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
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are pending. Claim 15 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed December 9, 2025, have been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 6/9/25 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claims 6-8, 17,and 18 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/075150 or WO2019/089228, both in view of WO2018/111285 or WO2015/164515, has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/075146 in view of WO2018/111285 or WO2015/164515.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘146 teaches laundry care composition including (a) at least one laundry care ingredient and (b) a leuco composition including at least one leuco compound. The leuco compound including a leuco moiety and a polyalkyleneoxy moiety covalently bound to the leuco moiety. The polyalkyleneoxy moiety includes at least one ethylene oxide group and at least one propylene oxide group. A method of treating a textile includes the steps of (a) providing sucha laundry care composition; (b) adding the laundry care composition to a liquid medium; (c) placing textile articles in the liquid medium: (d) optionally, rinsing the textile; and (e) drying the textile articles. See Abstract. Note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘146 teaches leuco compounds which are exactly the same as the leuco compounds as recited by the instant claims. See pages 8-30. The leuco compound is present in amounts from about 10% by weight or more. See claim 11. Antioxidants may be used in the composition and the antioxidant compound is selected from the group consisting of hindered phenols, diaryl amines, benzofuranones, and mixtures thereof. See instant claim 13. Additionally solvents such as water, glycerol, propylene glycol, etc., may be used. See page 61. The composition may contain one or more aesthetic colorants such as dyes, pigments, etc. See page 37.
‘146 does not teach the use of a colorant having an Aesthetic value index of greater than -4 such as Yellow LP (See Table 2 of the instant specification) or a composition containing a leuco compound, a colorant having an Aesthetic value index of greater than -4 such as Yellow LP, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘285 teaches liquid laundry detergent compositions which are capable of providing improved color protection of delicate fabrics during machine or hand washing. See page 1. In one embodiments, the composition may contain one or more colorants such as Yellow LP, Violet LS, etc., in amounts from 0.00004% to about 3% by weight. See page 7.
‘515 teaches a unit dose detergent composition containing a water soluble pouch, wherein said pouch contains a liquid detergent composition, the composition containing at least one surfactant, at least one humectant, and about 25 to 35% by weight of water. See paras. 7-12. Additionally, the composition may contain one or more colorants. Suitable colorants include Yellow LP, Blue HP, etc., wherein the colorant may be used in amounts from 0.00001% to about 0.099% by weight. See pages 14-16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a colorant having an Aesthetic value index of greater than -4 such as Yellow LP (See Table 2 of the instant specification) in the composition taught by ‘146, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘285 or ‘515 teach the use of a colorant such as Yellow LP in a similar composition and further, ‘146 teaches a wide variety of colorants and dyes which are suitable for use in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a leuco compound, a colorant having an Aesthetic value index of greater than -4 such as Yellow LP, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘146 in view of ‘285 or ‘515, suggest a composition containing a leuco compound, a colorant having an Aesthetic value index of greater than -4 such as Yellow LP, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using WO2019/075146 in view of WO2018/111285 or WO2015/164515, Applicant states that claim 1 now recites that the composition contains about 10 wt.% or more of the leuco compound, and none the cited references, whether considered alone or in any combination, disclose or suggest such subject matter. Additionally, Applicant states that each of those references then goes on to disclose that lower amounts are preferred, with the most preferred range being no higher than 0.1 wt.%.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of ‘146 in view ‘285 or ‘515 are suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
For example, ‘146 clearly teaches embodiments wherein the leuco compound is present in the composition in amount of about 10% by weight or more as recited by the instant claims (See claim 11 of ‘146). Additionally, the Examiner asserts that ‘285 and ‘515 are analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ‘146 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of ‘285 or ‘515 to cure the deficiencies of ‘146. ‘285 or ‘515 are secondary references relied upon for their teaching of a colorant having an Aesthetic value index of greater than -4 such as Yellow LP. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a colorant having an Aesthetic value index of greater than -4 such as Yellow LP (See Table 2 of the instant specification) in the composition taught by ‘146, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘285 or ‘515 teach the use of a colorant such as Yellow LP in a similar composition and further, ‘146 teaches a wide variety of colorants and dyes which are suitable for use in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘146 in view of ‘285 or ‘515 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/January 10, 2026