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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 13, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim 15 is withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-5 and 9-10 are currently amended.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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 1-14 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.
In claim 1, lines 16-17 (last two lines), the phrase “wherein the organosilicone is present in an amount of from 0 wt% . . . based on a total weight of the fabric care composition” is ambiguous because it is not clear if the organosilicone is present or not. For prior art purposes, the organosilicone will be taken to be present in the composition.
In claim 2, the limitations in group (20) is a duplicate of the limitations in group (19). In addition, the term “(inclusive)” (see last line) is indefinite because it is not clear if the term inside the parentheses is part of the claim limitation or not.
In claim 14, line 2, “the cationic polymer” lacks support with respect to claim 1 to which this claim is dependent upon. Please note that the cationic polymer is recited in claim 9.
In addition, claims 2-14, being dependent on claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, considering the definition of the term “about” recited in the last two lines of the claim, i.e., wherein the term ‘about’ in conjunction with a numeral refers to a value that is ± 15% (inclusive) of that numeral:
a) the term “about” before “0.0625” which refers to the minimum amount of lactic acid in each of groups (1), (3), (14), (17) does not further limit the minimum amount of “0.0625 wt%” lactic acid in claim 1, lines 11-13;
b) the term “about” before “1” which refers to the maximum amount of lactic acid in each of groups (4), (5), (6), (10), (11) does not further limit the maximum amount of “1 wt%” lactic acid in claim 1, lines 11-13;
c) the value “0” which refers to the minimum amount of lactic acid in each of groups (8) and (9) does not further limit the minimum amount of “0.0625 wt%” lactic acid in claim 1, lines 11-13;
d) the term “about” before “0.1” which refers to the minimum amount of HEDP in each of groups (2), (6), (12), (19), (20) does not further limit the minimum amount of “0.1 wt%” HEDP in claim 1, lines 8-10;
e) the term “about” before “0.2” which refers to the maximum amount of HEDP in each of groups (3), (7)-(11), (13), (14), (16)-(18), and (21) does not further limit the maximum amount of “0.2 wt%” HEDP in claim 1, lines 8-10;
f) the value “0” which refers to the minimum amount of HEDP in each of groups (4) and (5) does not further limit the minimum amount of “0.1 wt%” HEDP in claim 1, lines 8-10;
g) the term “about” before “2.7” which refers to the minimum amount of cationic softener in each of groups (6), (8), (11)-(13), (19), (20) does not further limit the minimum amount of “2.7 wt%” cationic softener in claim 1, lines 14-15;
h) the term “about” before “7.9” which refers to the maximum amount of cationic softener in each of groups (4), (7), (10), (17) and (18) does not further limit the maximum amount of “7.9 wt%” cationic softener in claim 1, lines 14-15;
i) the value “0” which refers to the minimum amount of organosilicone in each of groups (1), (3), (4), (9), (11), (12), (14)-(20) does not further limit the “organosilicone is present” in claim 1, lines 16-17; and
j) the term “about” before “0.47” which refers to the maximum amount of organosilicone in each of groups (5)-(8) does not further limit the maximum amount of “0.47 wt%” organosilicone in claim 1, lines 16-17.
In claim 3, the limitation “1-hydroxyethane-1,1-diphosphonic acid” is already recited in claim 1, lines 8-9, i.e., its other name, “1-hydroxyethylidine-1,1-diphosphonic acid,” hence, a duplicate.
In claim 4, the limitation “1-hydroxyethylidine-1,1-diphosphonic acid” is already recited in claim 1, lines 8-9, and therefore, a duplicate.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 6-12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Truong et al. (US Patent No. 9,683,199, already of record), hereinafter “Truong.”
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-12, Truong teaches fabric softening compositions which include:
0.01 wt% to 35 wt% of a fabric softener, and the softener is an esterquat of formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
392
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(wherein the formula reads on claims 7-8); at least 0.0001 wt% of lactic acid; 0.001 wt % to 0.5 wt % of a chelating compound; and 0.05 wt % to 0.8 wt % of a defoamer, wherein the defoamer is a silicone compound, among others (see col. 1, line 52 to col. 2, line 25 and claim 9). The chelating compounds, which are present from 0.001% to 0.5%, by weight of the fabric softening composition, are selected from among amino carboxylic acid compounds and organo aminophosphonic acid compounds, and mixtures of same; and suitable organo aminophosphonic acid compounds include: ethylenediamine tetrakis (methylenephosphonic acid); 1-hydroxyethane 1,1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP); and aminotri (methylenephosphonic acid), also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine; which is available as Dequest™ 2000 (see col. 6, lines 1-24). In Example 2, Truong teaches a fabric conditioning formulation which comprises 0.06 wt% lactic acid (i.e., organic acid which reads on the preservative of claim 1), 0.1 wt% Dequest 2000 amino tri methylene phosphonic acid (also known as N,N,N-triphosphonomethyl)amine; also reads on the preservative of claim 3), 7.4 wt% L191S Esterquat (i.e., cationic softener, which reads on claims 1 and 6), 0.15 wt% FLOSOFT ™ DP200 Polymer, 1 wt% fragrance, 0.5 wt% Silicone 1430 (a defoamer, see col. 6, lines 29-31; which reads on the silicone of claims 1 and 11-12), 1 wt% soil guarding composition, and deionised water to 100 wt% (see Table 1, col. 7, lines 5-18), wherein the L191S Esterquat comprises 75% soft tallow/25% hard tallow (see col. 6, lines 50-51) and wherein the FLOSOFT™ DP200, is a water soluble cross-linked cationic polymer derived from the polymerization of from 5 to 100 mole percent of cationic vinyl addition monomer, from 0 to 95 mole percent of acrylamide, and from 70 to 300 ppm of a difunctional vinyl addition monomer cross-linking agent (see col. 5, lines 36-45), which reads on polyquat and Polyquaternium-7 of claims 9-10. Truong, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of 1-hydroxyethane 1,1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP), say in Example 2, as recited in claims 1-2 and 4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated HEDP in its optimum proportion, say in Example 1 which already comprises Dequest 2000, i.e., amino tri methylene phosphonic acid (also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine), because Truong specifically desires a mixture of chelating compounds, and HEDP and Dequest 2000 are some of the suitable chelating compounds as disclosed in col. 6, lines 1-24.
With respect to the amount of the HEDP, considering that Truong teaches a chelating agent, which includes HEDP, at a level from 0.001 wt % to 0.5 wt % by weight of the fabric softening composition, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Truong teaches that the above formulation was prepared by standard lab making procedure using an overhead stirrer at moderate mixing (see col. 6, lines 61-67).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong as applied to claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2008/0132437), hereinafter “Zhang.”
Regarding claim 5, Truong teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Truong teaches that the composition can contain any material that can be added to fabric softeners, and one example is buffers (see col. 5, lines 31-35). Truong, however, fails to disclose citric acid as recited in claim 5.
Zhang, an analogous art in fabric softening (see abstract), teaches pH buffers such as citric acid to adjust and/or control the pH of the composition (see paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pH buffer such as citric acid into the fabric softening composition of Truong because Truong specifically desires a buffer and the incorporation of the citric acid pH buffer will adjust and/or control the pH of the composition as taught by Zhang.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong as applied to claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14 above, and further in view of Westall (US Patent No. 4,448,810, already of record).
Regarding claim 13, Truong teaches the features as discussed above. Truong, however, fails to disclose the silicone comprising mercaptoalkyl functional group as recited in claim 13.
Westall, an analogous art, teaches silicone compounds like polydiorganosiloxane with mercaptofunctional groups (see col. 3, line 60 to col. 4, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the silicone of Truong with polydiorganosiloxane with mercaptofunctional groups of Westall because the substitution of one silicone compound for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Bucio et al. (US Patent No. 11,629,314, already of record), hereinafter “Bucio” in view of Truong.
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 1-12, Bucio teaches a fabric care composition comprising an aminofunctional polysiloxane; a fabric softening active ingredient; a cationic co-softener; a thickening agent; a non-ionic surfactant (see claim 1), and further comprising a pH modifying agent (see claim 11), wherein the pH modifying agent comprises citric acid, lactic acid, or a combination thereof (see claim 13), and wherein the pH modifying agent is present in an amount from about 0.01% to about 0.1%, by weight of the fabric care composition (see col. 4, lines 1-4). Bucio also teaches that in some embodiments, the fabric care composition further comprises from about 0.01 to about 0.5 wt % of a chelating agent, based upon the total weight of the composition; in some embodiments, the chelating agent comprises phosphonic acid; and in some embodiments, the chelating agent may be amino tris methylene phosphonic acid, also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine (which reads on the phosphonic acid preservative; see col. 4, line 64 to col. 5, line 4). In Example 1, Bucio teaches a fabric care composition which comprises 94.5566 wt% water, 0.0625 wt% lactic acid (which reads on the organic acid preservative in claim 1), 3.2787 wt% esterquat (which reads on claims 6 and 8, and should have a formula as those recited in claim 7), 0.33 wt% Polyquaternium-7 (which reads on claims 9-10), 0.08 wt% silicone antifoam 1086 (which reads on the silicone of claims 1 and 11-12) and 0.25 wt% aminofunctional polysiloxane (which also reads on claim 11) (see paragraph [0049] and Table 1, page 4). Bucio, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of HEDP, say in Example 1, in an amount from 0.1 wt% to 0.2 wt% as recited in claims 1-2 and 4; and the incorporation of amino tris methylene phosphonic acid, also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine, say in Example 1, as recited claim 3.
Truong, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Truong teaches mixtures of chelating compounds or chelating agents like HEDP and aminotri (methylenephosphonic acid), also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine; which is available as Dequest™ 2000 (see col. 6, lines 1-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated HEDP and aminotri (methylenephosphonic acid), also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine in their optimum proportion, say into Example 1, because Bucio specifically desires the incorporation of a phosphonic acid in the fabric care composition, and a mixture of HEDP and N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine are the suitable chelating compounds or chelating agents as taught by Truong.
With respect to the amount of the HEDP and N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine, considering that Bucio teaches from about 0.01 to about 0.5 wt % of a chelating agent, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Bucio, in Comparative Example 2, also teaches a fabric care composition which comprises 0-0.5 (e.g., 0.15 wt%) mercaptoalkylsiloxane alkylaminomethacrylate copolymer (see paragraph [0049] and Table 1, page 4).
Regarding claim 14, Bucio teaches that the composition described above may be prepared using conventional means known to those skilled in the art (see col. 7, lines 16-18), which includes mixing all the ingredients.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-6 and 9-12 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,629,314 in view of Truong.
US ‘314 teaches a fabric care compositions comprising about 0.0625 wt% lactic acid, about 3-4 wt% esterquat (cationic softener), polyquaternium-7 (cationic polymer) and about 0.25-0.4 wt% aminofunctional polysiloxane or aminofunctional polydimethylsiloxane (see claim 16), differing only in that US ‘314 fails to disclose HEDP in its respective amount as recited in claims 1-2 and 4; and further comprising N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl) amine as recited in claim 3.
Truong, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, Truong teaches a similar fabric softening composition which comprises mixtures of chelating compounds or chelating agents like HEDP and aminotri (methylenephosphonic acid), also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine; which is available as Dequest™ 2000, at a level of from 0.001 wt % to 0.5 wt % of the fabric softening composition (see col. 6, lines 1-24). The fabric softening composition prevents soil deposit on a fabric or enhances soil release from a fabric (see col. 2, lines 26-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated HEDP and aminotri (methylenephosphonic acid), also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine in their optimum proportions into the fabric care composition of US ‘314 because this would prevent soil deposit on a fabric or enhance soil release from a fabric as taught by Truong.
With respect to the amount of the HEDP, considering that Truong teaches a chelating agent, which includes HEDP, at a level from 0.001 wt % to 0.5 wt % by weight of the fabric softening composition, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection based upon Truong, Applicant argues that Truong fails to teach or fairly suggest claim 1 as a whole, for example, Truong Example 2 does not include 1-hydroxyethylidine-1,1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) at all.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because, as discussed in paragraph 10 above, Truong teaches that the fabric conditioner may further include a chelating agent at a level from 0.001% to 0.5% of a chelating compound, by weight of the fabric softening composition, and the chelating compounds are selected from among amino carboxylic acid compounds and organo aminophosphonic acid compounds, and mixtures of same; and suitable organo aminophosphonic acid compounds include: ethylenediamine tetrakis (methylenephosphonic acid); 1-hydroxyethane 1,1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP); and aminotri (methylenephosphonic acid), also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine; which is available as Dequest™ 2000 (see col. 6, lines 1-24). Hence, as stated above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated HEDP in its optimum proportion, say in Example 1 which already comprises Dequest 2000, i.e., amino tri methylene phosphonic acid (also known as N,N,N-tri(phosphonomethyl)amine), because Truong specifically desires a mixture of chelating compounds, and HEDP and Dequest 2000 are some of the suitable chelating compounds as disclosed in col. 6, lines 1-24.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 13 over Truong in view of Westall, Applicant argues that Westall cannot remedy the deficiencies in Truong since Westall is completely silent on the one or more preservatives, the one or more organic acids, the cationic softener and the organosilicone as recited in amended claim 1.
The response in Truong above, apply here as well. Hence, the obviousness rejection over Truong and Westall is proper and is maintained.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Bucio in view of Truong, Applicant argues that Bucio fails to teach or fairly suggest claim 1 as a whole, for example, none of the four (4) exemplary fabric care compositions (Ex. 1 to Ex. 4) and two (2) comparative fabric care compositions (Comp. Ex. 1 and Comp. Ex. 2) in Bucio includes HEDP.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because of the same reasons as discussed in paragraph 13 above.
Applicant also argues unexpected results in Tables 1 and 2, wherein among the 71 fabric care compositions, only 22 of them are satisfactory and have pH ≥ 2 and microbiological robustness (Log ≥ 3), including samples #43, #7, #44, #8, #11, #13, #3, #6, #5, #12, #2, #18, #24, #34, #35, #36, #67, #69, #16, #17, #55, and #54, now renumbered as (1)-(22) in claim 2. Applicant then argues that these 22 fabric care compositions exhibit unexpected results and are patentable over Truong, Bucio and Westall.
The showing in Tables 1 and 2 of the specification have been carefully considered, however, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present claim 1. Please note that the present claim 1 requires from 0.0625-1 wt% lactic acid, from 0.1-0.2 wt% HEDP, from 2.7-7.9 wt% cationic softener, and (greater than 0-0.47 wt% organosilicone, however, in one instance, Samples 6 and 5 in Table 1, designated as (8) and (9), respectively, in claim 2, which showed a log of 4.3 and a pH of greater than 2, has 0 wt% lactic acid, and also 0 wt% PDMS PDMS (functionalized polydimethylsiloxane) in Sample 5, hence, not commensurate in scope with the present claim 1. Also, Samples 8 and 11, designated as (4) and (5) respectively in claim 2, which showed a log of 4.3 and 4.2, respectively, and a pH of greater than 2, have 0 wt% HEDP, hence, not commensurate in scope with the present claim 1. Also designated (1), (3), (4), (9), (11)-(12), (12)-(20) in claim 2, all have 0 wt% PDMS which are outside the scope of claim 1.
It is also noted that Sample 43, designated as (1) in claim 2, which has 0 wt% PDMS showed a log of 4.9 and a pH greater than 2, however, Sample 47 in Table 2, which has the same components as Sample 43 has a log of 0 and a pH greater than 2, although Sample 47 has a higher speed separation. Also, Sample 25 is the same as Sample 23 and Sample 26 is the same as Sample 24 in terms of the components and their respective proportions, however, Samples 25-26 have log of 0, whereas Samples 23-24 have log of 3 and 3.9 respectively. Hence, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present claim 1.
With respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-12 over claim 16 of US Patent No. 11,629,314 in view of Truong, Applicant requests reconsideration of the rejection in view of the amendments and foregoing remarks.
The above nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained for the reasons as discussed above, and is maintained until such time Applicant submits a timely filed terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.--
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761