DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received September 16, 2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al, US 2012/0233786 in view of Dasque et al, US 7,304,023.
Carlson et al teach a liquid rinse cycle fabric softening composition (see abstract) comprising 60 to 90% of a diester quat, 10 to 40% benzyl alcohol, and less than 10% water (claims 1 and 2) and perfumes are suitable additives of the invention (¶28). The examiner notes that unless specifically excluded because of chemical sensitivities, all fabric softeners contain a fragrance, and so it would have been patently obvious for one of skill in the art to include a perfume in the fabric softener of claims 1 and 2. These fabric softeners may be added to wash water without dilution, or with dilution as one would see with a rinse cycle dispenser where the fabric softener is contained in the dispenser and is then washed out with water and added to the washing machine when the rinse cycle begins (¶14). It is not inventive to note how a washing machine works, then use that as a claim limitation. Carlson et al however, do not teach their composition in unit dose form or with encapsulated perfumes.
Unit dose detergents and encapsulated perfumes are ubiquitous in the art however, as taught by Dasque et al, who teach a fabric care composition in a water soluble pouch comprising a cationic softening agent, a solvent including C12-14 paraffins (claims 1 and 13), and perfumes, including encapsulated perfumes (col. 24, lines 20-35). Note that these unit does detergents may be used as laundry rinse additives (col. 14, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the fabric softener of Carlson et al in unit dose form including an encapsulated perfume as unit dose detergents and encapsulated perfumes are ubiquitous in the art as evidenced by Dasque et al. It is not inventive to add well-known fabric softening additives to a fabric softener and to dispense the fabric softener in ways well known in the art.
With respect to the amount of dilution, first, by design, all unit dose detergents are diluted with water before use. As to how much dilution, that depends on the needs of the formulator. In this case, the present invention is drawn to rinse-added compositions, as are the compositions of Carlson and Dasque. Persons of skill in the art are well aware of how much water is used in a rinse cycle, and so how much fabric conditioner must be added to be effective, and so the examiner maintains the amount of dilution is an obvious design choice to persons of skill in the art.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the amount of dilution is not specified, and this is addressed above.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammadi et al, EP 829,531 in view of Dasque et al, US 7,304,023.
Mohammadi et al teach a liquid fabric softening composition comprising 27.4% cationic softener, 66.4% hexadecane, and perfume (page 8, example 1) wherein the composition is formed by melting the cationic softener until liquid and adding it to a blend of the oil and perfume (col. 7, lines 5-10). Preferred cationic softeners of the invention include DEEDMAC (page 13, example 25) which has a melting point of 75°C. It would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to formulate a composition according to example 1 with DEEDMAC with confidence of forming an effective fabric softener as DEEDMAC is a preferred cationic softener of the invention. These fabric softeners may be added to wash water without dilution, or with dilution to form an emulsion before adding it to a rinse solution (page 6, lines 25-30). Mohammadi et al however, do not teach their composition in unit dose form or with encapsulated perfumes.
Dasque et al are relied upon as set forth above, and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the fabric softener of Mohammadi et al in unit-dose form including an encapsulated perfume as unit-dose detergents and encapsulated perfumes are ubiquitous in the art as evidenced by Dasque et al. It is not inventive to add well-known fabric softening additives to a fabric softener and to dispense the fabric softener in ways well known in the art.
Applicants have traversed this rejection on the grounds the amount of dilution is not specified, and this is addressed above.
Conclusion
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 CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights