as zinc oxide or zinc stearate embedded in the polyamide (paragraph 0032,0058). Osborn teaches the base polymer for the fibers is more hydrophilic than PEL and can contain additives to make the fiber more hydrophilic (paragraphs 0027,0028). Osborn teaches producing fibers having a Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus reduction as measured by ISO2074:2013 of greater than 99.9% (Table 5, examples 1-4) and generally K. pneumoniae reduction was well over 95% and Staphylococcus aureus reduction was well over 90% (paragraph 0096). Osborn teaches the fibers have an average diameter of less than 20 microns (paragraph 0071). Osborn teaches the fibers have a relative viscosity of 20 to 70 (paragraph 0039). Osborn teaches adding hydrophilic additives to make the fiber hydrophilic (paragraph 0027-0028). Osborn teaches adding the zinc compounds to the polymer composition during the production process to the aqueous monomer solution to produce fibers with antimicrobial agents evenly dispersed throughout (paragraph 0020) which can then be extruded and cut into fibers (paragraph 0040,0088).
Osborn does not teach treating the base AM/AV fibers with an alkali composition to increase the Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli log reduction.
Toreki teaches that treating nylon (synthetic polyamide) or cotton (cellulosic companion) fibers (page 29, lines 21-30; page 11, lines 10-25; page 12, lines 25-29) with solutions of zinc salts (page 10, lines 1-10), sodium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide to result in significant wash durability of the antimicrobial zinc treated fabric (page 10, lines 18-27; page 19, lines 1-27). Toreki teaches the textiles treated show up to a 6-log reduction in bacteria Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumonia and Escherichia coli (page 11, lines 7-14). Toreki teaches dipping the fabrics in the solutions which would be applications of seconds (Page 10, lines 29-32) and no heat is mentioned indicating room temperature application (pages 42-44, example 3). 2.7% sodium hydroxide is exemplified for a final pH 4.8-5 (pages 42-44, example 3). Toreki teaches adding NaOH to arrive at a pH of 7.5 (page 18, lines 21-30; page 19, lines 12-25). Toreki teaches repeatedly washing the fibers which would neutralize them (page 44, lines 4-10page 59, lines 5-25).
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 Osborn by blending nylon and cotton fibers, reacting the zinc salts with sodium hydroxide at the claimed concentrations 5-50%, for the claimed amounts of time 5 sec to 30 min and at the claimed temperatures 5-50°C as Toreki teaches that the presence of a sodium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide treatment allows soluble zinc salts to precipitate and become more durably bound to the fabrics. It would have been obvious to treat the fibers of Osborn containing zinc salts with a solution of hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydroxide to precipitate the salt and improve log reduction of Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumonia and Escherichia coli as Toreki teaches the interaction of the zinc salt with the hydroxide produces a more durably bound antimicrobial fiber which lasts through repeated launderings. Selecting the time, temperature of treatment and the concentration of the sodium hydroxide is obvious as Toreki teaches dipping in the solution which is a fast process that just takes seconds to minutes and no heat application is taught during dipping or padding indicating room temperature (25°C) application. Example 3 of Toreki teaches adding 2.7% NaOH to arrive at pH 4.8-5, but teaches pH 7.5 is desired indicating more NaOH would be needed to raise the pH to this level. Arriving at 5% NaOH through routine experimentation to achieve the desired pH is obvious. Adjusting the time, temperature and alkali concentration can be achieved through routine experimentation to maximize the reaction of the zinc salts and peroxide/hydroxide to arrive at a durably applied nylon or cellulosic fiber.
Applying the sodium hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide of Toreki to the fibers already containing the zinc salts would be obvious as the solution would penetrate the pores of the fibers and interact with the zinc salts to produce the same reaction. Reacting zinc salt and the hydrogen peroxide sodium hydroxide prior to application to the fiber or after zinc is already present in the fiber is expected to produce the same reaction. Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). Repeated laundering of the fabrics meets the claimed limitation of washing and neutralizing as the water in the laundering wash would neutralize the pH as it rinses the treated fabric.
