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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-10, 14 and 18-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claims 11-13 and 15-17 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 14 are amended and claim 21 is new in the response filed 7/2/2026.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-10, 14 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vinson et al. (US 9,493,725) in view of Joos et al. (US 2020/0407665 A1) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s continue to urge failure to articulate why the highly specific and interrelated percentage ranges for the surfactant isomers of claims 1 and 14 would have been obvious to select from Vinson's broader disclosure, and fails to point to any motivation to arrive at such specific percentage ranges. Contrary to Applicants arguments, Examiner has pointed out by copying the exact location where the specific percentages are disclosed by Vinson et al. and thus because the art discloses the same ranges, one of ordinary skill is motivated to select the same range. Examiner maintains Vinson et al. col.5-6 teach exactly the same formulas 1 and 2 as claimed and copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
380
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See col.6,ln.26 guiding one of ordinary skill to the claim language teaching about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n = 11.
Col.5, ln.20-54 teaches explicitly at least about 25% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n=11, where n is 0. Thus when n=0 is explicitly addressed throughout col.4-6, for example see col.5,ln.20-23 reproduced herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
142
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
shows that n=0 is actually contemplated by Vinson et al. Thus, one of ordinary skill can arrive at the claimed mixture of surfactant isomers by reading Vinson et al. col.5-6 to arrive at the claimed percentages because Vinson teaches the same formulas I and II in the similar mixture of surfactant isomers. Thus, limitation to 60-90% by weight of the first surfactant of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 having n< 3 is taught in Vinson et al. col.4,ln.66-67 teaching from about 55-75% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n =11. It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill reading Vinson et al. understands this teaching (col.4,ln.66-col.5,ln.11) is inclusive of Formula I because, later in col.5,ln.15, is where Vinson et al. distinguishes that only 0.001-20% by weight of first surfactants can be of Formula II.
One of ordinary skill reading Vinson et al. can arrive at the claimed limitation between about 25% to about 50% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 have n = 0; because the same is encompassed by Vinson et al. teaching exactly the same formula I and teaching at least about 25% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n=11, where n is 0, 1, or 2, thus encompassing n=0 of the claim limitations. See col.5-6 explicitly teaching the same formulas I and II and col.5,ln.20-22.
Limitation wherein between about 15% to about 40% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 have n = 1 is met by Vinson et al. teaching exactly the same formula I and teaching at least about 25% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n=11, where n is 0, 1, or 2, thus encompassing n=1 of the claim limitations. See col.5-6 explicitly teaching the same formulas I and II and col.5,ln.20-22.
Limitation to wherein between about 5% to about 20% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 have n= 2 is encompassed by Vinson et al. teaching as much as about 60% (which language encompasses 5-20%) by weight of the first surfactant, may be surfactants m+n=11, where n is 0, 1, or 2, thus encompassing n=2 of the claim limitations. See col.5-6 explicitly teaching the same formulas I and II and col.5,ln.20-22.
Further in response to the motivation to combine Vinson et al. exemplifing a melamine formaldehyde shell; Examiner notes that Vinson et al. col.31, ln.30-39 copied herein:
PNG
media_image3.png
492
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
discloses an encapsulate comprising a perfume core and suggests a polyacrylate shell in general. Vinson et al. is properly combined with Joos et al. teaching a polyacrylate shell wherein the shell wall comprises 70% or more of an aliphatic urethane acrylate polymer required by independent claims 1 and 14. See [0045] copied herein:
PNG
media_image4.png
192
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
along with [0048] teaching examples of acrylates include the claimed
PNG
media_image5.png
42
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and therefore one of ordinary skill is motivated to replace the melamine formaldehyde shell of Vinson et al. with the claimed polyacrylate shell as explicitly taught by Joos et al. embodiment to aliphatic urethane acrylate polymer shell encapsulating perfume core encapsulates which are more robust capsules over the melamine shell encapsulates in liquid laundry detergents. See Joos et al. [0011], [0050-0051], and table 2, [0146] on pg 12.
