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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on March 30th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-20 are pending in the application. Claim 4 and claim 7 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 13-15, 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applegate (US 20200157476 A1), Smets (US 20200056123 A1), and Milliken (“Liquitint™ - Home and Laundry Care”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applegate (US 20200157476 A1), Smets (US 20200056123 A1), Milliken (“Liquitint™ - Home and Laundry Care”), and Souter (US 20170355936 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applegate (US 20200157476 A1), Smets (US 20200056123 A1), and Rohrbaugh (WO 9859030 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 9-12 and claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applegate (US 20200157476 A1), Smets (US 20200056123 A1), and Wahl (US 5574179 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 and claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applegate (US 20200157476 A1), Smets (US 20200056123 A1), and De Buzzaccarini (US 20110107527 A1) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries 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 1-3, 5-8, 13-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applegate (US 20200157476 A1) and further in view of Smets (US 20200056123 A1) and De Buzzaccarini (US 20100229312 A1), as evidenced by Milliken (“Liquitint™ - Home and Laundry Care”).
With regard to claims 1-3, 5-8, 13-15, and 17-18, Applegate discloses a composition for removing stains, which may be a liquid (see [0020]), comprising 0.00-80wt% of a surfactant (see [0027]) and 0-50wt% of a soil release polymer (see [0068]). Applegate further teaches the composition may comprise brighteners (see [0043]). Applegate further discloses Liquitint Blue AH as a polymeric dye (see [0044]). Liquitint Blue AH is a polymeric dye, as evidenced by Milliken (see paragraph 1). Applegate further discloses the composition may comprise perfume (see [0071]).
With respect to the ratio of at least 1:1 and 2:1 of soil release polymer to surfactant considering that Applegate teaches a soil release polymer in the range of 0-50wt% as disclosed in ([0068]) and surfactant concentration aids in the range of 0.00-80wt% as disclosed in ([0027]) 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 (e.g. 1 wt% soil release polymer: 1 wt% surfactant or 1:1 and 2% soil release polymer: 1wt% of surfactant or 2:1) 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).
However, Applegate fails to disclose at least 0.001wt% of hueing dye.
Smets teaches a liquid fabric treatment composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Smets further discloses hueing dyes from 0.00003 wt% to 0.1 wt% (see [0099]). Smets further discloses fluid laundry detergents typically comprise 0.00003-0.1wt% of hueing dyes (see [0099]).
Applegate discloses composition for removing stains, which may be a liquid (see [0020]). Applegate further discloses the composition may comprise 0-50wt% of a soil release polymer (see [0068]) and builders (see [0069]). Smets discloses a liquid fabric treatment composition (see Abstract). Smets further discloses the composition may comprise a soil release polymer (see [0102]) and a builder (see [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select from 0.00003 wt% to 0.1 wt% as taught by Smets in the composition of Applegate. As disclosed by Smets, fluid laundry detergents typically comprise 0.00003-0.1wt% of hueing dyes.
Applegate further fails to disclose the process as taking place in a professional laundry machine having a capacity higher than 20 kg of dry laundry and the process as comprising one or more rinse steps, and wherein the whitening additive is delivered only during a rinse step.
De Buzzaccarini discloses a method of cleaning a polyester load in a professional laundry machine wherein the method comprises the step of contacting the load with an aqueous wash liquor containing a detergent composition (see Abstract). De Buzzaccarini further discloses a professional laundry machine is a laundry machine which a capacity higher than 25 kg of dry laundry (see [0022]). De Buzzaccarini further teaches the soil release polymer may be added during the main-wash or a rinse cycle and preferably the soil release polymer is added as part of an additive rather than as part of a detergent composition (see [0019]) and dye as a preferred component of the additive (see [0057]). De Buzzaccarini further discloses this eliminates the interaction between some of the base detergent ingredients and the polymer and gives flexibility in terms of dosing (see [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the method of De Buzzaccarini with the cleaning composition of Applegate and Smets as the method of De Buzzaccarini may be utilized with a cleaning composition analogous to that taught by Applegate and Smets, specifically comprising a soil release polymer and a dye.
Claims 9-12 and claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applegate (US 20200157476 A1), Smets (US 20200056123 A1), and De Buzzaccarini (US 20100229312 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wahl (US 5574179 A).
With regard to claims 9-12, Applegate, Smets, and De Buzzaccarini disclose the composition of claim 1.
However, Applegate, Smets, and De Buzzaccarini fail to disclose the soil release polymer disclosed in the instant claims.
Wahl teaches a textile treatment composition (see Abstract) and further teaches a soil release agent, in the form of a polymer (Col 14 line 32-35). The disclosed formula (Col 15 line 1) is identical to that shown in the instant claims. Further, R5 and R6 as disclosed in the claims may be H or CH3. Wahl discloses R2, corresponding to the carbon positions of R5 and R6 as ethylene, which would result in R5 and R6 as H (Col 15 line 49-50). Wahl further teaches X, corresponding to R7, selected from the group consisting of H or an alkyl or acyl group containing from about 1 to about 4 carbon atoms, preferably methyl (Col 15 line 5-8). Wahl discloses R1 as 1,4 phenylene moieties (Col 15 line 15) and further discloses very few u values greater than 10 (Col 15 line 11-12), corresponding to n in the instant claims. Wahl teaches an n value of 6 to 113, corresponding to c in the instant claims (Col 15 line 8-9).
Applegate discloses composition for removing stains, which may be a liquid (see [0020]). Applegate further discloses the composition may comprise 0-50wt% of a soil release polymer (see [0068]) and 0.00-80wt% of a surfactant (see [0027]). Wahl discloses soil release agent, in the form of a polymer (Col 14 line 32-35), and further discloses the composition may comprise 0-15% of a surfactant (Col 9 line 7-13). Both Applegate and Wahl disclose textile treatment compositions. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because Both Applegate and Wahl disclose textile treatment compositions. As stated above, Both Applegate and Wahl disclose textile treatment compositions. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the soil release polymer as taught by Wahl with the textile treatment compositions as taught by Applegate to produce a textile treatment composition.
With regard to claims 19-20 Applegate discloses a composition for removing stains, which may be a liquid (see [0020]), comprising 0.00-80wt% of a surfactant (see [0027]) and 0-50wt% of a soil release polymer (see [0068]). Applegate further teaches the composition may comprise brighteners (see [0043]). Applegate further discloses Liquitint Blue AH as a polymeric dye (see [0044]). Liquitint Blue AH is a polymeric dye, as evidenced by Milliken (see paragraph 1).
With respect to the ratio of at least 1:1 and 2:1 of soil release polymer to surfactant considering that Applegate teaches a soil release polymer in the range of 0-50wt% as disclosed in ([0068]) and surfactant concentration aids in the range of 0.00-80wt% as disclosed in ([0027]) 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 (e.g. 1 wt% soil release polymer: 1 wt% surfactant or 1:1 and 2% soil release polymer: 1wt% of surfactant or 2:1) 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).
However, Applegate fails to disclose at least 0.001wt% of hueing dye.
Smets teaches a liquid fabric treatment composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Smets further discloses hueing dyes from 0.00003 wt% to 0.1 wt% (see [0099]). Smets further discloses fluid laundry detergents typically comprise 0.00003-0.1wt% of hueing dyes (see [0099]).
Applegate discloses composition for removing stains, which may be a liquid (see [0020]). Applegate further discloses the composition may comprise 0-50wt% of a soil release polymer (see [0068]) and builders (see [0069]). Smets discloses a liquid fabric treatment composition (see Abstract). Smets further discloses the composition may comprise a soil release polymer (see [0102]) and a builder (see [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select from 0.00003 wt% to 0.1 wt% as taught by Smets in the composition of Applegate. As disclosed by Smets, fluid laundry detergents typically comprise 0.00003-0.1wt% of hueing dyes.
Applegate further fails to disclose the process as taking place in a professional laundry machine having a capacity higher than 20 kg of dry laundry and the process as comprising one or more rinse steps, and wherein the whitening additive is delivered only during a rinse step.
De Buzzaccarini discloses a method of cleaning a polyester load in a professional laundry machine wherein the method comprises the step of contacting the load with an aqueous wash liquor containing a detergent composition (see Abstract). De Buzzaccarini further discloses a professional laundry machine is a laundry machine which a capacity higher than 25 kg of dry laundry (see [0022]). De Buzzaccarini further teaches the soil release polymer may be added during the main-wash or a rinse cycle and preferably the soil release polymer is added as part of an additive rather than as part of a detergent composition (see [0019]) and dye as a preferred component of the additive (see [0057]). De Buzzaccarini further discloses this eliminates the interaction between some of the base detergent ingredients and the polymer and gives flexibility in terms of dosing (see [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the method of De Buzzaccarini with the cleaning composition of Applegate and Smets as the method of De Buzzaccarini may be utilized with a cleaning composition analogous to that taught by Applegate and Smets, specifically comprising a soil release polymer and a dye.
However, Applegate, Smets, and De Buzzaccarini fail to disclose the soil release polymer disclosed in the instant claims.
Wahl teaches a textile treatment composition (see Abstract) and further teaches a soil release agent, in the form of a polymer (Col 14 line 32-35). The disclosed formula (Col 15 line 1) is identical to that shown in the instant claims. Further, R5 and R6 as disclosed in the claims may be H or CH3. Wahl discloses R2, corresponding to the carbon positions of R5 and R6 as ethylene, which would result in R5 and R6 as H (Col 15 line 49-50). Wahl further teaches X, corresponding to R7, selected from the group consisting of H or an alkyl or acyl group containing from about 1 to about 4 carbon atoms, preferably methyl (Col 15 line 5-8). Wahl discloses R1 as 1,4 phenylene moieties (Col 15 line 15) and further discloses very few u values greater than 10 (Col 15 line 11-12), corresponding to n in the instant claims. Wahl teaches an n value of 6 to 113, corresponding to c in the instant claims (Col 15 line 8-9).
Applegate discloses composition for removing stains, which may be a liquid (see [0020]). Applegate further discloses the composition may comprise 0-50wt% of a soil release polymer (see [0068]) and 0.00-80wt% of a surfactant (see [0027]). Wahl discloses soil release agent, in the form of a polymer (Col 14 line 32-35), and further discloses the composition may comprise 0-15% of a surfactant (Col 9 line 7-13). Both Applegate and Wahl disclose textile treatment compositions. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because Both Applegate and Wahl disclose textile treatment compositions. As stated above, Both Applegate and Wahl disclose textile treatment compositions. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the soil release polymer as taught by Wahl with the textile treatment compositions as taught by Applegate to produce a textile treatment composition.
Claim 13 and claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applegate (US 20200157476 A1), Smets (US 20200056123 A1), De Buzzaccarini (US 20100229312 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of De Buzzaccarini (US 20110107527 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Applegate, Smets, and De Buzzaccarini disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Applegate, Smets, and De Buzzaccarini fail to disclose a hueing dye selected from the group consisting of small molecule dyes, polymeric dyes, and mixtures thereof.
De Buzzaccarini 2 teaches small molecule and polyermic dyes as suitable hueing dyes (0055). De Buzzaccarini 2 further teaches that hueing dyes provide white fabrics with an off-white tint, modifying whiteness appearance and acceptance (0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the hueing dyes taught by De Buzzaccarini 2 in the laundering composition, as disclosed by Applegate and Smets, for the purpose of providing an off-white tint to white fabrics to modify whiteness appearance and acceptance.
With regard to claim 16, Applegate, Smets, and De Buzzaccarini disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Applegate, Smets, and De Buzzaccarini fail to disclose a peroxyacid bleach delivered before the whitening additive.
De Buzzaccarini 2 discloses a method of cleaning a white load in a laundry machine (see Abstract). De Buzzaccarini 2 further discloses a method comprising the step of delivering a bleach and subsequently a whitening additive (see [0008]). De Buzzaccarini further discloses peroxyacid bleach as suitable (see [0009]). Lastly, de Buzzaccarini teaches the method as providing good stain removal, good whiteness maintenance, and as leaving the load free of bleach odor (see [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the peroxyacid bleach delivered before the whitening additive, as disclosed by De Buzzaccarini 2, with the laundry composition, as taught by Applegate and Smets, to provide good stain removal, good whiteness maintenance, and leave the load free of bleach odor, as disclosed by De Buzzaccarini 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the amendments to claim 1 stating “the process takes place in a professional laundry machine having a capacity higher than 20 kg of dry laundry” and “the process comprises one or more rinse steps, and that the whitening additive is delivered only during a rinse step” are not taught in the prior art.
As stated above, De Buzzaccarini discloses a method of cleaning a polyester load in a professional laundry machine wherein the method comprises the step of contacting the load with an aqueous wash liquor containing a detergent composition (see Abstract). De Buzzaccarini further discloses a professional laundry machine is a laundry machine which a capacity higher than 25 kg of dry laundry (see [0022]). De Buzzaccarini further teaches the soil release polymer may be added during the main-wash or a rinse cycle and preferably the soil release polymer is added as part of an additive rather than as part of a detergent composition (see [0019]) and dye as a preferred component of the additive (see [0057]). De Buzzaccarini further discloses this eliminates the interaction between some of the base detergent ingredients and the polymer and gives flexibility in terms of dosing (see [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the method of De Buzzaccarini with the cleaning composition of Applegate and Smets as the method of De Buzzaccarini may be utilized with a cleaning composition analogous to that taught by Applegate and Smets, specifically comprising a soil release polymer and a dye.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights