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, 3-4 and 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixon (US 4,230,590) in view of Miracle et al. 2019/0112558 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 9 and 11, Wixon teaches a laundry detergent and softening composition comprising; anionic and nonionic surfactants in amount of 10%-41%; [2: 53-55, 14: 12: Example 6 table, Example 13, claim 1], a polymer such as cellulose ether (e.g. carboxymethyl cellulose, instant claims 3) in the amount of 4%; [2: 39, 2: 39, 4: 4, 9: 29, 19: 4], further components (instant claim 9) builder, dyes, and bleach; [2: 34, 43, 8: 53, 8: 54, 9: 1-5], wherein the fibers are from synthetic fibers (instant claim 11) such as nylon and dacron (a polyester fiber); [9: 24-25]. With respect to claim 4, the composition is construed as meeting the descriptive limitation of the claim according to Wixon’s teaching; “The foregoing objects are attained in accordance
with the invention which in its broader aspects include the provision of stable detergent softener compositions capable of providing improved softness, detergency, antistatic and soil antiredeposition properties to fabrics treated therewith in a laundering process”; [2: 48-53].
Regarding claim 1, Wixon doe not teach the instantly claimed (amended limitations) polymer. However, the “analogous art” of Miracle a laundry treatment composition; [abstract, claim 1], comprising polymers such as cationic celluloses and cationic copolymer poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride; [90]. 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 the above copolymer Miracle (or partially substitute Wixon’s cationic cellulose polymer) to Wixon’s composition with the motivation of enhancing conditioning spectrum of laundry detergent as taught by Miracle above.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 8, The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties such as: I)- (instant claim 1) “wherein the polymer is configured to adhere to at least a portion of at least the fibers of the fabric when the fabric and the laundry composition are both present in a washing medium, and wherein the polymer, when adhered to at least the fibers, is effective to 10 prevent or reduce formation of microfibers due to breakage of the fibers and thus prevent or reduce release of the microfibers into the washing medium.”, and II)- (instant claim 6) “wherein the polymer, when adhered to at least the fibers, is effective to prevent or reduce formation of microfibers due to breakage of the fibers arising from frictional forces on the fabric during washing of the fabric.”, and III)- (instant claim 8) “the polymer is configured to sufficiently adhere to the at least a portion of the fibers of the fabric so that an amount of the polymer remains adhered to the at least a portion of the fibers after removal from the washing medium; the polymer is configured to selectively adhere to one or more of polyamide fibers, polyester fibers, polyether-polyurea fibers, and acrylonitrile fibers.”, are not positively stated by the Wixon reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, in the claimed ranges, was prepared under similar conditions, that the original specification specifies that the properties arise from a combination of specific ingredients or process step and that it is rendered obvious by the applied art. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. I, II and III, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixon (US 4,230,590) in view of Miracle et al. 2019/0112558 A1), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical
properties; “wherein the laundry composition is effective to prevent or reduce formation of microfibers such that a total mass of microfibers released into the washing medium from the fabric comprising the fibers during washing with the laundry composition comprising the polymer is at least 20% less than a total mass of microfibers released into the washing medium from the fabric comprising the fibers during washing with the
laundry composition without the polymer.”, are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, in the claimed ranges, was prepared under similar conditions, and that the original specification specifies that the properties arise from a combination of specific ingredients or process step and that it is rendered obvious by the applied art. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. “laundry composition comprising the polymer is at least 20% less than a total mass of microfibers released…”, would naturally and expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Regarding claim 10, Wixon teaches the amount of sodium sulfate is up to 40%; [94-36]. From the total amounts of ingredients, by Wixon’s claim 29, the remaining amount of water and sodium sulfate is about 40%; [claim 29]. It would have been obvious (before effective filing date of invention) to adjust the amount of water to about 30% or, even more, with the motivation of introducing the composition into aqueous washing media for quicker exposure onto laundry material/substrates with more efficacy and improved conditioning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 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. However the applicant’s unpersuasive argument is responded to concisely.
In response to applicant’s argument (page 5) it is noted that its first paragraph is about the instant amendment of claim 1 and the corresponding ingredients’ effective properties….et. which are addressed in examination’s new ground of rejection. Similarly, applicant’s arguments on remaining paragraphs are related to the prior art of Wixon’s teachings and its significance on different aspects and benefits of composition. There is not presented argument or reason as to why Wixon’s composition fails to teach the instant claimed composition’s limitations and corresponding properties.
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
2026/01/31
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767