DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed October 14, 2025. Applicant has amended claims 21 and 31. Claims 24-30 remain withdrawn from consideration. Currently, claims 21-36 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20250409.
The objection of the first line of the specification is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The objection of claims 21-23 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 31-36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Blank et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,145,596, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 31-36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kramer et al, US 2018/0230314, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 31-36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Plueddemann, U.S. Patent No. 4,557,854, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 21-23 and 31-36 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,851,640 is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 31-36 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,844,330 is maintained for the reasons of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Blank et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,145,596, does not teach or suggest in general a method for treating a fabric, wherein the surface-active agent is either for the permanent bonding of a surface-active agent to the fabric or for the temporary bonding of the surface-active agent only between washings, as required in newly amended claim 31. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner maintains that Blank et al clearly discloses a method for treating fabrics in order to eliminate odor by adding an antimicrobial rinse cycle additive comprising silane 3-(trimethoxysilyl) propyldimethyloctadecyl ammonium chloride (see abstract), wherein the rinse agent further contains propylene glycol (see col. 6, line 60-col. 7), silanes (see col. 9, lines 1-48), and polyamines (see col. 11, lines 36-68), that the wash cycle includes four stages, wherein the rinse additive is added during the rinse cycle (see col. 3, lines 6-32), and that the antimicrobial rinse additive is bound to the fabrics (see col. 4, lines 49-67), per the requirements of the instant invention. The examiner further notes that the method required in claim 31 only requires one surface-active agent (i.e., a quaternary amino silane, a zinc agent or a cationic polymer), whereas claim 21 requires a cleaning agent, a booster, an organosilane and a cationic polymer. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that claim 31 has not been amended to include all of the features of claim 21.
Applicant further argues that Kramer et al, US 2018/0230314, does not teach or suggest in general a method for treating a fabric, wherein the surface-active agent is either for the permanent bonding of a surface-active agent to the fabric or for the temporary bonding of the surface-active agent only between washings, as required in newly amended claim 31. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner maintains that Kramer et al clearly discloses a fabric having ultraviolet radiation protection that is treated with a composition comprising zinc oxide particles and an acid polymer (see abstract and paragraph 7), wherein a silane compound is added to the treatment composition (see paragraphs 26-28), per the requirements of the instant invention. The examiner further notes that the method required in claim 31 only requires one surface-active agent (i.e., a quaternary amino silane, a zinc agent or a cationic polymer), whereas claim 21 requires a cleaning agent, a booster, an organosilane and a cationic polymer. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that claim 31 has not been amended to include all of the features of claim 21.
Applicant further argues that Plueddemann, U.S. Patent No. 4,557,854, does not teach or suggest in general a method for treating a fabric, wherein the surface-active agent is either for the permanent bonding of a surface-active agent to the fabric or for the temporary bonding of the surface-active agent only between washings, as required in newly amended claim 31. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner maintains that Plueddemann clearly discloses a laundry detergent composition comprising an organic surface active agent, an insoluble particulate material, and an organosilicone compound that contains a quaternary ammonium functional substituent (see abstract), wherein the preferred organosilicon compound has the compound depicted in col. 14, lines 8-14, that suitable insoluble particulate materials include starch and cellulose (i.e. polymers; see col. 3, lines 39-65), and that the laundry detergent composition contains adjunct ingredients (see col. 5, lines 29-44), per the requirements of the instant invention. The examiner further notes that the method required in claim 31 only requires one surface-active agent (i.e., a quaternary amino silane, a zinc agent or a cationic polymer), whereas claim 21 requires a cleaning agent, a booster, an organosilane and a cationic polymer. Accordingly, the examiner asserts that claim 31 has not been amended to include all of the features of claim 21.
The examiner notes that applicant has requested that the obviousness-type double patenting rejections over U.S. Patent Numbers 11,851,640 and 10,844,330 be held in abeyance until an indication of allowable subject matter in the instant application is identified.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
December 15, 2025