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 .
The previous claim rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Abati (US 20190357602 A1) as evidenced by Prendergast et al. (US 9125827 B2) and O’Brien et al. (US 20070140951 A1), which was indicated in the Office action dated December 2, 2025, have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendment in claims 1 and 31 which changes the maximum concentration ranges of the plant derived non-volatile triglyceride and the zeolite from 40 % and 50 wt % to 35 wt % and 30 wt%, respectively.
A new rejection has been made to address the amended claims.
All previous claim rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the December 2, 2025 have been modified to address the amended claims, with the original grounds of rejections maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abati (US 20190357602 A1, issued as US Pat. No. 12031238 B2) as evidenced by Prendergast et al. (US 9125827 B2, published September 8, 2015) (“Prendergast” hereunder) and O’Brien et al. (US 20070140951 A1, published June 21, 2007) (“O’Brien” hereunder) and in view of Lee et al. (KR 20170130982 A, published November 29, 2017) (“Lee” hereunder).
Claim 1 is directed to an odor control concentrate composition configured for application on a textile material for prolonged odor control comprising:
A plant derived non-volatile derived non-volatile triglyceride present at a concentration ranging from 18 wt% to 35 wt% of the overall weight of the composition; and
a zeolite present at a concentration ranging from 10 wt% to 30 wt% of the overall weight of the composition, wherein the odor control concentrate composition is a liquid that is a water in oil emulsion or an oil in water emulsion.
Applicant uses the term “plant derived non-volatile triglyceride” to be plant oils comprising non-volatile triglyceride. See present claims 3-5.
Abati discloses a cosmetic composition comprising (a) castor oil 40 % w/w and (b) zeolite 40 % w/w. As the composition also contains aloe leaf juice, which obviously contains water, and polyhydroxystearic acid, which emulsifies the oil and water, the disclosed composition is in the form of a water in oil or oil in water emulsion. See paragraph [0045]; Prendergast, [0043]. instant claims 1 and 2.
The composition is enclosed in a microcapsule and configured for application on a textile material for long-lasting effects of the cosmetic composition.
The present claim 1 recites a concentrate composition: the term “concentrate” in claim 1 serves as a preamble denoting the intended use of the composition, as Abati, show a composition having even higher concentrations of the vegetable oils and zeolite than that presently claimed can be applied to textile. Thus, no patentable weight is given to the term “concentrate”.
The amended claim 1 requires the amounts of the plant derived non-volatile triglyceride and the zeolite to be at most 35 % and 30 %, respectively, based on the overall weight of the composition. The concentrations of the plant-derived triglyceride and zeolite concentrations in the Abati composition is (a) castor oil 40 % w/w and (b) zeolite 40 % w/w.
Lee teaches an antimicrobial composition and a functional woven fiber comprising such composition, which can be stably coated and bonded to the surface of fibers without separation in repeated washing or long-term use. The reference teaches that the functional fiber has excellent antimicrobial properties, deodorization property, washing resistance, durability, etc. and useful in producing clothes, socks, gloves, etc. See abstract. The reference antimicrobial composition comprises a lubricant for improving workability and flexibility, which can be a vegetable oil such as castor oil, soybean oil, etc See translation, p. 4, bridging paragraph. The antibacterial agent can be zeolite, bentonite, etc. See translation, p. 5, 4th full paragraph. The reference teaches using 1-10 parts of a lubricant and 1-10 parts by weight of an antimicrobial agent with excipients. See translation, p. 7 last par.- p. 8, first paragraph; p. 6, first full paragraph; reference claim 1. The reference discloses Example 1 comprising 5 parts of castor oil and 5 parts of bentonite as the antibacterial agent and a comparative example comprising 5 parts of castor oil and 5 parts of zeolite, wherein the variables are the presence or absence of polyethylene oxide and polyglycidol as binding agent in the formulations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to optimize the concentration ranges for the concentration of castor oil and zeolite as lubricant and antimicrobial, respectively, in the Abati formulation as Lee suggests that the lubricant and the antimicrobial agent can be used in a lower amount and still impart antimicrobial and deodorizing properties. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, discovery of lowest effective amounts of the active ingredients by routine experimentations would have been well within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 6 and 31, oleic acid in the Abati formulation is a surfactant. See O’Brien [0051].
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abati as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 31 and 32 as above, and further in view of DeNavarre et al. (US 4302443 A, published on November 11, 1981) (“DeNavarre” hereunder).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, although Abati teaches aloe leaf juice in the cosmetic composition, the reference fails to teach aloe oil.
DeNavarre teaches that aloe vera extracts are provided either in the natural gel form or as aloe extract oil and provide anti-irritating effects to skin. See col. 1, line 51 – col. 2, line 18.
It is well settled in patent law that combining or substituting art-recognized functional equivalents for same known purposes is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.06. Since DeVarrare establishes that aloe vera extracts in any form can be used in cosmetic composition to provide anti-irritating effects, combining or substituting the aloe leaf juice in Abati with aloe extract oil of DeNavarre to make a similar composition would have been prima facie obvious.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abati as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 31 and 32 as above, and further in view of Hirata (WO2018051285 A1, published on March 22, 2018) and Goyarts et al. (US 20090196942 A1, published on August 6, 2009) (“Goyarts” hereunder).
Abati does not specifically teach the textile composition of claim 26, but does mention WO 2009124367 A2, which discloses a garment comprising a tissue impregnated with bioceramic microparticles, which have been applied to the fabric by means of a bath. See [0003]
WO 2009124367 A1, which issued to Hirata et al, teaches the bioceramic microparticles are uniformed applied to the fabric by immersing the fabric in a liquid containing the microparticles in a range between 2-15 % and preferably about 7.5 %. See p. 17-18.
Given the teachings of Abati to treat the yarn/fabric with the long-lasting cosmetic composition, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the present application would have been obviously motivated to look to prior art such as Hirata for teachings on how to apply cosmetic compositions on textile. Since Hirata teaches that a liquid bath enables a uniform application of microparticles on the textile, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to make a similar liquid bath composition comprising the cosmetic particles of Abati for treating fabric with the comic composition. The cosmetic composition contains alkali metal sats, sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate.
Although Abati or Hirata fails to specifically disclose the salt of the cosmetic composition, Goyarts teaches a topical formulation with pH of 7.2. Thus, formulating a cosmetic composition with such pH for safety to skin would have been prima facie obvious.
Claims 5 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abati, DeNavarre, Hirata and Goyarts as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 26, 27, 31 and 32 as above, and further in view of Byun (KR 20210073273 A, published on June 18, 2021).
Abati fails to teach the specific oils of the present claims.
Byun teaches hemp seed oils and flaxseed oil are used together in a cosmetic composition as moisturizing and atopic skin improving agent. See translation, abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the present application to modify the teachings of Abati and incorporated to the composition hemp seed oil and flaxseed oil as motivated by Byun, as the latter teaches these oils are useful as skin protecting and moisturizing agents and improves atopic skin. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining the teachings and making an improved odor absorbing composition with skin protecting properties.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abati, Hirata and Goyarts as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 26, 27, 31 and 32 as above, and further in view of Lan et al. (US 12435295 B1, priority to November 15, 2022).
Abati fails to disclose the type of the zeolite.
Lan teaches a water-based odor controlling composition comprising zeolite. The reference teaches that zeolite can be chabazite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the present application to modify the teachings of Abati and used chabazite as motivated by Lan. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, as the latter teaches that zeolite is useful as an odor absorbing component in cosmetic compositions. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a cosmetic composition with long-lasting odor controlling effects.
Claim 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abati, Hirata and Goyarts as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 26, 27, 31 and 32 as above, and further in view of Vockenroth (US 20210093522 A1, priority to September 30, 2019).
Abati fails to teach the metal salt of the present claims.
Vockenroth teaches a deodorant emulsion spray that does not stain textiles. The reference teaches that zeolite and sodium bicarbonate are both useful as odor absorbers and can be used in combination. See [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the teachings of Abati and incorporate to the deodorizing composition sodium bicarbonate as motivated by Vockenroth, as the latter teaches that zeolite and sodium bicarbonate are both odor absorbers. As Vockenroth suggests that sodium bicarbonate is suitable for topical application, the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing an enhanced composition with additive deodorizing effects and suitable for application to textile for clothing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 26, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as indicated above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wang (CN 201510723147 A, October 29, 2015) teaches a long-acting antibacterial fiber which comprises raw materials including 5-14 parts of castor oil and 6-8 wt % of zeolite.
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 GINA JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)272-8605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5 PM.
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, BETHANY BARHAM can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/GINA C JUSTICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617