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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the Appeal Brief filed 2/27/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. Ex Parte Prosecution is reopened because upon further consideration of the prior art, He et al. (WO 2014/124688A1) do not specifically teach the claim 1 (b) limitation wherein the cationic polysaccharide is selected from the group consisting of cationic guar, quaternized cellulose, quaternized galactomannose, and quaternized starch. Also, He et al. does not specifically teach the claim 1 (c) limitation wherein the nonionic polysaccharide is selected from the group consisting of nonionic guar, hydroxyethylcellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
Claims 1, 12 and 19 are independent. Claims 1-12 and 15-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal Brief 2/27/2026 with respect to the unexpected results have been fully considered however the claimed range is not commensurate in scope with the 1:1 ratio of the samples in 2, 5, 7-17. Upon an updated search, it does not appear the ratio provides a contribution over the art. A new grounds of rejection is made below with Chen et al. (WO2013/026657) teaching the claimed nonionic polysaccharide deposition aides (page 57,ln10-16) with cationic polysaccharide polymers (page 55,ln15-30) in laundry compositions is commonly known.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12 and 16-17, 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (WO 2014/124688A1) as evidenced by The Formulators Guide to Natural Gums pdf attached having link: https://formulabotanica.com/guide-natural-gums/ is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2014/0206587) in view of He (WO 2014/124688A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 6,492,322) in view of He (WO 2014/124688A1) as evidenced by The Formulators Guide to Natural Gums pdf attached having link: https://formulabotanica.com/guide-natural-gums/ is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-12, 15, 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammadi et al. (EP 1,062,312 B1) in view of He (WO 2014/124688A1) is withdrawn.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-21 over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,427,789 B2 is withdrawn upon consideration of the approved terminal disclaimer 10/27/2025.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-21 over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,492,570 B2 is withdrawn upon consideration of the approved terminal disclaimer 10/27/2025.
New Grounds of 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 1-12 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (WO 2014/124688A1) as evidenced by The Formulators Guide to Natural Gums pdf attached having link: https://formulabotanica.com/guide-natural-gums/ in view of Chen et al. (WO 2013/026657 A1).
He et al. (WO 2014/124688A1) teach a fabric softener comprising the claim 1 quaternary ammonium compound (a) TEP (see page 6,ln.10 teaching Di(palmiticcarboxyethyl)hydroxyethyl methyl ammonium methylsulfate in an amount of 1-20% (see page 8,ln.4). With respect to independent claim 1, this disclosure of He et al. overlaps the claim 1 (a) amount of 3-8 wt. % of a quaternary ammonium compound, wherein the quaternary ammonium compound comprises di(palmiticcarboxyethyl)hydroxyethyl methyl ammonium methylsulfate ("TEP").
With respect to claim 1 (b) 0.2-5 wt. % of a cationic polysaccharide, and claim 1 (c) 0.2-5 wt. % of a nonionic polysaccharide, He et al. suggest polymers derived from cellulose and guar gum and suggest that stabilizing products are typically used at a level of 0-15% which amount overlaps the claimed ranges. See page 6,ln.22-page 7,ln.9. Examiner notes that The Formulator's Guide to Natural Gums - Formula Botanica establishes the state of the art that the guar gums disclosed by He et al. encompass both the categories of cationic and non-ionic polysaccharides highlighted in red below:
PNG
media_image1.png
476
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, He et al. do not specifically teach the claim 1 (b) limitation wherein the cationic polysaccharide is selected from the group consisting of cationic guar, quaternized cellulose, quaternized galactomannose, and quaternized starch.
Also, He et al. does not specifically teach the claim 1 (c) limitation wherein the nonionic polysaccharide is selected from the group consisting of nonionic guar, hydroxyethylcellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose.
In the analogous art of fabric conditioning, Chen et al. (WO2013/026657A1) teach that the claimed nonionic and cationic polysaccharides are commonly known delivery aids in fabric conditioning for better deposition to the fabric. Chen et al. page 18, last paragraph guide one of ordinary skill that it is important that the non-ionic polysaccharide delivery aid not be removed by water as it cannot then function effectively as a delivery aid. See abstract and page 33,ln.25-page 34,ln.1 teaching a laundry treatment composition comprising non-ionic polysaccharides selected from the group consisting of: hydroxy-propyl methyl cellulose, hydroxy-ethyl methyl cellulose, hydroxy-propyl guar, hydroxy-ethyl ethyl cellulose or methyl cellulose. See also the abstract and page 55,ln.15-20 and ln.30 teaching at least one of hydroxylpropyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylethyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylpropyl guar, hydroxylethyl ethyl cellulose or methyl cellulose with a cationic guar gum derivative, such as guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride. Chen et al. further teach on page 55,ln.30 that the amount of polymer (cationic guar) used in the laundry compositions is suitably from 0.001 to 0.5 wt % and most preferably from 0.1 to 0.25 wt %, by weight of the total composition.
