DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SI et al. (US 2016/0130528 A1) in view of Fossum et al. (US 2017/0335237 A1) and Hayward et al. (US 2021/0029999 A1) as evidenced by Barnabas et al. (US 2012/0252716 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5-8, 10 and 16-17, SI teaches a laundry detergent composition (abstract, 1, 9) comprising surfactant system (instant claim 5) in amount of 1-80%; [12, 98], including nonionic, anionic such as linear or branched sulfates and sulfonates (instant claims 6-8) with ethoxylation degree of 0.5-3 or 0.1-5; [102, 99], amphoteric and cationic surfactants (instant claim 10) ; [98, 101]. Further, composition comprises cationic polymer system; [38-54], such as diallyl-dimethyl ammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer; [40, 45], with molecular weight of 1000-1,500,000 (instant claims 16-17); [53]. Note that this cationic copolymer is a very similar to instantly claimed diallyl-dimethyl ammonium chloride and acrylic acid copolymer (namely polyquaternium 22; Pg.Pub.= US 2022/0411720 A1: 0017; Table).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 16-17 and 20, SI does not teach the instantly claimed copolymer of diallyldimethyl-ammonium chloride monomer-acrylic acid monomer. However, the analogous art of Fossum teaches a laundry detergent composition (21, 95, 129) comprising the very similar diallyldimethyl-ammonium chloride-acrylic acid copolymer with molecular weight of 20,000 D to 200,000 D; [77], wherein the molar amount of diallyldimethyl- ammonium chloride (cationic unit) monomer is 20-100%; [85-86], and molar amount of acrylic acid monomer (anionic unit) is in the range of 0.01-15% [88]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, It would have been obvious to use the Fossum’s copolymer as a functional equivalent of diallyl-dimethyl ammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer for SI et al. as similarly disclosed by instant application’s disclosure; [Pg.Pub. US 2022/0411720: 6, 17-18]. Note that for the molar ratio(s) of diallyldimethyl-ammonium chloride/acrylic acid a sample examples of (20/15)= 1.33 and (100/15)= 6.66 correspond to instantly claimed ratios of (50/50)= 1 and (80-20)= 4 by a considerable overlapping range thus rendering the limitation obvious. Furthermore (instant claim 20), note that it would have been obvious to select the cationic copolymer with a moderately higher molecular weight (i.e. > 250,000 D as taught by SI) with the motivation of improved softening and adjusting composition’s viscosity for more desirable texture (please consult any textbook on cationic polymer applications and properties). This is further evidenced (for higher molecular weights as instantly claimed), by analogous art of Barnabs wherein it teaches diallyldimethyl-ammonium chloride-acrylic acid copolymer (poyquaternium 22) with molecular weight 200 KD to 1500 KD is utilized for fabric treatment applications; [54, claim 1], thus meeting the molar ratios cationic and anionic monomers as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 20, SI does not, expressly, teach the nonionic surfactants of formula I or II. However, the analogous/related art of Hayward teaches a cleaning antibacterial composition comprising branched nonionic surfactants both similar, and also identical, which renders the instantly claimed formulas obvious; [60-80]. More importantly, Hayward teaches the nonionic surfactants such as Tergitol 15-S and Lutensol XP and XL; [69, 72], in the amounts of between 0.1-5%; [59]. Note that the branched nonionic surfactants above are identically disclosed by applicant’s specification; [Pg.Pub. US 2022/0411720: 31-32]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add (or partly substitute) the nonionic surfactants of Hayward to SI’s composition with the motivation enhancing the composition’s cleaning efficacy through emulsification and soil removal. Note that the amount of nonionic surfactant (instant 3-4) is, already, taught by SI which is 0.05-5% of composition; [100].
Regarding claim 11, SI does not teach the instantly claimed amphoteric surfactant of amine oxide. However Hayward teaches amine oxide surfactant; [94, 98]. It would have been obvious to select (by substitution) the amine oxide of Hayward for amphoteric surfactants of SI as a functional equivalent active ingredient.
Regarding claims 18-19 SI teaches the amounts of cationic surfactant in the range of 0.005-10%; [54].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SI et al. (US 2016/0130528 A1), Fossum et al. (US 2017/0335237 A1), Hayward et al. (US 2021/0029999 A1), as applied to claims 1 and further in view of Tang et al. (US 2017/0137745 A1).
Regarding claim 9, SI teaches the branched alkyl sulfate surfactant; [99], but it does not teach the percent value of alkyl chains. However, the analogous art of Tang teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising branched alkyl sulfate surfactant wherein the alkyl chains of branched alkyl sulfate has 20-90% of branched chain length distribution; [57] which meets the instant claim. Furthermore, Tang teaches the branched alkyl sulfates such as Isalchem-145; [173 table], which is identical ingredient disclosed by applicant’s disclosure (Pg.Pub. US 2022/0411720: 46]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to add (or substitute) the above branched alkyl sulfate of Tang to SI’s composition with the motivation of enhancing compositional stability and controlling the suds generation during the washing(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/03/16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because,
In response to applicant’s (page 7: 1st-2nd parag.) that: “The cited references, Si, Fossum, Hayward, Barnabas, and Tang, are not directed to the specific problem of color care or reduced dye bleeding in laundry detergent compositions. Specifically, Si is primarily concerned with "improved sudsing profile" for detergent or cleaning compositions, aiming for rinse suds reduction. See Abstract. Fossum relates to detergent compositions for "cleaning and/or whiteness benefits as well as freshness and/or encapsulate deposition benefits." Paragraph [0012]. Hayward discloses a "disinfectant cleaning composition" for residual biocidal properties directed towards the remaining need "for a disinfectant composition providing good cleaning, shine and long-lasting disinfection. Preferably, the composition would be suitable for surfaces which contact food." See Abstract; see also Background Of The Invention. Barnabas focuses on "fabric care compositions comprising front-end stability agents" for "desirable viscosity profiles" and softening actives. See Abstract. And lastly, Tang is directed to "cleaning compositions containing a branched alkyl sulfate surfactant and a short-chain nonionic surfactant" for "surprising and unexpected improvement in the sudsing profiles " See Abstract.”, It is noted that; I)- The assertion that the prior arts of record are not directed to “specific problem of color care or reduced dye bleeding in laundry detergent compositions”, is considered as not being persuasive. The effect and the property as mentioned by applicant is directly due to the instantly claimed ingredients and their composition which are rendered obvious above. All of the references above are directly related to chemicals and compositions that are applied for cleaning purposes which provides logical ground for their combination. II)- Even for the situations when the reference(s) are not exactly on the same field of endeavor a compound due to its multiple chemical properties could be used for solving different problem thus rendering the combination feasible. Note that; “in light of the Supreme Court's instruction that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d 1396. Rather, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212”. [MPEP; 2141.01(a)]
In response to applicant’s argument (pages 7-8) on the mole percent amounts of monomers: “The Office Action presents sample examples of DADMAC:AA ratios from Fossum as (20/15)=1.33 and (100/15)=6.66. Page 4, lines 4-8. If the copolymer (i.e. claimed cationic polymer) is composed solely of DADMAC and AA monomers, these ratios ( e.g., 20: 15) would be representing the relative proportions of DADMAC to AA, not the percentage of each within the copolymer. For a copolymer, the sum of molar percentages of all monomers must equal 100%. Fossum explicitly states the molar amount of acrylic acid monomer (anionic unit) is "in the range of 0.01-15%." See [0088] (emphasis added). This means the DADMAC monomer units would be present at 85-99.99 mol% and the AA monomer units would be present at 0.01-15 mol% of the claimed copolymer. Again, combining references that teach away from their combination is improper.”. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, because; I)- Fossum teaches a selection of cationic and anionic monomers including DADMAC and AA in which selection any pair is actually equivalent alternative thus rendering the instantly claimed copolymer obvious. The assertion that “If the copolymer (i.e. claimed cationic polymer) is composed solely of DADMAC and AA monomers, these ratios” is meaningless. First, the instant claim 1 states that: “wherein the copolymer of diallyldimethylammonium chloride and acrylic acid comprises diallyldimethylammonium chloride monomers and co-acrylic acid monomers….”. This comprising language does not preclude presence of any other monomer(s) in the instantly claimed copolymer and it thus contradicts the limitation “composed solely of DADMAC and AA monomers” as argued above, and therefore the total mole amounts of . DADMAC and AA monomers could also include any amounts less than 100! II)- Furthermore, the convenient selection of the values that differs from the range outside of (50/50) to (80/20) to support the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. It is the overlapping ranges that constitute a basis for obviousness and not the part outside of that.
In response to applicant’s argument (pages 8-9) that: “Even if, arguendo, a prima facie case of obviousness were established, the claimed invention demonstrates unexpected results, which overcome any such presumption of obviousness. The present specification explicitly provides comparative data showing that the specific combination of the claimed branched nonionic surfactant and the claimed cationic polymer results in "reduced dye fading.", and; “This unexpected result demonstrates that the specific combination of the claimed branched nonionic surfactant and a cationic polymer with the claimed characteristics provides a synergistic and non-obvious benefit, namely improved color protection and retention in colored fabrics, which is not suggested by the general teachings of the cited prior art references”. It is noted that; Regarding the applicant’s argument on the unexpected results of the claimed invention, it is noted that, The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the applicant. [MPEP 716.01(b)].
Furthermore, "[ l]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference.'~ In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/06/06
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights