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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 21, 34 and 40 are independent and amended in the response filed 11/28/2025.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US 2004/0102350) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims requiring a quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial in the cleaning solution.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 21-40 over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No 10,913,921 B2 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge that Baker et al. do not teach the amendment to the claims requiring an organosilane antimicrobial.
In response, Baker et al. is still pertinent to the claims presented for examination since Baker et al. teach quaternary ammonium antimicrobial compounds [0372] and specifically cite polyalkyleneoxide modified polydimethylsiloxane [0330] which is classified as an organosilane. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection below addresses the claim amendments.
New Grounds of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US 2004/0102350) in view of Ziolkowski et al. (US 8,754,146 B2).
Claim 21 method of forming a cleaning solution is disclosed by Baker et al. cleaning solutions in examples 1-6, pages 51-52. Specifically the example 3 includes water and nonionic surfactants encompasses the claim 21 step of providing water as a base solvent and adding one or more surfactants to the water as also required in claim 21. Claim 21 limitation to adding a preservative to the water, is suggested by Baker et al. guiding one of ordinary skill to modify their exemplary cleaning solutions with the claimed preservative [0495] by teaching the inclusion of additive minors in general and teach odor control agent, a conditioning agent 1 and a conditioning agent 2 and a disinfecting agent which broadly encompass the scope of claim language to a preservative; [0372] [0354].
Baker et al. teach quaternary ammonium antimicrobial compounds [0372] and teach polyalkyleneoxide modified polydimethylsiloxane [0330] which is an organosilane. However, Baker et al. do not teach adding a quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial to the water in an amount up to 5% by weight of the cleaning solution as required by independent claim 21. Examiner notes that Baker et al. illustrate in example 10 their post treatment agent form silanolates having the necessary Si-C organosilicone bonds which can be dispersed evenly in an aqueous medium and penetrate fabric and/or leather effectively in general. See [0215], [0349], [0471], claim 14 and [0075].
In the analogous art, Ziolkowski et al. teach from 0.2-1 up to 30 or 40% by weight quaternary ammonium organosilane (see col.7,ln.23-24) are valuable liquid laundry products since the quaternary ammonium organosilane binds to the surface of the fabric and thus, is commonly known to be added to water used for washing or cleaning the fabric or to any aqueous solution which is used in finishing a fabric. See col.8,ln.40-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the quaternary ammonium antimicrobial of Baker et al. with the claimed quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial as taught by Ziolkowski et al. to arrive at the claimed cleaning system wherein the protective agent is configured to create a bonded barrier of protection against odors on the textiles as required by claim 21 because Baker et al. illustrate in example 10 their post treatment agent form silanolates having the necessary Si-C organosilicone bonds which can be dispersed evenly in an aqueous medium and penetrate fabric and/or leather effectively in general and Ziolkowski et al. teach the claimed quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial are commonly known to be added to water used for washing or cleaning the fabric or to any aqueous solution which is used in finishing a fabric. Furthermore, with respect to claim 21 limitation to wherein the cleaning solution is chemically configured to remove unwanted matter from textiles and create a bonded barrier of protection against odors on the textiles when applied thereto is understood by one of ordinary skill reading Baker et al. understands that this Si-C organosilicone bonds penetrate fabric and/or leather effectively will protect the textiles from stains and odors in general. And one of ordinary skill understands from reading the combination of Baker et al. with Ziolkowski et al. that the claimed combination of water, surfactant preservative, quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial binds to the surface of the fabric which encompasses language to a bonded barrier of protection.
Baker et al. teach wherein the cleaning solution is one or more of a detergent, a spray, and an additive encompassing claim 22. See page 5, [0093 and 0096].
Baker et al. teach wherein the textiles include at least one of: a natural textile, a synthetic textile, a high-performance textile, sports gear, and laundry as required in claims 23 and 36, is met by Baker et al. [00404] teaching a cleaning system configured to remove unwanted matter from sports gear and laundry, the cleaning system using a composition for cleaning and washing by hand and/or mechanical washing machine washing. See [0554] for a step of application by hand. On page 44, [0564], lines 5-6, Baker et al. teach cleaning in the wash cycle of a washing machine. It is the Examiner’s position that this application by hand and/or agitation in the wash cycle of a washing machine. See claim 1, and page 43, [0561], line 8-9.
Regarding claim 24, Baker et al. teach wherein the organosilane antimicrobial (page 25 [0330] is present in an amount up to 1% by weight of the cleaning solution is taught in [0480] teaching from about 0.01 to about 1% on page 37. And Ziolkowski et al. teach from 0.2-1 up to 30 or 40% by weight quaternary ammonium organosilane (see col.7,ln.23-24).
Claims 25-26 and 32 limitation is met by Baker et al. teaching on page 10, [0161] citric acid which preservative acts also as a chelator. See page 34,[0442] teaching low amounts encompassing limitation to at least 0.1% is met by the art teaching from about 0.1% to about 3%-15%. Examiner notes [0031] of Applicants specification also has the citric acid (as disclosed by Baker) to be dual purpose.
Claim 27 limitation to wherein the one or more surfactants include a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, or a combination thereof, is taught [0181] teaching the treating compositions comprise nonionic surfactants mixtures with other surfactants, especially anionic surfactants and also cationic surfactants.
Baker et al. teach claims 28-29 limitation to comprising adding 1% to 12% propylene glycol to the water in [0311] on page 24 teaching their compositions contain from about 0% to about 10%, by weight, of solvents and hydrotropes mixtures. The presence of solvents and hydrotropes can affect the structured versus isotropic nature of the compositions. By “solvent” is meant the commonly used solvents in the detergent industry, including the claimed propylene glycol. It is Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill also understands water to be a commonly used solvent. Also see page 36, [0471] teaching polyethylene glycol or a copolymer of polyethylene-polypropylene glycol having a solubility in water at room temperature of more than about 2 weight %. And see example 4, formulation E exemplifying the propylene glycol with water. And finally [0184] teaching it is well known that the ethoxylated alcohols often form viscous phases when combined with water at certain concentrations. and one skilled in the art may use and control this property so as to give a gel or viscous liquid or paste as may be desired.
Claims 30-31 limitation to adding one or more enzymes [0084] to the water, [0101] wherein the one or more enzymes include at least one of amylase, protease, lipase, mannanase, and pectinase is taught by Baker et al. teaching the claimed enzymes in [0535] page 41
Claim 33 limitation to further comprising adding at least one fragrance is taught by Baker et al. page 32, [0417] and example 4.
Independent claim 34 to a cleaning solution is disclosed by Baker et al. cleaning solutions in examples 1-6, pages 51-52. Example 3 encompasses the claim 21 step of providing water as a base solvent and adding one or more surfactants to the water. And the example 3 includes protease. Claim 34 limitation to adding a preservative to the water, is suggested by Baker et al. guiding one of ordinary skill to modify their exemplary cleaning solutions with the claimed preservative [0495] by teaching the inclusion of additive minors in general and teach odor control agent, a conditioning agent 1 and a conditioning agent 2 and a disinfecting agent which broadly encompass the scope of claim language to a preservative; [0372] [0354].
Baker et al. teach quaternary ammonium antimicrobial compounds [0372] and teach polyalkyleneoxide modified polydimethylsiloxane [0330] which is an organosilane. However, Baker et al. do not teach adding a quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial to the water in an amount up to 5% by weight of the cleaning solution as required by independent claim 34. Examiner notes that Baker et al. illustrate in example 10 their post treatment agent form silanolates having the necessary Si-C organosilicone bonds which can be dispersed evenly in an aqueous medium and penetrate fabric and/or leather effectively in general. See [0215], [0349], [0471], claim 14 and [0075].
In the analogous art, Ziolkowski et al. teach from 0.2-1 up to 30 or 40% by weight quaternary ammonium organosilane (see col.7,ln.23-24) are valuable liquid laundry products since the quaternary ammonium organosilane binds to the surface of the fabric and thus, is commonly known to be added to water used for washing or cleaning the fabric or to any aqueous solution which is used in finishing a fabric. See col.8,ln.40-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the quaternary ammonium antimicrobial of Baker et al. with the claimed quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial as taught by Ziolkowski et al. to arrive at the claimed cleaning system wherein the protective agent is configured to create a bonded barrier of protection against odors on the textiles as required by claim 34 because Baker et al. illustrate in example 10 their post treatment agent form silanolates having the necessary Si-C organosilicone bonds which can be dispersed evenly in an aqueous medium and penetrate fabric and/or leather effectively in general and Ziolkowski et al. teach the claimed quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial are commonly known to be added to water used for washing or cleaning the fabric or to any aqueous solution which is used in finishing a fabric. Furthermore, with respect to claim 34 limitation to wherein the cleaning solution is chemically configured to remove unwanted matter from textiles and create a bonded barrier of protection against odors on the textiles when applied thereto is understood by one of ordinary skill reading Baker et al. understands that this Si-C organosilicone bonds penetrate fabric and/or leather effectively will protect the textiles from stains and odors in general. And one of ordinary skill understands from reading the combination of Baker et al. with Ziolkowski et al. that the claimed combination of water, surfactant preservative, quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial binds to the surface of the fabric which encompasses language to a bonded barrier of protection.
Baker et al. teach wherein the cleaning solution is one or more of a detergent, a spray, and an additive encompassing claim 35. See page 5, [0093 and 0096].
Baker et al. teach wherein the textiles include at least one of: a natural textile, a synthetic textile, a high-performance textile, sports gear, and laundry as required in claim 36, is met by Baker et al. [00404] teaching a cleaning system configured to remove unwanted matter from sports gear and laundry, the cleaning system using a composition for cleaning and washing by hand and/or mechanical washing machine washing. See [0554] for a step of application by hand. On page 44, [0564], lines 5-6, Baker et al. teach cleaning in the wash cycle of a washing machine. It is the Examiner’s position that this application by hand and/or agitation in the wash cycle of a washing machine. See claim 1, and page 43, [0561], line 8-9.
Regarding claim 37, Baker et al. teach wherein the organosilane antimicrobial (page 25 [0330] is present in an amount up to 1% by weight of the cleaning solution is taught in [0480] teaching from about 0.01 to about 1% on page 37. And Ziolkowski et al. teach from 0.2-1 up to 30 or 40% by weight quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial (see col.7,ln.23-24).
Claim 38 limitation to further comprising propylene glycol solvent is taught in [0311], page 24.
Claim 39 limitations to wherein the one or more surfactants include a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, or a combination thereof, is taught [0181] teaching the treating compositions comprise nonionic surfactants mixtures with other surfactants, especially anionic surfactants and also cationic surfactants.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US 2004/0102350) in view of Ziolkowski et al. (US 8,754,146 B2) and Draper Jr. et al. (US 4,272,386).
Independent claim 40 limitation to a washing agent is disclosed by Baker et al. cleaning solutions in examples 1-6, pages 51-52. Specifically the example 3 includes water and nonionic surfactants encompasses the claim 40 limitation to water as a base solvent and adding one or more surfactants to the water as also required in claim 40. Claim 40 limitation to adding a preservative to the water, is suggested by Baker et al. guiding one of ordinary skill to modify their exemplary cleaning solutions with the claimed preservative [0495] by teaching the inclusion of additive minors in general and teach odor control agent, a conditioning agent 1 and a conditioning agent 2 and a disinfecting agent which broadly encompass the scope of claim language to a preservative; [0372] [0354].
Baker et al. teach quaternary ammonium antimicrobial compounds [0372] and teach polyalkyleneoxide modified polydimethylsiloxane [0330] which is an organosilane. However, Baker et al. do not teach adding a quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial to the water in an amount up to 5% by weight of the cleaning solution as required by independent claim 40. Examiner notes that Baker et al. illustrate in example 10 their post treatment agent form silanolates having the necessary Si-C organosilicone bonds which can be dispersed evenly in an aqueous medium and penetrate fabric and/or leather effectively in general. See [0215], [0349], [0471], claim 14 and [0075].
In the analogous art, Ziolkowski et al. teach from 0.2-1 up to 30 or 40% by weight quaternary ammonium organosilane (see col.7,ln.23-24) are valuable liquid laundry products since the quaternary ammonium organosilane binds to the surface of the fabric and thus, is commonly known to be added to water used for washing or cleaning the fabric or to any aqueous solution which is used in finishing a fabric. See col.8,ln.40-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the quaternary ammonium antimicrobial of Baker et al. with the claim 40 quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial as taught by Ziolkowski et al. to arrive at the claimed washing agent because Ziolkowski et al. teach the claimed quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial are commonly known to be added to water used for washing or cleaning the fabric or to any aqueous solution which is used in finishing a fabric. Furthermore, with respect to claim 40 limitation to wherein the washing agent is chemically configured to remove unwanted matter from textiles and create a bonded barrier of protection against odors on the textiles when applied thereto is understood by one of ordinary skill reading Baker et al. with Ziolkowski et al. that the claimed combination of water, surfactant preservative, quaternary ammonium organosilane antimicrobial binds to the surface of the fabric which encompasses language to a bonded barrier of protection.
Baker et al. examples 7-10 on pages 52-53 teach post treating solution encompassing the claim 40 protective agent. See specifically their example 10 on page 53 illustrating their post treatment composition to comprise one or more surfactants; a polydimethylsiloxane silicone suds suppressor encompassing the organosilane of the claim 40 protective agent [0463-0467] present in an amount of 0.2% encompassing the claimed range of up to 5% by weight of their protective agent.
Regarding the antistatic agent, [0334] of Baker et al. teach ditallow dimethyl
ammonium chloride as suitable quaternary ammonium conditioning agents commonly
known in the art as antistatic agents. See Draper Jr. et al. (US 4,272,386) col.8,In.10-
29, specifically line 27 supporting Examiner's position that the same ditallow dimethyl
ammonium chloride disclosed by Baker et al. [0334] is a commonly known antistatic
agent. Furthermore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to achieve antistatic
property because the example 10 of Baker has a blend of surfactants, preservatives,
and antimicrobial organosilanes which blend provides antistatic properties as similarly
supported by Applicant's specification [0066].
Baker et al. do not teach wherein the protective agent comprising surfactant, antistatic agent and an organosilane antimicrobial is configured to create a bonded barrier of protection against odors on the textiles when applied thereto as required by claim 40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed protective agent configured to create a bonded barrier of protection against odors on the textiles because Baker et al. illustrate in example 10 their post treatment agent comprising preservative, surfactants and polydimethylsiloxane silicone suds suppressor and guide one of ordinary skill to modify with an antistatic agent in general encompassing the claimed protective agent and further teach their ingredients form silanolates having the necessary Si-C organosilicone bonds which can be dispersed evenly in an aqueous medium and penetrate fabric and/or leather effectively. See [0215], [0349], [0471], claim 14 and [0075]. One of ordinary skill reading Baker et al. understands that this Si-C organosilicone bonds penetrate fabric and/or leather effectively will protect the textiles from stains and odors in general.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No 10,913,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instantly claimed method of forming a cleaning solution has been patented by the method of forming a batch of a detergent comprising the same ingredients in the same amounts.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, 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
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761