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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are amended by the term; “wherein the non-fluorocarbon treatment component comprises from about 10 wt-% to about 70 wt-% of the composition, or from about 5% actives to about 15% actives in the composition”, that has rendered the claim indefinite because the claim itself does not define which ingredients, or chemicals, are considered as “actives” within the whole composition. It is not known whether the other claimed chemical compounds, such as those cited on claims 13 and 14, are considered actives. For the purpose of examination, and based on applicant’s argument this amendment is construed as being directed to paraffin.
Applicant is required to include the active’s definition within the independent claims 1 and 16.
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 1-3, and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2012/0071382 A1) in view of Knup (US 2017 /0204558 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, Wang teaches a composition with non-fluorocarbon polymers, free of fluorocarbons and perfluorooctyl acid (instant claims 10-11); [6, 119: table], and method of its use for surface treatment and fabric protection; [title, abstract, 162], providing water and oil repellency; [9]. The composition is applied on substrates (e.g. typical laundry wash) as post treatment or finishing step; [12, 164], wherein the composition further comprises actives such as paraffin wax, and polydimethyl siloxane; [6, 23, 43], nonionic surfactants; [67-68], water 32-33], in emulsion mixture; [35, 69, example 1].
Regarding claim 1, Wang note mandate the absence of amino groups in the claimed polydimethyl siloxane however this is taught by formula (Ia) or R12 SiO(2/2) construed as R1 containing no amino group within the given options of polyorgano- siloxane fluid composition; [15]. Wang clearly teaches: “Each of the one or more polyorganosiloxane fluid compounds contains at least 80 mo!% of units selected from
the group consisting of units of the general formulae Ia, lb, II and III” ; [7, 15], and thus is construed as being chosen without the other options with amino-groups. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to choose this non-aminopolysiloxane as a complete functional equivalent component of the composition. Furthermore, Wang does not teach a higher amounts of paraffin based hydrophobic agent. However, the analogous art of Knup teaches a very similar fluorine free water repellent composition comprising the paraffin (component B) in the amount of 5-90%; [27]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of paraffin (without harming the chemical integrity of Wang’s composition) with the motivation enhancing its emulsification with softer and more water repellent treated fabric(s).
Regarding claims 2-3, Wang teaches the method’s washing cycle comprises presoak (i.e. pretreatment), wash, rinse, finish and extracting phases (i.e. steps) which are construed as a routine and expected operation of typical automatic laundry machines. The laundry composition is also used/applied at post treatment step; [12, 162, 164], separate from starches or so softeners.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 14, Wang teaches the instantly claimed duration of contact times; [102; table]. The amount of applied composition is 500-7000 ppm; [163]. Wang further teaches additional functional ingredients such as solvent, builder, dispersant(s); [67,71, 75].
Claims 7-9, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2012/0071382 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 7-9, 12-13 and 15, Wang teaches the pH of composition in the range of 2.8-7.2 with an obvious overlapping region rendering the claim obvious. Furthermore, the instantly claimed temperatures (instant 8-9) are actually provided by the laundry machines setting/operation options which would be selected before the washing process for different types of fabrics and washing purposes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (at the time before effective filling date) to set the temperatures of washing steps for the desired delivery of actives (i.e. water repellency polymers) during the washing and after washing and drying, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), MPEP 2144.04 [R-6] VD.
Wang further teaches (instant 12-13) paraffin wax in amounts of up to 5% (construed as active); [43], nonionic surfactants such as alkoxylated alcohols, EO/PO block copolymers in amounts of 0.001-5 % ; [67-69]. Wang teaches (instant claim 15) preservatives such as paraben and benzyl alcohol in amounts of 0.1-1%; [43-44], and additional solvents ethanol, propylene glycol in amounts of 2.9-5%; [43, 119: table]. Note that, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, before the effective filing date, of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2012/0071382 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2012/0077725 A1).
Regarding claim 4 , Wang-382 does not teach the instantly claimed method is employed for industrial laundry machines. However, the analogous art of Wang-725 (a fabric care composition & method; abstract, title) teaches this limitation identically, wherein the composition is used for industrial laundry machines; [153]. It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date) to use the instantly claimed composition with industrial laundry machines (hotels & hospitals) as taught by Wang-725 above.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2012/0071382 A1) in view of Knup (US 2017 /0204558 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Wang teaches a composition comprising non-fluorocarbon polymers; [6, 119: table], for making the cellulosic or synthetic fabrics (instant claim 20) water and oil repellent; [9-10]. wherein the composition further comprises actives such as paraffin wax, and polydimethyl siloxane; [6, 23, 43], nonionic surfactants such as alkoxylated alcohols, EO/PO block copolymers; [67-69]; [67-68], water; [32-33], in emulsion mixture; [35, 69, example 1].
Regarding claim 16, Wang note mandate the absence of amino groups in the claimed polydimethyl siloxane however this is taught by formula (Ia) or R12 SiO(2/2) construed as R1 containing no amino group within the given options of polyorgano- siloxane fluid composition; [15]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to choose this non-aminopolysiloxane as a complete functional equivalent component of the composition. Furthermore, Wang does not teach a higher amounts of paraffin based hydrophobic agent. However, the analogous art of Knup teaches a very similar fluorine free water repellent composition comprising the paraffin (component B) in the amount of 5-90%; [27]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of paraffin (without harming the chemical integrity of Wang’s composition) with the motivation enhancing solution’s emulsification with softer and more water repellent treated fabric(s).
Regarding claims 18-19, Wang teaches nonionic surfactants such as alkoxylated alcohols, EO/PO block copolymers in amounts of 0.001-5 % ; [67-69]. Wang teaches preservatives such as paraben and benzyl alcohol in amounts of 0.1-1%; [43-44], and additional solvents ethanol, propylene glycol in amounts of 2.9-5%; [43, 119: table]. Note that, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, before the effective filing date, of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2012/0071382 A1), Knup (US 2017 /0204558 A1), as applied to claim 16 and further in view of in view of Wang et al. (US 2012/0077725 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Wang does not teach the melting point of paraffin. However, the analogous art of Knup teaches a very similar fluorine free water repellent composition comprising the type of paraffin wherein its melting point is from 60 to 90 deg.C; [25-27]. 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 select the paraffin types with claimed melting point with the motivation of providing a desired water repellency (due to paraffin’s melting point) and its durability against outdoor element at different temperatures. . Furthermore, Wang-382 does not teach the hydrophobic agent (urethane base) with fatty acid hydrocarbons. However, the analogous art of Wang-725 teaches this limitation; [35], as an equivalent fabric treatment agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, applicant’s relevant argument are responded to briefly.
In response to applicant’s arguments (pages 6 and 11) that; “The polyorganosiloxane fluid compounds taught by Wang include polymers having repeat units with the formulas R2R2bSiO(212) (Ia) and R1a R2b SiO (212) (lb). Due to the requirement that the ratio of the sum of la and lb to the sum of the remaining units in the polymers be greater than zero, the R2 residue in formulas Ia and lb are necessarily included in the polyorganosiloxane compounds. The R2 residue is an aminoalkyl
residue. Claims 1 is amended to now recite that the non-fluorocarbon treatment comprises "a polydimethylsiloxane without any amino groups of functionality." ( emphasis added).”, as explained above, the applicant’s interpretation of Wang-382 is apparently different that the Office, wherein Wang’s equivalent polydimethyl siloxane active agents do indeed comprise non-amino groups as well.
In response to applicant’s argument on lack of anticipation (pages 7-8) for claims 2-3 as is noted above, due to amendment of claim 1 and changes of ground of rejection, it is now moot.
In response to applicant’s argument (page 10) that; “Wang-725 teaches
polysiloxanes containing amino residues. Moreover, the Wang-725 reference explicitly suggests compositions that are hydrophobic fluids containing fluorine moieties. Both Wang-382 and Wang-725 teach amino-modified polysiloxanes, and Wang-725 teaches fluorine moieties. Therefore, both references explicitly suggest to one skilled in the art that polysiloxanes in a hydrophobic composition for use in laundry treatment can have amino functionality and/or fluorine.”. It should be noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The reason for combination of Wang-725 was, and is, the use of claimed composition for industrial scale washing machine’s only. The main instantly claimed limitation is already taught by primary reference of Wang-382.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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. 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
2026/04/30
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights