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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1–8, in the reply filed on 8/31/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9–16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/31/2026.
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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "reactive end groups of the solution" and “fabric surface” in reference to the method of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claims 6 and 7 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. First, the Examiner notes that claim 6 depends from claim 11. It is improper for a claim to depend from a subsequent claim. The claim will be examined as if it depends from claim 1. Second, the use of quotation marks around the term “Pad-Dry” render the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the quoted term is a brand name which makes the scope of the claim indeterminable. See ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). Claim 7 is rejected as being indefinite for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raehse (US 2006/0070189 A1).
Raehse teaches the application of an agent composition to a fabric to form an antimicrobial textile. Raehse abstract, ¶¶ 5, 65–66. The agent may comprise tea tree oil, citric acid, starch as a binder, and water. Id. ¶¶ 219–223. The tea tree oil, citric acid, and starch binder may be present at claimed levels. See id. The textile is exposed to the composition for a period of time, after which the textile is dried. Id. ¶ 61.
Raehse teaches that water levels of the composition may be as high as approximately 65 weight percent. Id. ¶ 219. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have increased the water level of the agent composition to at least 75 weight percent since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. SOLUTION
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected as starch is a plant-based polysaccharide and Applicant discloses in the instant application that polysaccharides are “a polymer that serve[] to crosslink reactive end groups to the fabric surface.” See Spec. ¶ 55.
Claim(s) 4–6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raehse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quinlan (US 2019/0169793 A1).
Raehse fails to teach the added weight percentage of the composition applied to the textile or the details of the wet and drying processes.
Quinlan teaches the application of a protective formulation to a textile that adds 2–5 weight percent to the dry weight of the textile. Quinlan abstract. The protective formulation may be applied to a textile via a chemical bath, then compressed to remove excess liquid from the bath, followed by drying the textile down a tenter frame and cured in an oven, a process known as a “pad-dry-cure.” Id. ¶¶11–12.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the composition application process of Raehse with the wet and dry processes of Quinlan motivated by to desire to successfully practice the invention of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raehse and Quinlan as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Shrell (US 6,343,395 B1).
Raehse and Quinlan fail to teach that the wet process comprises an “exhaust” process.
Shrell teaches process for wet-processing textile materials, wherein a textile material is transported by a jet nozzle with treatment liquor, with air/steam or with a combination of the two media into a scray which permits a seamless transition from one dyeing step to another without a standstill of the material. Shrell abstract, col. 1, ll. 1–12. This process is known as an “exhaust” process. Id. at col. 1, l. 8.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to look to Shrell for guidance as to a suitable application process to textiles motivated by the desire to select an application that is efficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights