DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SY et al. (WO 2019/237321 A1) in view of Murch et al. (WO 1994/24242).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8 and 12, Sy teaches a granular laundry detergent composition (page 3: lines 10-11, 13: 10, claim 11) comprising the granule size of 3-10 mm and aspect ratio of no more than 5; [2: 5-10, 4: 10-19], with mass of 0.1 mg to 5 gr; [5: 23-26], and with 10-99 wt.% water soluble carrier as (instant claims 3-4) polyethylene glycol (M.W. of 2000-20,000); [6: 25-32], wherein the granules are in spherical, or hemispherical shape (instant claim 2) ; [5: 1-7]. The composition comprises 0.1-30 wt.% perfume particles (instant claim 8) ; [4: 10-13, 6: 3-6], and surfactants, enzyme(s), builders (instant claim 12) ; [7: 31-33].
Regarding claims 1, 5-6 and 7, Sy does not teach the instantly claimed fine particles. However, the analogous art of Murch et al. teaches a granular (151) laundry detergent (abstract, 1: 10-12, 26, 47: example V] composition comprising zeolite and precipitated silica with fine particle sizes of 2-5 micron and 1-3 microns and in total amount of 2-6 wt.% (zeolite) and 1.5 wt.% silica; [45: 29-35]. At the time, before the effective filing date, of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the zeolite powder of Murch to Sy’s composition with the motivation of preventing the agglomeration of granular detergent composition and enhancing it flowability and thus its delivery on to the washing liquors as taught by Murch et al.; [45: 22-35].
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SY et al. (WO 2019/237321 A1), in view of Murch et al. (WO 1994/24242) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2017/107819 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Sy teaches a granular laundry detergent comprising quaternary ammonium softener; [9: 18], but not exactly the same as instantly claimed one. However, the analogous art of Zhang teaches a granule of laundry detergent composition (12, 81, 151, 157) comprising ester of quaternary ammonium softener in amount of 1-20 wt.%; [35-38]. Furthermore, Sy does not teach the polysaccharide conditioning compound. However, the analogous art of Zhang teaches the instantly claimed cationic polysaccharide in amounts of 0.1-10 wt.% ; [13, 29-30]. At the time, before the effective filing date, of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the above two softeners of Murch to Sy’s composition with the motivation of providing a complete softening spectrum due to their corresponding conditioning properties, as taught by Zhan above.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SY et al. (WO 2019/237321 A1), in view of Murch et al. (WO 1994/24242) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ohtani et al. (US 2016/0060582 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sy does not teach the antibacterial agent of 4-4’-dichloro-2-hydroxy diphenyl ether. However the analogous art of Ohtani teaches a laundry composition comprising the above claimed antibacterial agent; [22. 32, 43]. At the time, before the effective filing date, of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the above antibacterial agent of Ohtani to Sy’s composition with the motivation of providing an anti-bacterial activity for the composition for completely sterilized substrates such as clothing of hospitals and medical clinics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/03/18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because;
In response to applicant’s only argument (page 5; last paragraph, and page 6; first paragraph) that; “Specifically, Applicant submits that Murch as prior art actually proves the non-obviousness of applying the use of fine powders like zeolite. Applicant submits that Murch teaches the use of fine powders (e.g., zeolite, silica, etc.) at high concentrations (see Murch, page 45, line 29) with 2%-6% zeolite and 0.1%-1.5% silica - total fines of 2.1% - 7.5%. Referring to the present application, Applicant states that on page 7, Table 3 highlights that at a concentration of 3% zeolite, there were severe residues of 20%-40%; whereas, 0.6% zeolite only had 0.27%-0.83% residues. Therefore, using zeolite concentrations in the range as taught by Murch would lead to
severe and unacceptable residues. On page 20, of the present application, Applicant discloses that the fine particles amount could be preferred based on a concentration from 0.1 % to 2%. This 2% would fall below the lower limit (2.1 % ) used in the example by Murch. Therefore, Applicant submits that it was inventive and nonobvious in view of Murch to use low concentrations of fine powders to prevent clumping.”, applicant’s argument is only partially correct and not completely and persuasively enough to overcome the claims’ rejection for following reasons. I)- With respect to Murch’s higher amounts of fine particles and those concerning “zeolite” and its comparison to the instantly claimed amount it should be noted that the citations from the reference is not commensurate with scope of the instant claims 1 and 5-7. The amounts of fine particles by instant claims 1 and 7 are 0.1 to 10% and 0.1 to 5% correspondingly. There is/are no limitation of the amount of zeolite by itself thus rendering the argument unrelated in view of the claims. II)- Applicant’s assertion of the preferred amounts of zeolite (submitted Specification; page 20) is not only applicable and acceptable amounts (0.1-5%) for the instantly claimed composition, and on the other hand still overlaps with the general amounts of fine particle taught by Murch. III)- The comparison between 2% zeolite (by applicant) and 2.1% by Murch could not be found in Murch reference, and furthermore the above values are well within close quantitative proximity for obviousness. Again, please note that there is no claimed amount for zeolite alone within the instant claims.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/06/03
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights