DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14 and 16-18 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. Claim 1 states the limitation: “wherein said plurality of particles further comprises fatty acid at a molar ratio of said fatty amine to said fatty acid from 1:3 to 3:
1”, which is construed as indefinite. This is because, without knowing, at least, the average molecular weights of instantly claimed fatty amines and fatty acids a calculation of their ratios would be beyond the time limitation of examination. This is due to a rather large number of different fatty amine molecules (please see the fatty amine’s structural limitations: C8-C32 alkyl, C8-C32 substituted alkyl,…..etc.) with a plethora of molecular weights, and, additionally, in absence of any limitations on the types of fatty acids and thus non-availability of an approximate average molecular weight, the calculation of their molar ratio would not be feasible. The Claim lacks the main requirement “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter” for being a definite one.
For the sake of examination, the fatty acids of Zerhusen such as oleic and linoleic (18 carbons) in the amount of 1-40%: [104, 109], which are on the same “range” of molecular weights with fatty amines of Meine (e.g. with C12-C22 such as stearylamidopropyl dimethylamine under Tego Amid S18 in the amount of 0.5-40 w%; [383, 384, 387], are employed for an approximate calculation of instantly claimed molar ratios based on their given percentages. Note that for claims 12 and 14, the above-mentioned indefiniteness, in spite of several number of claimed fatty acid amine’s is still present and effective.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen et al. (US 2019/0169,539 A1) in view of Meine et al. 2008/0207481 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 10, 16 and 17, Zerhusen teaches an aqueous cleaning composition comprising a plurality of particles , a water soluble carrier in amount of 25-94 w%, cationic (quaternary ammonium compound) polymer in the amount of 5-45 w%; [abstract, 9, 19]. Zerhusen further teaches the instantly claimed polyalkylene polymer; H-(C2H4O)x-(CH(CH3)CH2O)y-(C2H4O)z-OH wherein x=50-300, y=20-100 and z=10-200, and also teaches EO/PO/EO block copolymer and polyethylene glycol fatty acid ester of formula (C2H4O)q C(O)O-(CH2)r-CH3 wherein r and q are identical to instantly claimed values.
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-12 and 14, Zerhusen does not teach the fatty amine conditioning agent as claimed instantly. However, the analogous art of Meine teaches a laundry or fabric softening composition comprising a non-quaternized softening compound such fatty acid amidoamines such as stearylamidopropyl dimethylamine under Tego Amid S18 in the amount of 0.5-40 w%; [383, 384, 387]. This formulation would indeed encompass the variations and structural limitations of the instantly claimed fatty amine that are stated for the instant claims and are similarly disclosed by applicant’s disclosure which includes structures A to J ; [Pg.Pub.: 110-148]. Consequently, by consideration of amount of fatty acid (stearic acid), 1-40% of Zerhusen; [109-110], and the amount of fatty amine (stearic amine), 0.5-40% of Meine; [384, 387], the instantly claimed ratio of 1:3 to 3:1 is rendered obvious by a significant overlap. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the conditioning agent of Meine to Zerhusen’s composition with the motivation of further enhancing the condition of the fabrics by improving its softening action as taught by Meine above.
Regarding claims 1, Zerhusen does not the instantly claimed the dissolution time of less than 40 minutes. The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the references teach all of the claimed reagents, in the claimed ranges, was prepared under similar conditions, and that the original specification specifies that the properties arise from a combination of specific ingredients or process step and that it is rendered obvious by the applied art. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. dissolution time, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Regarding claim 18, Zehusen teaches instantly claimed poly saccharide ; [82], wherein the plurality of the particles has an onset of melt from 25-120 ºC; [123, 140].
Regarding claim 20-21, Zehusen teaches nonionic surfactants such as polyethylene glycol fatty acid ester and polyethylene glycol fatty alcohol ether; [32, 35, 39], but it does not teach branched (EO)11 isotridecyl alcohol. However, Meine teaches this ingredient with 12 EO which is construed as almost identical to 11 EO (functional equivalent) nonionic ethoxylated branched isotridecyl surfactant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025/11/15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because;
It is noted that applicant’s main argument, namely the ratio of “fatty amine : fatty acid = 1:3 to 3:1” have been addressed before during examiner’s affirmed answer to appeal brief (2023/05/25) and the recent non-final action of 2025/06/10, and thus the argument(s) is responded to concisely and briefly.
In response to applicant’s argument (pages 9, 11-12) on the 112(b) rejection of claim 1, it should be noted that the argument is not persuasive, simply because of undue burden beyond the required time to examine the instant claimed ratio, as stated before. A quick estimation of the wide range of fatty acids and their corresponding fatty amines creates a plethora of molecular weights, and, additionally, in absence of any limitations on the types of fatty acids and thus non-availability of an approximate average molecular weight, the calculation of their molar ratio would not be feasible.
For the sake of an exemplary estimation the fatty acid of stearic acid (MW= 284.48 gr/mole) and fatty amine of Stearamidopropyl Dimethylamine (MW= 284.48 gr/mole) are chosen each with the amount of 40 wt.% as taught by prior arts of record. Moles of fatty amine is calculated as 0.104, and that of fatty acid is 0.141 wherein the instantly claimed ratio is about 1.04 which renders the claim obvious.
In response to applicant’s argument (pages 10-11) on the unexpected results please note that: Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (differences in sedative and anticholinergic effects between prior art and claimed antidepressants were not unexpected). In In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 1276, 182 USPQ 290, 293 (CCPA 1974), the court held that unexpected results for a claimed range as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art had been shown by a demonstration of “a marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree.” Compare In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877, 884, 152 USPQ 552, 560 (CCPA 1967) (differences in properties cannot be disregarded on the ground they are differences in degree rather than in kind); Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App.& Inter. 1992) (“we generally consider a discussion of results in terms of differences in degree’ as compared to differences in kind’ . . . to have very little meaning in a relevant legal sense”), [MPEP 716.02].
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 7 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2025/11/11
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767