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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-11 recite the limitations "bleach catalyst", “transition metal catalyst”, “bleach activator”, and “pre-formed peracid”. which include insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations as explained below.
Claim 7 states the limitation “acyl hydrazone bleach catalyst” on the second and third lines which lacks insufficient antecedence.
Claim 8 states the limitation “imine based or iminium based bleach catalyst” on the second and third lines which lacks insufficient antecedence.
Claim 9 states the limitation “transition metal catalyst” on the lines 1-3 which lacks insufficient antecedence.
Claim 10 states the limitation “bleach activator” on the lines 1-2 and lines 3-4 which lacks insufficient antecedence.
Claim 11 states the limitation “pre-formed peracid” on the lines 1-3 which lacks insufficient antecedence.
Note, The current amendment for these claims are still insufficient and do not place the claims in correct forms. All the ingredients above should be stated in form of “further comprising” within their corresponding claims.
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 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2020/0032173 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 12, Miracle teaches a method of laundering fabrics (8, 44, 101) by steps of contacting a powder (10: pg.2 Col. 1 & 2) detergent composition; [101], comprising; (i)- detersive surfactants; [48], (ii)- phenolic anti-oxidant with formula structure of;
PNG
media_image1.png
198
170
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; [12]
Wherein the instant R1 corresponds to R = methyl, tertiary butyl of Miracle and instant R2 corresponds to Miracle’s R1= C3-C6 branched alkyl such as branched tertiary butyl or 3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxytoluene (BHT); [12: page 3; Column 2, page 8: Column 1; ¶.4], and instant “a” corresponds to miracle’s x= 1 or 2. Considering the teaching of Miracle (instant claims 2-3); “wherein R is C1 -C22 linear alkyl or C3-C22 branched alkyl, each (1) having optionally therein one or more ester (-CO2-) or ether (-0-) links”; [12: end of column 1 on page 3], the instantly claimed formulas (Ralox and Tinogard) of claim 2 namely;
PNG
media_image2.png
194
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Tinogard TS) instant claim 3 (note that the chain length after -O- above is C18) and.
PNG
media_image3.png
149
190
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Ralox 35) (instant claim 2) are both taught identically.
(iii)- composition comprises (instant claim 12) percarbonate (an oxidizing & bleaching agent); [87,121], hueing dye such as azo, azine and anthroquinone in amounts of 0.0001-0.05%; [65, 88], surfactant (instant claim 4) as C12-C15 alkyl sulfate; [50], and water wherein the pH of wash liquor is 7-11 or 7.5-8.2; [94, 160; Table]. Total range of composition in liquor is 0.001-80% which renders the limitation obvious by an overlapping of ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed Cir. 1990), [MPEP 2144.05, R5]. Furthermore, Composition may comprise iron (12), however the presence of its amount and also the other oxidizing agent of percarbonate are held to a very minimum (i.e. less than 3000 ppm)for not adversely affect the main phenolic antioxidant component; [121]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to minimize the percarbonate and iron within the composition with the motivation of enhancing the washing result of laundering process and minimize the color loss of fabrics as indicated by Miracle; [121].
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 13, Miracle teaches perfume; [23, 65, 116], in the amounts of 100 ppm; [Table 159], enzyme in amounts of 0.0001-5%; [78-79], and
The bleach activator is capable in forming C6 -C14 alkyl per-carboxylated acid; [185(4)].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2020/0032173 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Valenti et al. (US 2018/0148672 A1).
Regarding claims 7, Miracle teaches bleach catalysts; [65], but it does not teach the instantly claimed one. However, the analogous art of Valenti teaches a laundry treatment method and composition (abstract, 5-7) comprising a bleach catalyst of acyl hydrazone; [155]. At the time, before the effective filing date, of invention it would have been obvious to substitute the catalyst of Valenti with that of Miracle as a functional equivalent ingredient, as taught by Valenti above.
Claim 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle et al. (US 2020/0032173 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Qin et al. (US 2016/0326467 A1).
Regarding claims 8-9, Miracle does not teach iminium based and transition metal catalysts. However the analogous art of Qin teaches these catalysts (instant 8-9); [185(5), 188(6)], in amounts of 0.005-25 ppm; [190]. At the time before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to add (or partially substitute) the instantly claimed catalyst with the motivation of enhancing the reaction process for the improved laundry treatment as taught by Quin above.
Regarding claims 10-11, Miracle does not specifically teach (65) the same bleach activator. However Quin teaches tetraacylethylene diamine and nonanoyl oxybenzene sulfonate in the amounts of 0.6-10%; [185(4), 192]. Furthermore, Miracle teaches the preformed peracid but not its amount; [86(2)]. However, Quin teaches the this amount preformed peracid in amounts of 0.1-60%; [192].
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2026/02/09 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of co-pending application 18/107,090 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/02/09 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because;
In response to applicant’s argument (pages 7 last paragraph to 8; 1st paragraph) that: “ As stated in the Background of the present application, the inventors have surprisingly found that the addition of a specific phenolic antioxidant into a laundry detergent that comprises percarbonate and hueing dye decreases the reactivity between the percarbonate and the hueing dye in a wash liquor. This in tum enables a greater amount of percarbonate to be used in the presence of hueing dye without having a detrimental effect on the hueing dye performance in a wash liquor. As claimed, the detergent composition is a powder detergent composition. Miracle et al., paragraphs [0122] and [0159], as cited in the Office Action, relates to a liquid laundry detergent compositions. In Miracle et al., the problem solved is minimizing reactions with leuco colorants that discolor the liquid laundry detergent composition before use (see e.g. [0005], Miracle et al.)”. I)- It is noted that, contrary to applicant’s assertion the Miracle’s teaching is not limited to only a liquid composition but rather it includes other physical states of composition such as powder, granule, bar and tablet; [Parag. 10; page 2 both columns]. II)- On the question of Miracle solving the problem of diminishing the leuco colorants efficacy, and that being different that the instant method & composition’s properties, it is noted that: “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant, In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 91 9 F.2d 688,16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Also, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300,1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993)”.
In response to applicant’s argument (page 9) that: “The Applicant respectfully submits that one skilled in the art of powder detergent compositions facing the problem of how to provide for a higher level of percarbonate in a wash liquor without degrading the performance of the hueing dye would not be motivated to reach to teaching in Miracle et al. on stabilizing for storage prior to use a liquid detergent composition containing a colorant by including an antioxidant. The Office Action's stated motivation on Page 5, Lines 13-15, of the Office Action is just a generic statement common to all laundry detergents of "enhancing the washing result of laundering process and minimize the color loss of fabrics. "There is no motivation in Miracle et al., as cited, for a person skilled in the art to think that for powder laundry detergents that contain a hueing dye that the amount of percarbonate that can be present in the wash liquor can be increased without degrading the performance of the hueing dye by providing a specific phenolic antioxidant at the claimed level in the wash liquor. Rather, the Office Action is using the Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap following the course of impermissible hindsight to reach the pending claims. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 and claims dependent thereon are allowable”. It should be noted that; I)- The question of the powder state of the composition is responded to above and is moot now. II)- Applicant’s assertion on the amount (0.3% or 3000ppm) of percarbonate in view of Miracle’s direct teaching to its minor role in the composition (in range of 0.001 meqv/100 gr; 121) which is further evidenced by the pH range of aqueous wash solution of its composition (i.e. pH of 7-11) is not persuasive. This is further affirmed by prior arts of Valenti and Qin wherein both reference are teaching percarbonate in the ranges as low as 0.05% to higher amounts correspondingly ; [153, 185(3)], which indeed includes instantly claimed 3000 ppm as well. It should be noted that the prior art of Miracle in terms of its both chemical structure (constituents) and properties in aqueous or powder form is almost an anticipatory reference which is further evidenced by its pH range, thus rendering applicant’s argument unpersuasive. III)- In response to applicant’s “impermissible hindsight” assertion it is noted that: it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
To date, there has been no display of evidence to elucidate differences between the two inventions. It is noted that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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
2026/06/07
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights