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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-14 are pending. Claim 8 was cancelled. Claim 3 is cancelled in the present amendment. Claims 1 and 14 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (US 2009/0099055) in view of Micciche (US Patent No. 4,198,308) or Mohs et al. (US 2011/0112003) is withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
Terminal Disclaimer
For the record, the terminal disclaimer filed on August 8, 2023 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,499,123 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-2, 4-7 and 9-14 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “the perfume component being at least 7 wt%” in independent claim 1, line 5 and independent claim 14, line 5 is nowhere supported in the original specification and is therefore considered as new matter. While the specification provides support for “perfume oil: 7 wt%” on page 5, line 20 of the specification, there is no literal basis for the “perfume component being at least 7 wt%” in the original specification. In addition, the “at least 7 wt%” does not meet the description requirement because the phrase "at least" has no upper limit and may cause the claim to read on embodiments outside the range of perfume oil (2 to 12 wt%) and perfume capsules (0 to 12 wt%) on page 3, line 29 of the original specification. See also MPEP 2163.05 III.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 9-13, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 depends on cancelled claim 3. Presumably this claim depends from claim 1.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (US 2009/0099055), hereinafter “Mayer” in view of Micciche (US Patent No. 4,198,308) or Mohs et al. (US 2011/0112003), hereinafter “Mohs” in further view of Denutte et al. (US 2011/0152146), hereinafter “Denutte.”
Mayer teaches a solid textile-care composition having a matrix of soap and, distributed therein, a textile-care compound and a perfume (see abstract). The composition comprises 50 to 98 wt% matrix of soap (see paragraphs [0021] and [0030]), 0.1 to 10 wt% textile-care compound (see paragraph [0079]), and 0.1 to 20 wt %, preferably 1 to 10 wt %, perfume (see paragraphs [0019] and [0081]). It is particularly preferred that the textile-care compound is a textile-softening compound selected from polysiloxanes, textile-softening clays, cationic polymers, and mixtures thereof (see paragraph [0013]). The use of polysiloxanes and/or cationic polymers as a textile-softening compound in the textile-care composition is advantageous because they not only exhibit a softening effect, but also intensify the perfume impression on the laundry (see paragraph [0014]). Suitable cationic polymers include Polyquaternium-7 which is a polymeric quaternary ammonium salt made up of acrylamide and dimethyldiallylammonium chloride monomers (see paragraph [0052]) and Polyquaternium-10 which is a polymeric quaternary ammonium salt of hydroxyethyl cellulose that has been reacted with a trimethylammonium-substituted epoxide (see paragraph [0055]), which are water-soluble polymers. Also, in a preferred embodiment, the soap contains sodium salts of fatty acids selected from palm oil fatty acids, palm kernel oil fatty acids, coconut fatty acids, peanut fatty acids, tallow fatty acids, stearic acid, oleic acid, soy fatty acids, olive oil fatty acids, and mixtures (see paragraph [0015]). Textile-care compositions having a soap matrix of this kind dissolve particular (sic) well and quickly; as a result of the good dissolution behavior, the textile-care compound and the perfume are distributed quickly and uniformly in the washing bath, and can thus achieve their optimum effect (see paragraph [0018]). Other preferred soaps are sodium salts of coconut fatty acids, olive oil fatty acids, and mixtures thereof (see paragraph [0015], page 1; claim 6). In Example E5, Mayer teaches a textile-care composition which comprises 88.99 wt% palm oil fatty acids, 2 wt% perfume, 1 wt% Polyquaternium-7 (which is a water soluble polymer) and 0.01 wt% dye (see paragraph [0159], page 10). The textile care compound can also include graying inhibitors, among others (see paragraph [0012], page 1; paragraph [0035], page 2), and one preferred graying inhibitor is Na salt of carboxymethyl cellulose (which reads on the “additive,” see paragraph [0143], page 8). The textile-care composition can furthermore contain a filler, such as silica (see paragraph [0084], page 4). It is preferred that the textile-care composition exhibit particle sizes in the range from 0.6 to 30 mm, in particular 0.8 to 7 mm, and particularly preferably 1 to 3 mm; and it is additionally preferred that the textile-care composition be an extrudate (see paragraph [0102], page 5), which reads on “pellet.” For manufacture of the textile-care composition, the soap(s), the textile-care compound, the perfume, and if applicable further ingredients, are mixed, and the mixture obtained is then extruded through a rhomboidal orifice plate (see paragraph [0103], page 5), wherein it is understood that the extruded mixture is cut to obtain the extrudate having the above particle sizes. Mayer, however, fails to specifically disclose: (1) the incorporation of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose and sodium chloride filler into the solid textile-care composition, say in Example E5 as recited in claims 1 and 14; (2) the solid textile care composition further comprising perfume capsules in an amount of 0.5-12 wt% and the perfume component being at least 7 wt%, and the extrudate or pellet is formulated so that it dissolves in water at 30oC under 500 rpm stirring simulating washing machine conditions in less than 20 minutes as recited in claims 1 and 14, in less than 10 minutes or in less than 5 minutes as recited in claims 9-10, respectively; and wherein the capsules are made from melamine formaldehyde as recited in claim 6; (3) the water soluble polymer, e.g., Polyquaternium-7, in an amount of 5-40 wt% as recited in claim 4 and wherein the amount improves flowability and mechanical properties as recited in claim 13; and (4) the weight of the extrudate or pellet as recited in claim 7.
It is known from Micciche, an analogous art in textile care composition (see col. 1, lines 10-13) that a filler includes sodium sulfate, sodium chloride, sodium acetate, starches, talcs, silica, etc. (see col. 4, lines 18-21).
In the alternative, it is known from Mohs, an analogous art in textile care composition (see paragraphs [0009] and [0078]) that a filler includes sodium chloride, among a few selection, which does not necessarily perform as a cleaning agent per se, but may cooperate with a cleaning agent to enhance the overall cleaning capacity of the composition (see paragraph [0058]).
Denutte, an analogous art in fabric care composition (see paragraph [0007], page 1), teaches delivery systems comprising perfume (see abstract), wherein the delivery system is a reservoir system, also known as core-shell type technology, or one in which the fragrance is surrounded by a perfume release controlling membrane, which may serve as a protective shell, for example, melamine-formaldehyde (see paragraph [0055], page 5). A consumer product may comprise, based on total composition weight, at least about 0.01% to about 10 wt% of the above encapsulate (see paragraph [0086], page 8).
With respect to difference (1), 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 sodium carboxymethyl cellulose into the solid textile-care composition, say in Example E5, because Mayer specifically desires a textile care compound, one of which is a graying inhibitor, and one preferred graying inhibitor is sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as disclosed in paragraph [0143], and to have incorporated a filler into the solid textile-care composition because this is one of the further ingredients which can be added to the solid textile-care composition as disclosed in paragraphs [0082] and [0084]. With respect to the specific filler, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated sodium chloride because this is a known filler as taught by Micciche or Mohs, and also the sodium chloride cooperates with a cleaning agent to enhance the overall cleaning capacity of the composition as taught by Mohs.
With respect to difference (2), 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 perfume capsules made from melamine-formaldehyde into the textile-care composition of Mayer in view of Micciche or Mohs because this would provide a controlled release of the perfume as taught by Denutte. With respect to the amount of the perfume oil and the perfume capsules, considering that Mayer teaches 0.1 to 20 wt % perfume in paragraphs [0019] and [0081]) and Denutte teaches at least about 0.01% to about 10 wt% of the perfume encapsulate in paragraph [0086], 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, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the dissolution time in water, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the extrudate or pellet of Mayer in view of Micciche or Mohs in further view of Denutte to exhibit similar dissolution time in water within those recited not only because the textile-care compositions having a soap matrix of this kind dissolve particularly well and quickly as disclosed by Mayer in paragraph [0018] but also because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence, the extrudate or pellet would have similar properties as those recited.
With respect to difference (3), considering that Mayer teaches 0.1 to 10 wt% textile-care compound as disclosed in paragraph [0079], e.g., Polyquaternium-7 as disclosed in paragraph [0052] and Example 5, 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 (i.e., 5 to 10 wt%) 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, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I). In view of the overlap in ranges, i.e., 5 to 10 wt%, said water soluble polymer should also improve flowability and mechanical properties.
With respect to difference (4), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the extrudate or pellet to possess a weight within those recited because similar ingredients of the composition with overlapping proportions have been utilized, as discussed above, and the textile-care composition have particle sizes in the range from 0.6 to 30 mm as disclosed in paragraph [0102], hence, the resulting extrudate would reasonably exhibit a weight which should also overlap those recited.
Claim 4, in the alternative, and claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Micciche or Mohs in further view of Denutte as applied to the above claims and further in view of Nebashi et al. (US Patent No. 4,992,198), hereinafter “Nebashi.”
Mayer in view of Micciche or Mohs in further view of Denutte teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Mayer teaches that the textile-care composition also contains a textile-care compound (see paragraph [0029], page 2), for example, anti-redeposition agent, as one selection (see paragraph [0035], page 2). The quantity of textile care composition is 0.1 to 10 wt% (see paragraph [0079], page 4). Mayer in view of Micciche or Mohs in further view of Denutte, however, fails to specifically disclose the incorporation of polyethylene glycol, in the recited amount, into the solid textile-care composition.
It is known from Nebashi, an analogous art, that polyethylene glycol is an anti-redeposition agent (see col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 11).
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 polyethylene glycol into the composition of Mayer in view of Micciche or Mohs in further view of Denutte because Mayer specifically desires the incorporation of a textile-care compound, and one selection of a textile-care compound is an anti-redeposition agent like polyethylene glycol as taught by Nebashi. Regarding the amount of the polyethylene glycol, considering the teachings of Mayer in paragraph [0079], 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, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection based upon Mayer in view of Micciche or Mohs in further view of Denutte, as they apply to the present claims, Applicant argues that while Mayer states that the quantity of perfume can be between 0.1 and 20 wt%, “particularly preferably between 1 and 10 wt%, and very particularly preferably between 2 and 7 wt%, Table 1 of Mayer does not disclose a single example in which the perfume components is more than 5 wt%, or at least 7 wt%. Applicant also argues that the range suggested in Denutte is for a capsule (i.e., the wt% present in a fragrance capsule), not a range for a composition that includes the capsules as a component.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because a reference is not limited to the working examples, see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982). In addition, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Please also note that the about 0.01% to about 10 wt% of the encapsulate in paragraph [0086] in Denutte refers to the perfume encapsulate, which overlaps the amount of the perfume capsules of the present claims.
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