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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ response received January 14, 2026. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims contain the term “varnish”, which is never further defined in either the claims or the specification. The examiner refers to the requirement for the specification outlined above, which requires full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention. The complete lack of explanation for what is meant by the term “varnish” does not come close to satisfying this requirement. The addition of claims 12 and 14 does nothing to remedy the situation. A “deposition composition” tells the reader nothing about the composition itself.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds that a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, the term "varnish" is a term of art in printing to mean a functional layer of the print vehicle. The print vehicle is the total system being printed onto the substrate. Here, the varnish is being used as a protective and functional overprint. It both protects the encapsulated fragrance and functions as the carrier for the softening agent. First, the examiner notes that no softening agent is present in claim 1 and it is an optional component in the claims. That aside, it is not the examiner’s position that the varnish does not serve some purpose. Doubtless, it does. But how is one to make and use the invention when the varnish, an essential component, is not defined? How is one to know whether they are infringing or not, if the application were to find its way to patentability? Applicants refer to a patent incorporated by reference, but correctly indicate that the term varnish does not appear in this patent. How can one draw a direct line from the emulsion used in the patent to the varnish used in the application? Finally, applicants argue they may be their own lexicographer, and the examiner agrees, of course. Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and can rebut the presumption that claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a different definition in the specification at the relevant time (emphasis added by examiner). There is no “different definition” in the specification. There is nothing other than the word varnish.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Maldonado et al, US 7,015,156.
Maldonado et al teach an abrasive cleaning wipe with urea formaldehyde perfume microcapsules (claim 3) adhesively bonded to the fibers, wherein a slurry is formed comprising the microcapsules, phenolic resin, pigment, and surfactant and is applied as a roll coating with rollers covered with the slurry (claim 10). The microcapsules themselves are formed with small amounts of water in oil (col. 7, table 3) and so the examiner maintains at least some water-in-oil emulsion will be formed, satisfying claim 11. The examiner maintains the slurry satisfies the varnish layer as this component is undefined. As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to how the varnish is applied, this is a product by process limitation.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the flexographic printing results in a distinct structure and so is material to patentability. The examiner maintains that no statement can be made about a distinct structure when the varnish, the very ingredient providing this structure, is undefined. Applicants maintain the varnish is defined for the reasons set forth above, and the examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth above. It is not the examiner’s position that flexographic printing absolutely does not result in a technically distinct article and method of manufacture, but that the case cannot be made as long as the varnish is undefined.
Claims 1, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by McGee et al, US 6,689,740.
McGee et al teach a dryer sheet comprising a fabric softener base and a protected fragrance matrix comprising perfume oil, polyethylene glycol, clay and zeolite, wherein the softener base and fragrance matrix are heated and mixed immediately prior to applying the mixture to a fabric softener sheet (col. 5, examples 1 and 2). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory. The examiner maintains the matrix satisfies the varnish layer as this component is undefined.
With respect to how the varnish is applied, this is a product by process limitation.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the flexographic printing results in a distinct structure and so is material to patentability. The examiner maintains that no statement can be made about a distinct structure when the varnish, the very ingredient providing this structure, is undefined. Applicants maintain the varnish is defined for the reasons set forth above, and the examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth above. It is not the examiner’s position that flexographic printing absolutely does not result in a technically distinct article and method of manufacture, but that the case cannot be made as long as the varnish is undefined.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by King et al, US 2007/0275870.
King et al teach a non-woven dryer sheet comprising a coat mix comprising a fabric softener and an aminoplast perfume microcapsule (claims 1 and 17). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory. The examiner maintains the coat mix satisfies the varnish layer as this component is undefined.
With respect to how the varnish is applied, this is a product by process limitation.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the flexographic printing results in a distinct structure and so is material to patentability. The examiner maintains that no statement can be made about a distinct structure when the varnish, the very ingredient providing this structure, is undefined. Applicants maintain the varnish is defined for the reasons set forth above, and the examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth above. It is not the examiner’s position that flexographic printing absolutely does not result in a technically distinct article and method of manufacture, but that the case cannot be made as long as the varnish is undefined.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al, US 2015/0126430 in view of Mullane et al, US 2014/0054827.
Ramirez et al teach a dryer sheet with quat fabric softeners and perfume carriers (¶28), wherein the dryer sheet is an absorbent flexible sheet in perforated roll form and the quat solution is absorbed, then a PVA sheet (satisfies the protective overprint layer) is adhered to the impregnated sheet (¶42 and figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a protected perfume to the quat solution in ¶42 with confidence of forming an effective dryer sheet as perfumes and perfume carriers are taught by the reference and are ubiquitous in dryer sheets. The examiner maintains the quat solution satisfies the varnish layer as this component is undefined. The reference does not teach applying the varnish via flexographic printing.
Mullane et al teach a substrate that may be used as a fabric conditioner with a topical additive, such as a dryer sheet (¶74 and 117). The substrate may contain perfumes (claim 12) and be contained in a lotion that is applied to the substrate via flexographic printing (¶70). Mullane et al are relied upon to demonstrate that flexographic printing is an art-recognized method for applying a conditioner to fabrics, and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use this method to apply the composition to the dryer sheet of Ramirez et al.
Applicants’ traversal is based on the fact that flexographic printing is a superior method for applying a varnish to a fabric as demonstrated in their examples, and so even though Mullane teaches flexographic printing as an art-recognized method for applying a composition to a fabric, their article of manufacture is superior and so the reference should not be applied. The examiner maintains flexographic printing is known, and therefore an obvious method to use, but even if that were not the case, no statement can be made about a superior method of applying a composition or component to a substrate when that component is undefined.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panandiker et al, US 2019/0367850 in view of Mullane et al, US 2014/0054827.
Panandiker teach a dryer sheet with perfume microcapsules in a polymer matrix (¶144) wherein the perfume microcapsules may be melamine formaldehyde or urea formaldehyde (¶147). These compositions may be in the form of emulsions (¶81). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add matrix-laden perfume particles to example 1.2 with confidence of forming an effective dryer sheet as perfumes and perfume carriers are taught by the reference and are ubiquitous in dryer sheets. The examiner maintains the polymer matrix satisfies the varnish layer as this component is undefined. The reference does not teach applying the varnish via flexographic printing.
Mullane et al teach a substrate that may be used as a fabric conditioner with a topical additive, such as a dryer sheet (¶74 and 117). The substrate may contain perfumes (claim 12) and be contained in a lotion that is applied to the substrate via flexographic printing (¶70). Mullane et al are relied upon to demonstrate that flexographic printing is an art-recognized method for applying a conditioner to fabrics, and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use this method to apply the composition to the dryer sheet of Panandiker et al.
Applicants’ traversal is based on the fact that flexographic printing is a superior method for applying a varnish to a fabric as demonstrated in their examples, and so even though Mullane teaches flexographic printing as an art-recognized method for applying a composition to a fabric, their article of manufacture is superior and so the reference should not be applied. The examiner maintains flexographic printing is known, and therefore an obvious method to use, but even if that were not the case, no statement can be made about a superior method of applying a composition or component to a substrate when that component is undefined.
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 CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights