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 .
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claim 1 is independent. Claims 10-11 are cancelled.
Final Rejection
The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Crossman et al. (WO2018/145897 A1) in view of Schymitzek et al. (US 2018/0094213 A1) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The combination rejection is maintained below with Crossman et al. (WO2018/145897 A1) being primary because Crossman et al. is specific to a rinse added ancillary laundry composition as in the preamble of claim 1 and as is required by method claims 6-9. Crossmann et al. is properly combined with Schymitzek et al. teaching each of the claim 1 ingredients namely, cellulase [0106], perfume [0096], and water [0056] along with their teaching one of ordinary skill to preferably a nonionic emulsifier has an HLB of at least about 15. [0072] and specifically teach wash - active solubilizers typically have HLB values in the range of from about 12-18 [0074] in a similar cellulase based laundry care composition. See also page 9 [0106]. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as there is no improper hindsight needed when Schymitzek et al. teaches all the same components in claim 1 and guides one of ordinary skill reading the rinse added ancillary of Crossman et al. to use the same components in said ancillary. Accordingly the combination is proper and the rejection is maintained 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Crossman et al. (WO2018/145897 A1) in view of Schymitzek et al. (US 2018/0094213 A1).
Crossman et al. (WO2018/145897 A1) teach a rinse added ancillary laundry composition (see page 2, ln. 1-6) and page 14,ln. 11 comprising:
The claim 1a) cellulase (see page 4, lines 22);
The claim 1b) 0.5— to 12 wt.% non-ionic surfactant and limitation to wherein the composition comprises less than 2 wt% anionic and cationic surfactant is met by Crossman et al. page 9, ln.26 to page 10, ln.2 guiding one of ordinary skill to very low 0-2 %wt and preferably 0-0.5% wt anionic, cationic and nonionic surfactants.
The claim 1c. 0.5 to 20 wt. % free perfume is met by Crossman et al. teaching blooming and free perfumes on page 8, ln.5-10 in an amount of 0.15-5% and teach perfume in free oil form in line 1.
And the claim 1d) limitation to water is met by Crossman et al. teaching in table 1, page 13, the addition of water and also see claim 1 on page 16.
Page 8 and page 8, line 27 teach the limitations of claim 2 wherein the encapsulated perfume is present in an amount from 0.01-20% by weight.
Crossman et al. do not teach the claim 1b hydrophobic alkyl alcohol ethoxylate formula R1O(R2O)xH having a14-18 HLB value as required by claim 1.
In the analogous laundry fabric care art, Schymitzek et al (US 2018/0094213 A1) teach one of ordinary skill to preferably a nonionic emulsifier has an HLB of at least about 15. [0072] and specifically teach wash - active solubilizers typically have HLB values in the range of from about 12-18 [0074] in a similar cellulase based laundry care composition. See also page 9 [0106]. Regarding the claim 1b hydrophobic alkyl alcohol ethoxylate formula R1O(R2O)xH, see Schymitzek et al. Table 1 on page 11 exemplifying utility of the same Eumulgin CO40 as also in Applicant’s specification US20220195337 A1 [0074] Eumulgin CO40 which is also known as PEG-40 Hydrogenated castor oil encompassing the general formula of claim 1 with a hydrophobic moiety. Examiner’s position is that neither the claim 1 formula, nor range of HLB 14-18 value provide a contribution over the art because PHOSITA is motivated to modify the hydrogenated castor oil of Crossman et al. page 11, ln29 with the claimed general formula having the claimed HLB values as the same is disclosed by Schymitzek et al. for transparent laundry fabric care.
Crossman et al. and Schymitzek et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laundry compositions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Crossman et al. with the claimed formula and 14-18 HLB value as taught by Schymitzek et al. teaching the same Eumulgin CO40 as claimed commonly have a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) range from 14 to 18 in a similar cellulase based laundry composition and beneficially provide transparent laundry fabric care. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Crossman and Schymitzek et al. because both are in the analogous laundry care art.
Claim 3 limitation to an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant is read upon by Crossman et al. table 1, page 13.
Regarding the structurant of claim 4, see Crossman et al. page 9,ln.5-15 teaching suitable structurants.
The viscosity of claim 5 is taught by Crossman et al. page 4,line 5 teaching preferably 400-15000 Pa.s.
Regarding the method of claims 6-9, Crossman et al. page 3,ln. 7-10 teach liquid ancillary composition is added to a laundry process encompassing ‘rinse’, or at the same time as a detergent or at the same time as a fabric softener. See also page 14,ln. 11 where the prior art composition is added to a wash cycle which one of ordinary skill can understand to encompass the claimed rinse-added.
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
Prosecution Insights