Response to Amendment
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al (2017/0335245) in view of Barnabas et al (WO0024856) is withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizatani et al (4411891) in view of Barnabas et al. (WO 00 24856).
Mizutani et al discloses (Example 1) a composition comprising polyoxyethylene lauryl ether sulfate sodium salt (surfactant) and 2-lauryl-N--carboxymethyl-N--hydroxy-ethyl imidazolium betaine (surfactant), cationized dextran of examples 1, 3-5, 7, 11 and 12 (dextran polymer functionalized with quaternary ammonium moieties) and perfume (fragrance) in a suitable amount. Branched alpha-glucans generally comprising chains of alpha-1,6-linked glucose monomers, with periodic side chains (branches) linked to the straight chains by alpha-1,3-linkage (col. 3, lines 14-24). Note that the nitrogen substitution counts in the examples of Mizutani et al are roughly between 0.1 and 0.2 (10-20%) , which is in the same range as the examples of the present application (0.19). Kjeldahl values will therefore also be similar. Note that dextran is a branched polymer while having an average molecular weight of 650-2.5M and an intrinsic viscosity of 0.02-2.3 (col. 7, lines 1-10). Tables 1, examples D-G show water content under 75% as claimed and Dextran polymer from o.5-1.
The specific type of perfume is silent from Mizutani et al.
Barnabas et al teaches a fabric care composition (abstract, pages 1-2) comprising; water; [examples X-XV], cleaning surfactants; [page 2: D, page 3], deposition aid polymer (instant claim 2) such as dextran; [page 4: J. 2, page 9: F. 3, pages 10: L. 2, 4], and fragrances such as citronellol and linalool (pages 135-136).
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to comprise and include specific perfumes in dextran polymer laundry aids such as Mizutani from similar and analogous technology of Barnabas for their intended purpose of providing scent control for purposes known in the art.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights