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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. (US 20170198432A1) further in view of Stretanski et al. (US20090203817A1), Parry et al. (WO2006002777A1) and Bacher et al. (US 5,650,509).
Richards et al. teach claim 1 method of treating an elastane-containing fabric, comprising a) providing a fabric treatment composition comprising an antioxidant and a surfactant by teaching machine laundering of elastane fabrics ie (cotton, polyester, nylon) (0002-0003, 0062 and abstract) comprising contact with an antioxidant page 7, [0104] and surfactant page 5, [0075].
Richards et al. teach claim 1 b) providing an elastane-containing fabric (see abstract).
Richards et al. teach claim 1 c) contacting the elastane-containing fabric with the fabric treatment composition in the presence of water See page 5, [0074].
Regarding the claim 1 material limitation to a surfactant concentration of at least 10 ppm is met by Richards et al. teaching NF-21 fluorinated FC6 surfactant in [0075] and [0122] teaching 0.03-0.08% amounts of fluorinated FC6 surfactant in the composition treating 88 cotton/ 12 spandex blend performance fabric whereby the solution was sprayed to achieve the theoretical % by weight of each treatment, accounting for wet pick up. After 1, 3 and 10 minutes, all treated cotton lycra blends showed superior wicking. See [0122-0124] of Richards et al. page 8.
Richards et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the claim 1 ratio of 10.1:1 to 100:1 of treatment liquor to elastane fabric which are standard amounts in washing and met by the examples and table in [0164].
Richards et al. teach clam 1 limitation to wherein the method is to slow the formation of malodorous species generated from the autoxidation of soils by teaching in [0014] that such cotton containing performance fabrics can be manufactured to contain releasable metals, such as copper. See page 2, [0014].
Richards et al. teach wherein the fabric treatment composition and the water form a treatment liquor having an antioxidant [0104] in general. However, Richards et al. do not teach antioxidant concentration of at least 25 ppb and wherein at least some portion of the antioxidant is deposited onto the elastane-containing fabric as required by claim 1.
Stretanski et al. (US2009203817A1) teach antioxidant in [0057] within the claim 1 amount in [0124] in an analogous spandex treatment composition for deposition onto a spandex containing fabric. See example 61, [0144] encompassing a hindered phenol. [0072] of Stretanski et al. specifically guide one of ordinary skill to the to the same hindered phenol antioxidants recited by the instant specification in the same range of from about 1:10 to about 10:1 onto the same elastane fabric. Stretanski specifically discusses stabilizing amounts of the antioxidant composition on spandex (elastane) fabric, see for example [0058] teaching that the prior art formulations AO-1, AO-3, AO-7, AO-8 and AO-9 made in the examples to stabilize the spandex, the stabilizing amount of the compounds of formula (I) is often in the range of about 0.01% to about 10% by weight based on the total weight of the stabilized spandex polymer or prepolymer composition, although larger or smaller amounts may be useful in particular situations which teaching encompasses the claimed ranges. It is the Examiner’s position that even if the art does not use the term deposition, the concept of stabilizing the spandex with hindered phenol antioxidants which Stretanski teaches explicitly in page 11, [0072] teaching hindered phenol antioxidant added in an amount from 0.01 to, 10%, preferably from 0.05 to 5%, and more preferably from 0.1 to 2%, based on the weight of the stabilized spandex polymer or prepolymer composition would necessarily guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed concept of the same hindered phenol antioxidant being ‘deposited’ on the same elastane fabric.
Richards and Stretanski are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of treating an elastane containing fabric. However, neither Richards nor Stretanski explicitly teach deposition of the antioxidant in a concentration of at least 25 ppb as is required by claim 1. Examiner notes the combination of references are found pertinent to the claims because Stretanski (US20090203817A1) guide one of ordinary skill in [0072] to the same hindered phenol antioxidants recited by the instant specification in the same range of from about 1:10 to about 10:1 onto the same elastane fabric. It is the Examiner’s position that even if the art does not use the term deposition, BRI of deposition from Applicant’s specification [0096] is to contacting which concept is encompassed by the prior art teaching stabilizing the spandex with hindered phenol antioxidants which Stretanski teaches explicitly in page 11, [0072] teaching hindered phenol antioxidant added in an amount from 0.01 to, 10%, preferably from 0.05 to 5%, and more preferably from 0.1 to 2%, based on the weight of the stabilized spandex polymer or prepolymer composition would necessarily guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed concept of the same hindered phenol antioxidant being ‘deposited’ on the same elastane fabric.
Parry et al. (WO2006002777A1) teach the commonly knowledge that sterically hindered phenol antioxidants are dosed at a level of 100ppb to 200 ppm (see page 4, ln.22-25) to achieve the desired level in the aqueous medium and also in the analogous art Bacher et al. (US 5,650,509) teach stearically hindered phenol antioxidants as claimed treat polyamide fabric (made of various material blends such as spandex, also known as elastane or Lycra) and guide one of ordinary skill that the liquor pickup is 30-400% by weight. See abstract and col.5,ln.5-10.
Parry et al., Bacher et al., Richards and Stretanski are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of treating an elastane containing fabric. Examiner notes Applicant's specification US20250340800A1 [0074] reciting IV Methods: Deposition of Antioxidant onto Fabric Test Method describes in [0076] and [0096], Contacting fabric with a Fabric Treatment Composition and thus, establishing BRI for depositing the very minuscule amount of at least 2ug is encompassed by contacting an elastane containing fabric with the antioxidant.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed antioxidant in a concentration of at least 25 ppb as required by claim 1 because Richards et al. teach machine laundering of elastane fabrics ie (cotton, polyester, nylon) treated with copper comprising contact with an antioxidant and surfactant and Stretanski et al. (US2009203817A1) teach an analogous spandex treatment composition comprising 5 g (20mmol) of antioxidant is an advantageous amount to make a stabilized spandex treatment composition and Parry et al. establish that sterically hindered phenol antioxidants are dosed at a level of 100ppb to 200 ppm in general and Bacher et al. (US 5,650,509) teach stearically hindered phenol antioxidants as claimed treat polyamide fabric via liquor pickup 30-400% by weight. Thus one of ordinary skill reading the prior art references would reasonable arrive at the minuscule amount of the antioxidant being deposited as claimed would be encompassed by the prior art teach the same spandex elastane fabric treated with the same stearically hindered phenol antioxidants which treatment entails liquor pickup of 30-400% in general.
Claim 2 limitation to wherein the method further comprises the step of rinsing the elastane-containing fabric after the step of contacting the elastane-containing fabric with the fabric treatment composition in the presence of water is met by Example 2 of Bacher et al. teaching in col.8, that after a fabric is put into the treatment liquors, the fabric can be further rinsed with cold water. 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 claim 2 step of rinsing the elastane-containing fabric of Richards et al. in the presence of water as exemplified by Bacher et al. that it is commonly known that after a fabric is put into the treatment liquors, the fabric can be further rinsed with cold water and thus the claim 2 rinse does not provide a contribution over the art of record.
The claims 3 and 4 do not provide a contribution over the art and common knowledge that sebum is skin’s natural oils produced by human sebaceous glands and encompasses the claim 3 an unsaturated organic soil. While the prior art illustrate wherein there is sebum soil on their fabric prior to treatment with the composition and water, such is reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill as these are clothes that are worn by humans with sebaceous glands.
Claim 5 limitation to wherein at least 1 ug/g of the antioxidant is deposited onto the elastane-containing fabric, as measured according to the Deposition of Antioxidant onto Fabric Test Method is met by Stretanski [0072] teaching the antioxidant is used in amount of less than 2% based on the weight of the spandex polymer. [0129] discuss that the AO is applied to the fabric be teaching the yellowness is controlled. Stretanski guide one of ordinary skill in [0072] to the same hindered phenol antioxidants recited by the instant specification in the same range of from about 1:10 to about 10:1 onto the same elastane fabric. With respect to the claimed Deposition of Antioxidant onto Fabric Test Method, Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification in at least page 8, [0086-0088] establishes broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘Deposition of Antioxidant onto Fabric’ is contacting the Fabric with a Fabric Treatment Composition. In this regard, Stretanski guide one of ordinary skill to stabilizing the spandex with hindered phenol antioxidants which Stretanski teaches explicitly in the abstract & page 11, [0070] defining the stabilizing of spandex polymer as one or more intermixed with the spandex polymer or prepolymer at any stage of manufacture, e.g., during spandex manufacture and/or to the resulting spandex product (such as fiber or fabric). Then on the same page 11, [0072] teaches hindered phenol antioxidant added in an amount from 0.01 to, 10%, preferably from 0.05 to 5%, and more preferably from 0.1 to 2%, based on the weight of the stabilized spandex polymer or prepolymer composition would necessarily guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed concept of the same hindered phenol antioxidant being ‘deposited’ on the same elastane fabric, ie SPANDEX. Then on page 12, [0074] Stretanski teach Examples of preferred substantially sulfur-free, hindered phenol antioxidant include (AO-4), (AO-5), (AO-6) (described on page 12, right column) and then [0078] teaches that the stabilizer with the antioxidant is exhausted onto the spandex and finally on page 18 [0129] Stratanski establishes that the yellowness index of the stabilizer with hindered phenol antioxidants (AO-4), (AO-5), (AO-6) was lower than the yellowness index with just the individual antioxidants. Examiner maintains the claimed deposition of the antioxidant treatment liquor onto the elastane fabric in the minute concentration of at least 1ug/g and ratio as claimed is recognized by the prior art recognizing the lower yellowness index with spandex treated with the stabilizer and the hindered phenol antioxidant.
Claims 8-10 limitation to wherein the elastane-containing fabric comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyester, nylon, cotton is met by Richards et al. illustrate treating cotton lycra blends [0124]
Limitation of claims 11-12 to wherein the alkylated hindered phenol is 2,6-bis(1,1- dimethylethyl)-4-methyl-phenol is taught in Stretanski et al. [0036]. Limitation of claim 12 to wherein the alkylated hindered phenol is Ci-Cis linear or branched alkyl esters of 3,5-bis(1,1- dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-benzenepropanoic acid is taught in Stretanski et al. [0057]. 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 ethanolamine solvent of Richards et al. with the alkylated hindered phenol as taught by Stretanski et al. [0036] and [0057] teaching commonly known alkylated hindered phenols of claim 12 are applied to spandex to stabilize the fabric and thus the claims 11-12 does not provide a contribution over the art of record.
Claim 13 limitation to wherein the treatment liquor has a surfactant concentration of at least 50 ppm and the surfactant comprises anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, is taught in Richards et al. [0075]-[0078] which one of ordinary skill understands that the 0.05% fluorinated surfactant corresponds to 500 ppm. Richards et al. teach the surfactant is NF-21 fluorinated FC6 surfactant in [0075] and [0122] teaching 0.03-0.08% amounts of fluorinated C6 surfactant in the composition treating 88 cotton/ 12 spandex blend performance fabric whereby the solution was sprayed to achieve the theoretical % by weight of each treatment, accounting for wet pick up. After 1, 3 and 10 minutes, all treated cotton lycra blends showed superior wicking. See [0122-0124] of Richards et al. page 8.
Richards et al. encompass the scope of clams 14-15 teaching solvents [0105] ethanolamine chelant and fabric conditioning active/surfactants. See [0075-0078]. And [0092] teach citrate chelating agents.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards et al. (US 20170198432A1), Stretanski et al. (US20090203817A1), Parry et al. (WO2006002777A1) and Bacher et al. (US 5,650,509) as applied to claims 1-5 and 8-15 above further evidenced by pdfs YOUR HOUSEHOLD WATER QUALITY https://fieldreport.caes.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/C-858-10_4.pdf
and WHY COPPER https://www.copper.org/applications/plumbing/water_service/why_copper.htmlodorous
Regarding claims 6 and 7 limitation to treating an elastane-containing fabric wherein the treatment liquor comprises is met by [0169] Richards et al. teaching that all fabrics were treated with copper. However, Richards et al. is silent as to the claimed miniscule amount of at least 1 ppm of copper.
The copper water pipes of the laundry machine supplying water to the laundry machine would necessarily meet this claim language because WHY COPPER establishes the state of the art, that by the 1940s, copper became the most used material for plumbing in the developed world and YOUR HOUSEHOLD WATER QUALITY establishes the state of the art that the claimed 1ppm is within an acceptable level of copper in water in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Richards et al. with the claimed at least 1ppm copper because Richards et al. exemplify elastane-containing fabric treated with copper and one of ordinary skill is apprised of the state of the art that the claimed 1ppm is within an acceptable level of copper in household water in general.
Conclusion
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