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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: “[Chem.1], [Chem.2], [Chem.3] and [Chem. 4]” before each chemical formula should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: “[ ]” and “( )” for each wherein clause should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: “each R3 is independently a group selected from the options for R1 and R2, or is a group selected from -OH, -OCH3 and -OC2H5” should read “each R3 is independently a group selected from R1, R2, -OH, -OCH3 or -OC2H5”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “above” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al (JP2001172878, of record, see IDS filed on 01/31/25, ‘878 hereafter) in view of Hamajima (WO2020/003971, of record, English equivalent EP3816229, ‘229 is cited in this office action ).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6, ‘878 discloses a silicone emulsion composition, which is a textile treatment agent ([0001], [0004]-[0012]), comprising 100 parts by weight of an amino-modified silicone ([0012], [0013], 80 parts in Example 1); 50 parts by weight of a polyoxyalkylene glycidyl ether having 1 to 30 oxyethylene or/and oxypropylene structure units ([0011]) satisfying presently claimed formulae (2-1) ([0011], [0012], [0013], 40/80=50/100, 50 parts per 100 parts of silicone in Example 1); an surfactant in the range of 1 to 70 parts by weight per 100 parts silicone ([0008], [0013], Example 1, alkyl ether, 20/80=20 parts per 100 parts silicone); an organic acid in a range of 0.3 to 15 by weight per 100 parts of the silicone ([0009], [0013], Example 1, 1.5/80=1.9 parts by weight per 100 parts of silicone, [0053]-[0055]); and water in the range of 50 to 5000 parts by weight per 100 parts of silicone ([0013], Example 1, 800 parts of water per 80 parts of silicone ). ‘878 also discloses that the amino-modified silicone has viscosity and amino equivalent satisfying presently claimed ranges ([0013], Example 1, viscosity at 25°C is 1500 mPas (value of mm2/s = value of mPas) and an amino equivalent weight is 1700 g/mol), but does not specifically name a silicone satisfying formula (1) as presently claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘229 discloses a silicone composition comprising a copolymer formed from an amino-modified silicone satisfying presently claimed formula (1) as in present claim 1 and formula (1-2) as in present claim 2, ([0008]-[0009], formula (1-1), [0012]-[0014], silicone listed in [0028]; c, d and e in the formula (1) as presently claimed are 0) with a polyoxyalkylene epoxy satisfying presently claimed formulae (2-1) or (2-2) ([0008]-[0009], Formulae (2-1) and (2-2), [0029]-[0030]); and other components such as surfactant, acid and water ([0061]-[0066]), to render a silicone composition function as a textile treatment agent to impart good softness and water absorbency to textile fiber ([0008]). In light of the teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the amino-modified silicone as taught by ‘229, to modify the silicone composition of ‘878, in order to render a silicone-based textile treatment agent having good softness and water absorbency.
Regarding claim 4, modified ‘878 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘229 also discloses that the silicone composition may further include a polyether-modified silicone, satisfying presently claimed formula (4), with a content range of 5 to 50 parts per 100 parts of the copolymer ([0009], component (B), [0045]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 5, modified ‘878 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, ‘878 also discloses that the silicone emulsion does not contain organic solvent ([0013], Example 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782