Thus the combination rejection teach the amendments. Specifically, Vinson et al. suggest polyacrylate shell in general and Joos et al. [0045] and [0048] guide one of ordinary skill to a shell comprising 65%-100% aliphatic urethane acrylate polymer.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to superior and unexpected results and synergy cannot be found persuasive because one of ordinary skill reading Vinson et al. and Joos et al. is guided to the exact same formulas as claimed and to a motivation to replace the melamine formaldehyde shell of Vinson et al. with the claimed polyacrylate shell as explicitly taught by Joos et al. specifically teaching the claimed aliphatic urethane acrylate polymer shell encapsulating perfume core encapsulates avoid the poor interactions and/or performance of capsules having melamine shell encapsulates in liquid laundry detergents. See Joos et al. [0011], [0050-0051], and table 2, [0146] on pg 12. Accordingly, the claim amendments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 14 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vinson et al. (US 9,493,725) in view of Joos et al. (US 2020/0407665 A1).
Vinson et al. (US 9,493,725) illustrate by example in col.41, table 8 composition B, and col.45, table 13 formulation N, and col.47-50 table 14 formulations U-AB and AD aka examples 13, 16 and 17 are to a liquid detergent composition comprising:
a) from 1% to 30%, by weight of the composition of a first surfactant consisting essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I (see col.2,ln.25) and surfactants of Formula II (see col.2,ln29).
Vinson et al. col.5-6 teach exactly the same formulas 1 and 2 as claimed in col.4-6. Reproduced herein: The detergent compositions may comprise from about 0.1% to about 99% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, where the first surfactant consists essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II:
PNG
media_image6.png
239
639
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants having m+n=11; where from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; where at least about 25%, or at least about 30%, or at least about 35%, or at least about 40% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants having m+n=10, m+n=11 where n is 0, 1, or 2, or m is 0, 1, or 2; and where X is a hydrophilic moiety.
The detergent compositions may comprise from about 0.1% to about 99% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, where the first surfactant consists of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II:
PNG
media_image6.png
239
639
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants having m+n=11; where from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; and where X is a hydrophilic moiety.
The detergent compositions may comprise from about 0.1% to about 99% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, where the first surfactant consists essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II:
PNG
media_image6.png
239
639
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where from about 50% to about 100% or about 55% to about 75% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants having m+n=11; where from about 0.5% to about 30% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants having m+n=10; where from about 0.001% to about 20% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; and where X is a hydrophilic moiety.
Specifically. col.6,ln.26 guides one of ordinary skill to the claim language teaching about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n = 11.
Specifically, Col.5, ln.20-54 teaches explicitly at least about 25% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n=11, where n is 0. Thus when n=0 is explicitly addressed throughout col.4-6, for example see col.5,ln.20-23.
Limitation to wherein from 90% to 100% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers having m+n = 11 is taught col.6,ln.25 also encompassing limitation to wherein about 60% to about 90% by weight of the first surfactant, of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 have n <3 since col.5,In.20-30 teach n is less than 3 and as much as 60-100% are surfactant with isomers of formula 1 having n=0,1 or 2.
Limitation to wherein between 25% to 50% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 have n = 0 is taught col.5, ln.20-col.6,ln.40 which teaching is reproduced:
At least about 25% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n=10, m+n=11, where n is 0, 1, or 2, or m is 0, 1, or 2. At least about 30%, or at least about 35%, or at least about 40%, by weight of the first surfactant, may be surfactants having m+n=10, m+n=11where n is 0, 1, or 2, or m is 0, 1, or 2. As much as about 100%, or as much as about 90%, or as much as about 75%, or as much as about 60%, by weight of the first surfactant, may be surfactants having m+n=10, m+n=11, where n is 0, 1, or 2, or m is 0, 1, or 2.
Limitation to wherein between about 15% to 40% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 have n = 1: wherein between about 5% to about 20% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 have n = 2: is suggested by the art disclosing in col.5,ln.2-5, From about 0% to about 5%, or about 0.01% to about 5%, or about 0.5% to about 3% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n≦9. From about 0.5% to about 30% or about 1% to about 28% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n=10. Examiner notes that the claim language to where n is 0, 1, or 2, or m is 0, 1, or 2 is not stated in this paragraph, but can be found in col.5,ln.20-30. And one of ordinary skill reading Vinson in its entirety can reasonably assume that the n values are 0, 1 or 2 or m is 0, 1 or 2 because that is the teaching in col.5.
Limitation to wherein from 0.001% to 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula 2; and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety (2-alkyl branched alkyl sulfate (see col.6,ln.36 and examples 2-3, col.12-13 encompassing claims 6-7 and 18.
Regarding the amendment to X, see col.6,ln.39-58 teaching the same X as recited by the amended claim and reproduced herein.
PNG
media_image7.png
418
478
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Limitation b) from 0.1% to 5% by weight of the composition of an encapsulate comprising a shell and a core is taught by the examples 16 and 17 where the perfume core is encapsulated in melamine-formaldehyde shell; Col.31,ln.31 teaches the core comprises the perfume. And col.31,ln.39 teaches the shell comprises the polyacrylates as required in claims 1 and 14.
Limitation of claim 1 c) a detergent adjunct (see the remaining compounds including the claim 6 additional LAS surfactant). Also see the prior art claim 6 for the detergent adjuncts.
The liquid detergent formulations of Vinson et al. are exemplified with a melamine formaldehyde shell and do not exemplify the polyacrylate shell wherein the shell wall comprises 70% or more of an aliphatic urethane acrylate polymer required by independent claims 1 and 14. Examiner notes that col.31, ln.30-39 Vinson et al. guides one of ordinary skill to an encapsulate comprising a perfume core and suggests a polyacrylate shell in general.
In the analogous art of liquid detergent comprising encapsulates, Joos et al. (US 2020/0407665 A1) teach encapsulates with a perfume core and polyacrylate shell are known in the liquid laundry detergent art and specifically guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed polyacrylate shell encapsulating perfume core encapsulates as they are more robust capsules over melamine shell encapsulates in liquid laundry detergents. See [0011], [0050-0051], and table 2, [0146] on page 12. Joos et al. [0045] teach from about 65 % to about 100 %, by weight of the shell material, of a polyacrylate polymer and specifically teach an embodiment including the aliphatic urethane acrylate in [0048] on page 4, right col. first line.
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 liquid detergent formulations of Vinson et al. with the claimed encapsulate where the core comprises a perfume and the shell comprises 70% or more of an aliphatic urethane acrylate polymer required by claim 1 and independent claim 14 because Vinson et al. suggest liquid detergent formulations with encapsulates where the core comprises a perfume and the shell comprises polyacrylates and Joos et al. teach encapsulates with a perfume core and polyacrylate shell are more robust capsules over melamine shell encapsulates in liquid laundry detergents and specifically guide one of ordinary skill to 65 % to about 100 % [see 0045] by weight of the shell material, of a polyacrylate polymer embodiment including the aliphatic urethane acrylate in [0048]. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Vinson with that of Joos since both are in the analogous art of liquid laundry detergents with encapsulated perfume cores.
Vinson et al. encompass the claimed dry fabric odor score of claims 2-3, 9-10 and 19, since it uses the same perfume raw materials in an encapsulate (see col.31,ln.50-56) which is analogous to the perfume raw materials of the instant specification US20230174896A1 [0036]. The amendment to the claims fabric head space method claims does not provide a contribution over the composition of Vinson teaching the same detergent with the same formulas. Vinson et al. teach col.3,ln.30-39 teaches perfume core and suggests a polyacrylate shell encapsulate.
Regarding the claims 4, 5, 14 ratio by weight of the first surfactant to the perfume encapsulate, Vinson et al. teach in Example 17 col.47, formulation U, 5 wt % of the Example 11 sulfated surfactant with 0.5 wt% of encapsulated perfume (See example 17, formulation U col.49) meeting the claimed ratios.
Regarding new claim 21, Vinson guide one of ordinary skill to 65 % to about 100 % [see 0045] by weight of the shell material, being polyacrylate polymer embodiment encompassing the aliphatic urethane acrylate [see 0048]. Thus, 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 liquid detergent formulations of Vinson et al. with the claimed encapsulate where the core comprises a perfume and the shell comprises 90% or more of an aliphatic urethane acrylate polymer required by claim 21 because Vinson et al. suggest liquid detergent formulations with encapsulates where the core comprises a perfume and the shell comprises polyacrylates and Joos et al. teach encapsulates with a perfume core and polyacrylate shell are more robust capsules over melamine shell encapsulates in liquid laundry detergents and specifically guide one of ordinary skill to 65 % to about 100 % [see 0045] by weight of the shell material, of a polyacrylate polymer embodiment including the aliphatic urethane acrylate in [0048].
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.
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
