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 November 13th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 16-18, 20-22, and claims 32-36 are pending in the application. Claims 1-15, 19, and 31 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 16, 18 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grigoletto (WO 2017064551 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grigoletto (WO 2017064551 A1) and Quellet (GB 2528480 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Grigoletto (WO 2017064551 A1) and Shaukat (US 20030008792 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Son (US 8882853 B2) and Shaukat (US 20030008792 A1) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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 16, 18, 20-21, 32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grigoletto (WO 2017064551 A1) and in further view of Shaukat (US 20030008792 A1).
With regard to claim 16, Grigoletto discloses a cleaning formulation for hard surfaces and textiles (see Abstract). Grigoletto further discloses the cleaning composition further comprising a glyercol ketal derivative in accordance with Formula I of the instant claims wherein R1 and R2 are independently selected from a group consisting of linear or branched C1-C12 alkyl, a C4-C12 cycloalkyl, or an aryl, and R3 is hydrogen or linear or branched alkyl, a cycloalkyl or a –C(O)R4 group (see page 6 line 9-24). Grigoletto specifically teaches (2-heptan-3-yl-1,3,-dioxolan-4-yl)methanol, which reads on Formula 1 (claim 16) (see page 20 line 16). Grigoletto further teaches the composition may comprise a fragrance (see page 3 line 28-page 4 line 6) and suitable fragrances including linalool, benzyl acetate, and methyl anthranilate (see page 14 line 10-16), all of which are disclosed as fragrances with log P values of -1.0 to 4.5 in the instant specifications. Further, Grigoletto discloses the composition may optionally contain water (see Abstract).
While Grigoletto fails to disclose a dry cleaning composition comprising a solvent represented by Formula I and a fragrance, Grigoletto discloses a dry cleaning formulation comprising (2-(heptan-3-yl)-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)methanol, which reads on Formula I, and teaches that the composition may comprise a fragrance, as stated above. Further, Grigoletto specifically discloses (2-(heptan-3-yl)-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)methanol has a low odor and therefore enhances the odor of the fragrance (see page 2 line 27- page 3 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the (2-(heptan-3-yl)-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)methanol in combination with the fragrance disclosed by Grigoletto to produce a dry cleaning composition as both are disclosed as components of dry cleaning compositions by Grigoletto.
However, Grigoletto fails to disclose a fragrance selected from vanillin, resorcinol, 2,4-dihydroxy-3,6-dimethylbenzoic acid, geraniol benzylbenzoate, and 2-ethylhexene.
Shaukat discloses a cleaning composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Shaukat further discloses the cleaning composition may comprise at least one additional fragrance (see [0021]). Shaukat further teaches fragrances may be those generally known to those skilled in the art and further lists geraniol (see [0023]).
Grigoletto discloses a cleaning formulation for hard surfaces and textiles (see Abstract). Grigoletto further discloses the composition may comprise a surfactant, cosolvent, fragrance, and water (see page 3 line 28- page 4 line 1-7). Shaukat discloses a cleaning composition (see Abstract). Shaukat further discloses the composition may be used for toilet cleaning (see [0003]), which is a hard surface, and further discloses the composition may comprise a fragrance (see [0021] and [0023]), a surfactant (see [0011]), and water (see [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the geraniol of Shaukat in the cleaning composition of Grigoletto. Grigoletto discloses the composition may comprise a fragrance. Geraniol is a fragrance known to those skilled in the art to be used in cleaning compositions, as disclosed by Shaukat.
While Grigoletto and Shaukat fail to disclose the composition as reducing wrinkles, Grigoletto and Shaukat disclose all of the limitations of claim 16. It stands to reason that a composition which reads on the instant claims disclosed in claim 16 would have similar wrinkle reducing properties. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 18, Grigoletto discloses 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-methanol as a suitable glycerol ketal derivative (see page 8 line 5-6).
With regard to claim 20, Grigoletto discloses fragrances present in the amount of 0.5-5wt% (see page 14 line 17-18).
With regard to claim 21, Grigoletto discloses the composition may further comprise a surfactant (see page 10 line 5-11).
With regard to claim 32, Grigoletto discloses a method of washing fibers comprising washing textiles (see page 29 line 12-18). Grigoletto further discloses a cleaning formulation for hard surfaces and textiles (see Abstract). Grigoletto further discloses the cleaning composition further comprising a glyercol ketal derivative in accordance with Formula I of the instant claims wherein R1 and R2 are independently selected from a group consisting of linear or branched C1-C12 alkyl, a C4-C12 cycloalkyl, or an aryl, and R3 is hydrogen or linear or branched alkyl, a cycloalkyl or a –C(O)R4 group (see page 6 line 9-24). Grigoletto specifically teaches (2-heptan-3-yl-1,3,-dioxolan-4-yl)methanol, which reads on Formula 1 (claim 16) (see page 20 line 16). Grigoletto further teaches the composition may comprise a fragrance (see page 3 line 28-page 4 line 6) and suitable fragrances including linalool, benzyl acetate, and methyl anthranilate (see page 14 line 10-16), all of which are disclosed as fragrances with log P values of -1.0 to 4.5 in the instant specifications. Further, Grigoletto discloses the composition may optionally contain water (see Abstract).
While Grigoletto fails to disclose a dry cleaning composition comprising a solvent represented by Formula I and a fragrance, Grigoletto discloses a dry cleaning formulation comprising (2-(heptan-3-yl)-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)methanol, which reads on Formula I, and teaches that the composition may comprise a fragrance, as stated above. Further, Grigoletto specifically discloses (2-(heptan-3-yl)-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)methanol has a low odor and therefore enhances the odor of the fragrance (see page 2 line 27- page 3 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the (2-(heptan-3-yl)-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)methanol in combination with the fragrance disclosed by Grigoletto to produce a dry cleaning composition as both are disclosed as components of dry cleaning compositions by Grigoletto.
However, Grigoletto fails to disclose a fragrance selected from vanillin, resorcinol, 2,4-dihydroxy-3,6-dimethylbenzoic acid, geraniol benzylbenzoate, and 2-ethylhexene.
Shaukat discloses a cleaning composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Shaukat further discloses the cleaning composition may comprise at least one additional fragrance (see [0021]). Shaukat further teaches fragrances may be those generally known to those skilled in the art and further lists geraniol (see [0023]).
Grigoletto discloses a cleaning formulation for hard surfaces and textiles (see Abstract). Grigoletto further discloses the composition may comprise a surfactant, cosolvent, fragrance, and water (see page 3 line 28- page 4 line 1-7). Shaukat discloses a cleaning composition, (see Abstract). Shaukat further discloses the composition may be used for toilet cleaning (see [0003]), which is a hard surface, and further discloses the composition may comprise a fragrance (see [0021] and [0023]), a surfactant (see [0011]), and water (see [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the geraniol of Shaukat in the cleaning composition of Grigoletto. Grigoletto discloses the composition may comprise a fragrance. Geraniol is a fragrance known to those skilled in the art to be used in cleaning compositions, as disclosed by Shaukat.
With regard to claim 34, Grigoletto and Shaukat disclose all of the limitations of claim 32.
Grigoletto further discloses 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-methanol as a suitable glycerol ketal derivative (see page 8 line 5-6).
With regard to claim 35, Grigoletto and Shaukat disclose all of the limitations of claim 32.
Grigoletto further discloses fragrance present in the amount of 0.5-5wt% (see page 14 line 17-18).
With regard to claim 36, Grigoletto and Shaukat disclose all of the limitations of claim 32.
Grigoletto further discloses surfactants, enzymes, and viscosity modifiers (see page 14 line 20-26).
Claim 17 and claim 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grigoletto (WO 2017064551 A1) and Shaukat (US 20030008792 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Quellet (GB 2528480 A).
With regard to claim 17, Grigoletto and Shaukat disclose all of the limitations of claim 16.
However, Grigoletto and Shaukat fail to disclose the dry-cleaning composition of claim 16 wherein R1 and R2 are each independently a linear or branched alkyl having 2 to 4 carbon atoms, and are connected to each other to form a cycloalkyl.
Quellet discloses a malodor-blocking perfume composition for use in fabric treating products, an analogous art (see Abstract). Quellet further discloses 1,4-dioxaspiro[4.5]decan-2-ylmethanol as a suitable fragrance (see claim 1).
Grigoletto discloses a cleaning formulation for hard surfaces and textiles (see Abstract). Quellet discloses a malodor-blocking perfume composition for use in fabric treating products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the 1,4-dioxaspiro[4.5]decan-2-ylmethanol of Quellet in the cleaning formulation of Grigoletto for the purpose of providing malodor blocking, as taught by Quellet. The cleaning formulation for textiles of Grigoletto may further comprise a fragrance and the 1,4-dioxaspiro[4.5]decan-2-ylmethanol is a fragrance useful in fabric treating products, as disclosed by Quellet.
With regard to claim 33, Grigoletto and Shaukat disclose all of the limitations of claim 32.
However, Grigoletto and Shaukat fail to disclose the dry-cleaning composition of claim 16 wherein R1 and R2 are each independently a linear oar branched alkyl having 2 to 4 carbon atoms, and are connected to each other to form a cycloalkyl.
Quellet discloses a malodor-blocking perfume composition for use in fabric treating products, an analogous art (see Abstract). Quellet further discloses 1,4-dioxaspiro[4.5]decan-2-ylmethanol as a suitable fragrance (see claim 1).
Grigoletto discloses a cleaning formulation for hard surfaces and textiles (see Abstract). Quellet discloses a malodor-blocking perfume composition for use in fabric treating products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the 1,4-dioxaspiro[4.5]decan-2-ylmethanol of Quellet in the cleaning formulation of Grigoletto for the purpose of providing malodor blocking, as taught by Quellet. The cleaning formulation for textiles of Grigoletto may further comprise a fragrance and the 1,4-dioxaspiro[4.5]decan-2-ylmethanol is a fragrance useful in fabric treating products, as disclosed by Quellet.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 8882853 B2) and further in view of Shaukat (US 20030008792 A1).
With regard to claim 22, Son teaches a composition for cleaning textiles (see Abstract). Son further teaches a solvent in accordance with the instant claims (see Table 1). Son further discloses cleaning compositions composed of the solvents shown in Table 1 (see Table 2) at 100wt%.
However, Son fails to disclose a fragrance.
Shaukat discloses a cleaning composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Shaukat further discloses the cleaning composition may comprise at least one additional fragrance (see [0021]). Shaukat further teaches fragrances may be those generally known to those skilled in the art and further lists geraniol (see [0023]).
Son teaches a composition for cleaning textiles (see Abstract). Son further teaches the composition may comprise surfactants (see Col 4 line 64-65) and preservatives (see Col 5 line 32). Shaukat discloses a cleaning composition (see Abstract). Shaukat further discloses the composition may comprise a surfactant (see [0011]) and preservatives (see [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the geraniol of Shaukat in the cleaning composition of Son. Geraniol is a fragrance known to those skilled in the art to be used in cleaning compositions, as disclosed by Shaukat.
While Son and Shaukat fail to disclose the composition as reducing wrinkles, Son and Shaukat disclose all of the limitations of claim 32. It stands to reason that a composition which reads on the instant claims disclosed in claim 32 would have similar wrinkle reducing properties. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16, 17, and 22 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.
With regard to claim 16, Applicant argues that Grigoletto discloses compositions which contain water. As stated above, Grigoletto discloses the composition may comprise water (see Abstract). Water is mentioned as one of several optional components and is, therefore, not necessary. Further, Grigoletto discloses the compositions may be in concentrated form by reducing the amount of water (see page 20 line 20-21). The entire reference must be considered, not solely the examples. A reference is not limited to the working examples, see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982). Applicant further argues the fragrances disclosed in the amended claim show significant suppression of wrinkle formation after washing. First, this is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The examples in the instant specification show 5wt% of a fragrance. Claim 16, while listing the fragrances used in the examples, fails to disclose a concentration. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, any concentration would be suitable. This is not commensurate in scope with the disclosed examples. Secondly, as stated above, Shaukat discloses the cleaning composition may comprise at least one additional fragrance (see [0021]). Shaukat further teaches fragrances may be those generally known to those skilled in the art and further lists geraniol (see [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the geraniol of Shaukat in the cleaning composition of Grigoletto as geraniol is a fragrance known to those skilled in the art to be used in cleaning compositions, as disclosed by Shaukat.
With regard to claim 17, Applicant argues that Grigoletto and Quellet fail to disclose a composition comprising no water and the listed fragrances. As stated above, Grigoletto discloses the composition may comprise water (see Abstract). Therefore, the compositions of Grigoletto need not contain water. Further, Applicant argues that Quellet is silent to the fragrances disclosed in claim 16. Shaukat discloses the cleaning composition may comprise at least one additional fragrance (see [0021]). Shaukat further teaches fragrances may be those generally known to those skilled in the art and further lists geraniol (see [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the geraniol of Shaukat in the cleaning composition of Grigoletto as geraniol is a fragrance known to those skilled in the art to be used in cleaning compositions, as disclosed by Shaukat.
With the addition of Shaukat, all of the limitations of claim 17 are disclosed in the prior art.
With regard to claim 22, Applicant argues Son and Shaukat fail to disclose the unexpected results obtained from the fragrances disclosed in the instant claims. This is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The examples in the instant specification show 5wt% of a fragrance. Claim 22, while listing the fragrances used in the examples, fails to disclose a concentration. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, any concentration would be suitable.
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