Regarding the Escherichia coli log reduction claimed, treating the same fibers with the same concentration of alkali at the same temperature would be expected to provide the same level of log reduction on Escherichia coli as determined via ASTM E3160 (2018), the same level of log reduction on Staph Aureus as determined via ISO20743:2013 and the same level of log reduction on Klebsiella pneumonia as determined via ISO20743:2013. The log reduction would be an expected property of a fiber substrate treated with the same antimicrobial and alkali compounds under the same conditions. Regarding the dwell time of the alkali, it would be obvious to arrive at the claimed 5 sec to 30 min based on the desired level of antimicrobial log reduction as it is the alkali application that increases the antibacterial activity of the zinc. The time of treatment would be considered a result effective variable which directly impacts interaction with the fiber and the zinc to improve the antibacterial performance. While Osborn does not specify the formic acid method for determining relative viscosity, Osborn teaches the same relative viscosity and this property is met and would be met by any testing method as the property value is the same as claimed by applicant. It is expected that washing repeatedly times with water of pH 7 would neutralize the alkali treated antimicrobial fabric as the water would repeatedly dilute and remove excess base. Using staple fibers would be obvious as all the prior art teach treating fibers. Adjusting the hydrophilic additives to the claimed amounts would be obvious as Osborn teaches adding hydrophilic additives to adjust the hydrophilic properties of the fiber. Adjusting to the desired degree of water absorption is obvious through routine experimentation.
Claims 3,9,11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn (2020/0187494) in view of Toreki (WO 2010/144503).and further in view of Yung (US 2020/0254371).
Osborn and Toreki are relied upon as set forth above.
Osborn and Toreki do not the relative viscosity as measured by formic acid and staple fibers.
Yung teaches that polyamide fibers such as PA 6, PA 6,6, or PA 6,12 (paragraph 0162) of relative viscosity of less than 1000 as measured by formic acid (paragraph 0069-0070) are effectively spun into staple fibers (paragraph 0034) with 5-20,000 wppm zinc salts such as zinc acetate (Zn2+) embedded into the polymer to provide improved near-permanent antimicrobial benefits (paragraph 0224-0226,0231). Yung teach combining the claimed fibers with cellulose fibers (paragraph 0179, 0211).
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 Osborn and Toreki by incorporating the polyamide staple fibers of PA 6 or PA 6,12 of relative viscosity less than 100 as measured by formic acid and with 5-20,000 wppm Zn2+ embedded into the fibers and combining them with cellulose companion fibers as Yung teaches these fibers provide improved near-permanent antimicrobial benefits when used in antimicrobial textiles. Using a known antimicrobial fiber polyamide staple fibers of PA 6 or PA 6,12 of relative viscosity less than 100 as measured by formic acid and with 5-20,000 wppm Zn2+ embedded into the fibers in the methods of Osborn and Toreki to produce antimicrobial textiles and enhancing the antimicrobial efficacy against Klebsiella pneumonia, Escherichia coli and Staph Aureus using an alkali wash of the antimicrobial agent is obvious as both processes are directed toward the same field of endeavor of durably antimicrobial textiles on similar cotton and polyamide substrates.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn (2020/0187494) in view of Toreki (WO 2010/144503).and further in view of Ishii (EP 1045065).
Osborn and Toreki are relied upon as set forth above.
Osborn and Toreki do not teach mercerized natural fiber containing cellulose.
Ishii teaches mercerized cotton (cellulose) fibers are conventionally incorporated into antimicrobial fabrics (example 4, paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use mercerized cotton fibers in the blended antimicrobial fabrics of Osborn and Toreki as Ishii teaches mercerized cotton are effectively incorporated into antimicrobial fabrics which can contain blends of synthetic fiber such as nylon 6 or nylon 66 and natural fibers (paragraphs 0019-0021) and which have a good wash durability. Using known effective mercerized cotton fibers in antimicrobial fabrics which invite the inclusion of cotton is obvious.
Claims 1,2,5-8,10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn (US 2020/0187494) in view of Sakuma (US 2003/0044471).
Osborn teaches preparing base antimicrobial and/ or antiviral fiber blends (paragraph 0022-0025) comprising a polymer such as polyamides like PA-6,6 (synthetic polyamide, paragraph 0026) and 5wppm to 1000wppm ionic zinc compounds such as zinc oxide or zinc stearate embedded in the polyamide (paragraph 0032,0058). Osborn teaches producing fibers having a Klebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus reduction as measured by ISO2074:2013 of greater than 99.9% (Table 5, examples 1-4) and generally K. pneumoniae reduction was well over 95% and Staphylococcus aureus reduction was well over 90% (paragraph 0096). Osborn teaches the fibers have an average diameter of less than 20 microns (paragraph 0071). Osborn teaches the fibers have a relative viscosity of 20 to 70 (paragraph 0039).Osborn teaches adding hydrophilic additives to make the fiber hydrophilic (paragraph 0027-0028). Osborn teaches adding the zinc compounds to the polymer composition during the production process to the aqueous monomer solution to produce fibers with antimicrobial agents evenly dispersed throughout (paragraph 0020) which can then be extruded into fibers (paragraph 0040). Osborn teaches repeated laundering of treated antimicrobial fabrics (paragraph 0005,0016,0022,0065).
Osborn does not teach treating the base AM/AV fibers with an alkali composition to increase the Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli log reduction.
Sakuma teaches alkali metal salts such as sodium hydroxides when added to zinc oxides (paragraph 0013-0014; 0031-0032, 0043) improves the antibacterial and antifungal property (paragraphs 0062-0063) of fibers treated with the composition (paragraph 0048). Sakuma teaches uniformly incorporating the hydroxide treated zinc oxides into a substrate (paragraph 0048). Sakuma teaches mixing the zinc oxides and 1g/ 20 ml sodium hydroxide (5% NaOH) until sufficiently stirred, no heat is taught during stirring so this is room temperature (25°C; paragraph 0050).
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 Osborn by treating them with an alkali solution at the claimed concentration range and temperature to increase the log reduction to the claimed values of Klebsiella pneumonia and Staphylococcus aureus as measured by ISO20743:2013 and Escherichia coli as measure by ASTM E3160 (2018) as Sakuma teaches alkali treatment of sodium hydroxides on similar ionic zinc compounds antimicrobial compounds improves the antibacterial and antifungal property and these compounds can be uniformly distributed in fibers. Employing an alkali treatment at the claimed concentrations and temperatures taught by Sakuma would be obvious as this would increase the antibacterial property of the treated fibers since Sakuma teaches sodium hydroxide improves the antibacterial activity of similar zinc compounds. Repeated laundering of the fabrics meets the claimed limitation of washing and neutralizing as the water in the laundering wash would neutralize the pH as it rinses the treated fabric.
Applying the sodium hydroxide of Sakuma to the fibers already containing the zinc oxide would be obvious as the solution would penetrate the pores of the fibers and interact with the zinc oxides to produce the same reaction. Reacting zinc oxide and the sodium hydroxide prior to application to the fiber or after zinc is already present in the fiber is expected to produce the same reaction. Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959).
Regarding the Escherichia coli log reduction claimed, treating the same fibers with the same concentration of alkali at the same temperature would be expected to provide the same level of log reduction on Escherichia coli as determined via ASTM E3160 (2018). The log reduction would be an expected property of a fiber substrate treated with the same antimicrobial and alkali compounds under the same conditions. Regarding the dwell time of the alkali, it would be obvious to arrive at the claimed 5 sec to 30 min based on the desired level of antimicrobial log reduction as it is the alkali application that increases the antibacterial activity of the zinc. The time of treatment would be considered a result effective variable which directly impacts interaction with the fiber and the zinc to improve the antibacterial performance. While Osborn does not specify the formic acid method for determining relative viscosity, Osborn teaches the same relative viscosity and this property is met and would be met by any testing method as the property value is the same as claimed by applicant. It is expected that repeatedly laundering with water of pH 7 would neutralize the alkali treated antimicrobial fabric as the water would repeatedly dilute and remove excess base. Using staple fibers would be obvious as all the prior art teach treating cut fibers. Adjusting the hydrophilic additives to the claimed amounts would be obvious as Osborn teaches adding hydrophilic additives to adjust the hydrophilic properties of the fiber. Adjusting to the desired degree of water absorption is obvious through routine experimentation.
Claims 3,6,9,11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn (2020/0187494) in view of Sakuma (US 2003/0044471) and further in view of Yung (US 2020/0254371).
Osborn and Sakuma are relied upon as set forth above.
Osborn and Sakuma do not the relative viscosity as measured by formic acid and staple fibers.
Yung teaches that polyamide fibers such as PA 6, PA 6,6, or PA 6,12 (paragraph 0162) of relative viscosity of less than 1000 as measured by formic acid (paragraph 0069-0070) are effectively spun into staple fibers (paragraph 0034) with 5-20,000 wppm zinc salts such as zinc acetate (Zn2+) embedded into the polymer to provide improved near-permanent antimicrobial benefits (paragraph 0224-0226,0231). Yung teach combining the claimed fibers with cellulose fibers (paragraph 0179, 0211).
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 Osborn and Sakuma by incorporating the polyamide staple fibers of PA 6 or PA 6,12 of relative viscosity less than 100 as measured by formic acid and with 5-20,000 wppm Zn2+ embedded into the fibers and combining them with cellulose companion fibers as Yung teaches these fibers provide improved near-permanent antimicrobial benefits when used in antimicrobial textiles. Using a known antimicrobial fiber polyamide staple fibers of PA 6 or PA 6,12 of relative viscosity less than 100 as measured by formic acid and with 5-20,000 wppm Zn2+ embedded into the fibers in the methods of Osborn and Sakuma to produce antimicrobial textiles and enhancing the antimicrobial efficacy against Klebsiella pneumonia, Escherichia coli and Staph Aureus using an alkali wash of the antimicrobial agent is obvious as both processes are directed toward the same field of endeavor of durably antimicrobial textiles on similar cotton and polyamide substrates.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn (2020/0187494) in view of Sakuma (US 2003/0044471).and in view of Yung (US 2020/0254371) and further in view of Ishii (EP 1045065).
Osborn, Sakuma and Yung are relied upon as set forth above.
Osborn, Sakuma and Yung do not teach mercerized natural fiber containing cellulose.
Ishii teaches mercerized cotton (cellulose) fibers are conventionally incorporated into antimicrobial fabrics (example 4, paragraph 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use mercerized cotton fibers in the blended antimicrobial fabrics of Osborn, Sakuma and Yung as Ishii teaches mercerized cotton are effectively incorporated into antimicrobial fabrics which can contain blends of synthetic fiber such as nylon 6 or nylon 66 and natural fibers (paragraphs 0019-0021) and which have a good wash durability. Using known effective mercerized cotton fibers in antimicrobial fabrics which invite the inclusion of cotton is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Osborn in view of Sakuma as they apply to the new rejections above have been considered but are not persuasive. The examiner argues Osborn clearly teaches adding the zinc compounds such as zinc oxide to a synthetic polyamide (PA 6,6) polymer composition during the production process to the aqueous monomer solution which is polymerized and extruded into fibers to produce fibers with antimicrobial agents evenly dispersed throughout (embedded within the polymer matrix; paragraph 0020, 0040).. Sakuma teaches treating zinc oxides with alkali solutions of the claimed concentrations improves the antimicrobial properties of the zinc oxide. The examiner asserts it would have been obvious to treat the zinc oxide already present in the polyamide fibers as a alkali soaking would penetrate the pores of the fibers and interaction with the zinc oxide embedded in the fibers. The application of the alkali to zinc oxide first and then adding to the fibers vs. adding the zinc oxide to the fibers and then treating with alkali is simply a change in the order of steps, and in each case would produce a fiber containing zinc oxide which has been treated with alkali and has an improved antimicrobial efficacy. It would be obvious to add the metallic AV/AM zinc compounds to the aqueous monomer mixture, polymerize the monomers into synthetic polyamides, spin and extrude into fibers since Osborn teaches this effectively makes base antimicrobial and/ or antiviral fibers. It would have been further obvious to treat the base antimicrobial and/ or antiviral fibers of Osborn with an alkali such as sodium hydroxide which is a mercerizing agent to promote the antibacterial and antifungal properties of the fibers since Sakuma teaches sodium hydroxide is a metal promotor which improves the antimicrobial and antifungal function of compositions containing zinc oxides. It is the examiner’s position that Osborn explicitly teaches applicant’s method of embedding the zinc in a polymer melt to make a fiber with the zinc dispersed throughout and Lei recognizes that aftertreatment of fibers with metal promotors such as alkali sodium hydroxides enhanced the antifungal and antimicrobial treatment. Sakuma demonstrates that the antifungal and antimicrobial treatment of fibers containing the same zinc compounds is improved using sodium hydroxide containing compositions.
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
Prosecution Insights