DETAILED ACTION
1 This action is responsive to the amendment filed on October 02, 2025.
2 The cancellation of claims 2,7,13,16 and 20 is acknowledged. Pending claims are 1,3-6,8-12,14-15,17-19 and 21-22.
3 The rejection of claims 11-12, under 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment.
4 The rejection of claims 14 and 22 stand rejected under 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action that mailed on July 03, 2025.
5 Claims 1,3-6,8-12,14-15,17-19 and 21-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camire et al. (US’ 034 A1) for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action that mailed on July 03, 2025.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6 Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camire et al. (US’ 034 A1), applicant argued that Camire fails to disclose, teach, suggest or provide any motivation for the amended claims recite the features, “wherein the water-binding agent is a first salt comprising a cation that has an entropy of hydration that is less than 0 J/K and an anion that has an entropy of hydration that is less than -500 J/K; and a second salt that is a chloride salt.
The examiner respectfully, disagrees with the above arguments because Camire et al. (US’ 034 A1) clearly teaches an aqueous liquid detergent composition comprising a water binding agent and in some embodiments, the water binding agent is a salt and the composition contains no saccharide or organic solvent and wherein the salt comprises cations include sodium and potassium and the anions include halide (chloride) and acetate (see page 7, paragraphs, 0110-0112 and claim 1-3).
Therefore, Camire et al. (US’ 034 A1) clearly teaches a water binding agents include salts of potassium acetate and potassium halide (chloride) as claimed in claims 3 and 8 and as described above, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that these salts “potassium chloride and potassium acetate should have cations and anions having similar entropy of hydration for cation and anion as claimed, absent unexpected results.
With respect to the applicant’s argument that there is no teaching or suggestion by Camire et al. (US’ 034 A1) to specifically select a water-binging agent in an amount of at least about 25% by wight, the examiner would like to point out that Camire et al. (US’ 034 A1) clearly teaches a water binding agent is present in an amount of from about 0.0% to about 50% by weight which is overlapped with the claimed ranges as claimed in claims 1 and 15 (see page 7, paragraph, 0120).
With respect to applicant’s argument based on the disclosure in the claimed specification, the examiner would like to mention that the specification are of no probative value in determining patentability of the claims since they do not involve a comparison of applicant’s invention with the closest applied prior art. See In re De Blawe, 222 USPQ 191 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and In re Fern, 208 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1981). Even if, arguendo, the comparison was done between the applicant's invention and the closest prior art, the claims are not deemed patentable over the references of record since they are not commensurate in scope with the probative value of the data in the examples. See In re Clemens, 206 USPQ 289 (FCCPA 1980).
In this case, applicants have not shown on record the criticality of the claimed invention over the teachings of the closest prior art of record.
7 THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761