Therefore, 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 method for conditioning a fabric comprising with the cationic and nonionic polysaccharides as required by claim 1 because He et al. teach the claimed TEP with cellulose and guar gums in general and Chen et al. teach the claimed nonionic and cationic polysaccharides are commonly known delivery aids in fabric conditioning and specifically teach at least one of hydroxylpropyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylethyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylpropyl guar, hydroxylethyl ethyl cellulose or methyl cellulose with a cationic guar gum derivative, such as guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride is a commonly known combination delivery aid in fabric conditioning. One of ordinary skill reading He et al. is motivated to combine with Chen et al. since both are in the analogous art of fabric conditioning with the same ingredients in similar amounts.
Claim 2 and 9 limitation wherein the nonionic polysaccharide comprises a hydroxyethyl cellulose is met by Chen et al. example 10 on page 64 teaching the claimed hydroxy ethyl cellulose gives good deposition on cotton. See page 64,ln.15 copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
481
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify He et al. with the claimed hydroxyethyl cellulose, because hydroxyethyl cellulose is a commonly known gum in general and Chen et al. example 10 illustrates HEC gives good deposition on cotton. See page 64,ln.15.
Claim 3 limitation wherein the nonionic polysaccharide comprises a nonionic guar is met by He et al. teaching guar gum which The Formulator's Guide to Natural Gums - Formula Botanica establishes the state of the art that the guar gums disclosed by He et al. encompass both the categories of cationic and non-ionic polysaccharides in general. See the table above portions highlighted in red. And Chen et al. abstract and page 33,ln.25-page 34,ln.1 teach laundry treatment composition comprising non-ionic polysaccharides including hydroxy-propyl guar.
Claim 4 limitation wherein the cationic polysaccharide has an average molecular weight of between 100,000 daltons and 1,500,000 daltons is met by Chen et al. page 52,ln.28-page 53,ln.1 teaching the weight average MW of the cationic polymers will generally be between 100,000 to 2 million daltons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify He et al. with the clam 4 average molecular weight range as taught by Chen et al. because Chen et al. page 53, first paragraph guides one of ordinary skill that the claimed range is the optimal MW range for the cationic polysaccharide since if the molecular weight of the polymer is too low, then the conditioning effect is poor and if too high, then there may be problems of high extensional viscosity leading to stringiness of the composition when it is poured.
Claim 11 limitation to wherein the composition comprises from 0.2-2 wt. % of the cationic polysaccharide is met by Chen et al. page 55,ln.30 teaching that the common amount of cationic polymer used in laundry compositions is from 0.001 to 0.5 wt % and most preferably from 0.1 to 0.25 wt %, by weight of the total composition.
Claim 15 limitation to 0.2-2 wt. % of a nonionic polysaccharide selected from the group consisting of nonionic guar, hydroxyethylcellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose is taught by Chen et al. example 10 teaches using 2% hydroxylpropyl methyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose. See example 10 on page 64. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify He et al. with the claimed 0.2-2% nonionic polysaccharide because Chen et al. guide one of ordinary skill to use 2% of the same nonionic polysaccharides to treat cotton and polyester and He et al. teach fabric conditioning in general.
The inorganic salt of claim 16 is taught by He et al. page 7,ln.3-5 teaching inorganic salts, such as calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium sulphate, sodium 5 chloride, etc.; products which can be used to reduce viscosity in concentrated compositions, such as compounds of the glycol type, such as, ethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, polyglycols, etc..
Claim 17 limitation wherein the fabric is contacted with said aqueous medium comprising said composition during a rinse cycle of an automatic laundry machine is taught by He et al. page 9,ln.20.
Claim 18 limitation wherein the cationic polysaccharide comprises a cationic guar is met by He et al. teaching guar gum which The Formulator's Guide to Natural Gums - Formula Botanica establishes the state of the art that the guar gums disclosed by He et al. encompass both the categories of cationic and non-ionic polysaccharides in general. See the table above portions highlighted in red. Furthermore Chen et al. abstract and page 55,ln.15-20 teach cationic guar gum derivative guiding one of ordinary skill to the inclusion of guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride.
Claim 20 limitation wherein the cationic polysaccharide and the nonionic polysaccharide are present in equal amounts is met by He et al. page 6,ln.22-page 7,ln.9 guide one of ordinary skill to use stabilizing products at a level of 0-15% which amount overlaps the claimed range. See also pg.8,ln4-5 teaching one of ordinary skill that liquid forms comprise 0.1% to 20% by weight of fabric softening agents. And Chen et al. page 55,ln.30 guide one of ordinary skill that in laundry compositions it is commonly known to use a miniscule amount of cationic polymer ie from 0.001 to 0.5 wt % and most preferably from 0.1 to 0.25 wt %, by weight of the total composition.
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 equivalent amounts of cationic polysaccharide to nonionic polysaccharide as required by claim 20 because He et al. teach 0.1-20% TEP with cellulose and guar gums in conditioning a fabric in general and Chen et al. teach the claimed nonionic and cationic polysaccharides are commonly known delivery aids in fabric conditioning and specifically teach at least one of hydroxylpropyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylethyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylpropyl guar, hydroxylethyl ethyl cellulose or methyl cellulose with a cationic guar gum derivative, such as guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride is a commonly known combination delivery aid in fabric conditioning guide one of ordinary skill that in laundry compositions it is commonly known to use a miniscule amount of cationic polymer ie from 0.001 to 0.5 wt % and most preferably from 0.1 to 0.25 wt %, by weight of the total composition. One of ordinary skill reading the teachings of He et al. in combination with Chen et al. will reasonably arrive at the 1:1 ratio of claim 20 as the prior art teach the same ingredients within similar ranges and even in miniscule amounts are sufficient to provide improved deposition and softening.
Independent claim 12 is met as discussed above for independent claim 1 and the further limitation to wherein the weight ratio of the cationic polysaccharide to the non-ionic polysaccharide in the composition is from 1:10 to 10:1 is met by He et al. page 6,ln.22-page 7,ln.9 guide one of ordinary skill to use stabilizing products at a level of 0-15% which amount overlaps the claimed range. See also pg.8,ln4-5 teaching one of ordinary skill that liquid forms comprise 0.1% to 20% by weight of fabric softening agents. Examiner notes that The Formulator's Guide to Natural Gums - Formula Botanica establishes the state of the art that the cellulose and guar gums disclosed by He et al. encompass both the categories of cationic and non-ionic polysaccharides in general. And Chen et al. page 55,ln.30 guide one of ordinary skill that in laundry compositions it is commonly known to use a miniscule amount of cationic polymer ie from 0.001 to 0.5 wt % and most preferably from 0.1 to 0.25 wt %, by weight of the total composition.
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 1:10 and 10:1 ratio of cationic polysaccharide to nonionic polysaccharide as required by claim 12 because He et al. teach 0.1-20% TEP with cellulose and guar gums in conditioning a fabric in general and Chen et al. teach the claimed nonionic and cationic polysaccharides are commonly known delivery aids in fabric conditioning and specifically teach at least one of hydroxylpropyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylethyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylpropyl guar, hydroxylethyl ethyl cellulose or methyl cellulose with a cationic guar gum derivative, such as guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride is a commonly known combination delivery aid in fabric conditioning guide one of ordinary skill that in laundry compositions it is commonly known to use a miniscule amount of cationic polymer ie from 0.001 to 0.5 wt % and most preferably from 0.1 to 0.25 wt %, by weight of the total composition. One of ordinary skill reading the teachings of He et al. in combination with Chen et al. will reasonably arrive at the broadly claimed ratio as the prior art teach the same ingredients in miniscule amounts are sufficient to provide improved deposition and softening.
The inorganic salt of claim 5 is taught He et al. page 7,ln.3-5 teaching inorganic salts, such as calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium sulphate, sodium 5 chloride, etc.; products which can be used to reduce viscosity in concentrated compositions, such as compounds of the glycol type, such as, ethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, polyglycols, etc..
Claim 7 is are met by He et al. teaching guar gum which Examiner notes that The Formulator's Guide to Natural Gums - Formula Botanica establishes the state of the art that the guar gums disclosed by He et al. encompass both the categories of cationic and non-ionic polysaccharides in general. Furthermore Chen et al. abstract and page 55,ln.15-20 teach cationic guar gum derivative guiding one of ordinary skill to the inclusion of guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride.
Claim 10 limitation wherein the nonionic polysaccharide comprises a hydroxyethyl cellulose is met by Chen et al. example 10 on page 64 teach the claimed hydroxy ethyl cellulose gives good deposition on cotton. See page 64,ln.15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify He et al. with the claimed hydroxyethyl cellulose, because hydroxy ethyl cellulose is a commonly known gum in general and Chen et al. example 10 illustrates HEC gives good deposition on cotton. See page 64,ln.15.
Independent claim 19 is met by He et al. teaching a fabric softener comprising the claim 19 quaternary ammonium compound (a) TEP (see page 6,ln.10 teaching Di(palmiticcarboxyethyl)hydroxyethyl methyl ammonium methylsulfate in an amount of 1-20% (see page 8,ln.4). With respect to independent claim 19, this disclosure of He et al. overlaps the claim 19 (a) amount of 3-8 wt. % of a quaternary ammonium compound, wherein the quaternary ammonium compound comprises di(palmiticcarboxyethyl)hydroxyethyl methyl ammonium methylsulfate ("TEP").
With respect to claim 19 (b) 0.2-2 wt. % of a cationic polysaccharide, and claim 19 (c) 0.2-2 wt. % of a nonionic polysaccharide, He et al. suggest polymers derived from cellulose and guar gum and suggest that stabilizing products are typically used at a level of 0-15% which amount overlaps the claimed ranges. See page 6,ln.22-page 7,ln.9. Examiner notes that The Formulator's Guide to Natural Gums - Formula Botanica establishes the state of the art that the cellulose and guar gums disclosed by He et al. encompass both the categories of cationic and non-ionic polysaccharides in general.
However, He et al. do not specifically teach the claim 19 (b) limitation wherein the cationic polysaccharide is selected from the group consisting of cationic guar, quaternized cellulose, quaternized galactomannose, and quaternized starch.
Also, He et al. does not specifically teach the claim 19 (c) limitation wherein the nonionic polysaccharide is selected from the group consisting of nonionic guar, hydroxyethylcellulose, and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose.
In the analogous art of fabric conditioning, Chen et al. (WO2013/026657A1) teach that the claimed nonionic and cationic polysaccharides are commonly known delivery aids in fabric conditioning for better deposition to the fabric. Chen et al. page 18, last paragraph guide one of ordinary skill that it is important that the non-ionic polysaccharide delivery aid not be removed by water as it cannot then function effectively as a delivery aid. See abstract and page 33,ln.25-page 34,ln.1 teaching a laundry treatment composition comprising non-ionic polysaccharides selected from the group consisting of: hydroxy-propyl methyl cellulose, hydroxy-ethyl methyl cellulose, hydroxy-propyl guar, hydroxy-ethyl ethyl cellulose or methyl cellulose.
Specifically, Chen et al. page 55,ln.15-20 and ln.30 teach at least one of hydroxylpropyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylethyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylpropyl guar, hydroxylethyl ethyl cellulose or methyl cellulose with a cationic guar gum derivative, such as guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride. Chen et al. further teach on page 55,ln.30 that the amount of polymer (cationic guar) used in the laundry compositions is suitably from 0.001 to 0.5 wt % and most preferably from 0.1 to 0.25 wt %, by weight of the total composition.
Therefore, 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 method for conditioning a fabric comprising with the cationic and nonionic polysaccharides as required by claim 1 because He et al. teach the claimed TEP with cellulose and guar gums in general and Chen et al. teach the claimed nonionic and cationic polysaccharides are commonly known delivery aids in fabric conditioning and specifically teach at least one of hydroxylpropyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylethyl methyl cellulose, hydroxylpropyl guar, hydroxylethyl ethyl cellulose or methyl cellulose with a cationic guar gum derivative, such as guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride is a commonly known combination delivery aid in fabric conditioning. One of ordinary skill reading He et al. is motivated to combine with Chen et al. since both are in the analogous art of fabric conditioning with the same ingredients in similar amounts.
The inorganic salt of claim 6 is taught by He et al. page 7,ln.3-5 teaching inorganic salts, such as calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium sulphate, sodium 5 chloride, etc.; products which can be used to reduce viscosity in concentrated compositions, such as compounds of the glycol type, such as, ethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, polyglycols, etc.
Claim 8 is met by He et al. teaching guar gum which Examiner notes that The Formulator's Guide to Natural Gums - Formula Botanica establishes the state of the art that the guar gums disclosed by He et al. encompass both the categories of cationic and non-ionic polysaccharides in general. Furthermore Chen et al. abstract and page 55,ln.15-20 teach cationic guar gum derivative guiding one of ordinary skill to the inclusion of guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride.
With respect to the limitation wherein the nonionic polysaccharide comprises a hydroxyethyl cellulose as required by claim 21, Chen et al. example 10 on page 64 teach the claimed hydroxy ethyl cellulose gives good deposition on cotton. See page 64,ln.15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify He et al. with the claimed hydroxyethyl cellulose, because hydroxy ethyl cellulose is a commonly known gum in general and Chen et al. example 10 illustrates HEC gives good deposition on cotton. See page 64,ln.15.
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
Prosecution Insights