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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on March 11th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-18 are pending in the application. Claims 4-5, 7, 10, and 16 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morschhauser (US 20120309665 A1) and George (WO 2009085097 A1) is withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 11th, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morschhauser (US 20120309665 A1), and in view of George (WO 2009085097 A1).
With regard to claims 1-3, 6-9, and 16-18, Morschhauser discloses that the use of polyesters in washing compositions to improve soil detachment is known (see [0002]). Morschhauser further teaches the use of the inventive polyesters in compositions for laundry, particularly in a fabric softener (see [0071]). Morschhauser further teaches polyesters obtainable by polymerizing the components selected from one or more sulfo-free aromatic dicarboxylic acids (a), sulfo-containing dicarboxylic acids (b), 1,2 propylene glycol (c), ethylene glycol (d), and one or more compounds of Formula I (e) (see [0012]-[0017]). Morchhauser further discloses terephthalic acid and isophthalic acid as suitable for compound (a) (see [0038]) and 5-sulphoisophthalic acid as suitable for compound (b) (see [0039]). Morschhauser further discloses anionic surfactants (see [0061]) at 0-30wt% (see [0063]).
Morschhauser discloses the inventive polymer may optionally comprise structural elements of an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid. Morschhauser further teaches the polyester may optionally comprise 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid (see [0051]). Morschhauser fails to specifically disclose a polyester prepared from terephthalic acid or isophthalic acid, ethylene glycol, 5-sulphoisophthalic acid, and 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared a polyester from terephthalic acid or isophthalic acid, ethylene glycol, 5-sulphisophthalic acid, and 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid because these are some of the suitable components taught by Morschhauser.
However, Morschhauser fails to disclose the dihydroxyl compound as selected from C5-C10 cyclopentyl diol, cyclohexyl diol, or cycloheptyl diol, or a combination thereof.
George discloses a polyester textile softening agent (see Abstract). George further discloses a reaction product comprising about 1 to about 99mol% of hydroxyl equivalents (see Abstract). George further discloses the second diol component (d) may comprise ethylene glycol and 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol (see Claim 11) and the polyester may comprise terephthalic acid (see Claim 8). George further teaches that low molecular weight diols, such as 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol, provide dispersibility at temperatures greater than 25oC when used in combination with polyethylene glycol (see page 5 line 21-24). Morschhauser discloses ethylene glycol as a suitable monomer. George further discloses 87.3 grams (0.45 moles) of dimethyl terephtalate, 14.8 grams (0.05 moles) dimethyl-5-sodiosulfoisophthalate, 79.5 grams (0.75 moles) diethylene glycol, and 50 grams (0.05 moles) of poly(tetramethylene glycol) having a number average molecular weight of 1000 g/mole, 0.35 grams of Irganox 1010 antioxidant, and 1.3 mLof a 1.25% wt/vol solution of titanium(IV)isopropoxide in n-butanol (see page 23 line 22-27). This equates to 3.85mol% of poly(tetramethylene glycol). George further teaches poly(tetramethylene glycol) and 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol as suitable diols (see page 11 line 21-26). It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to replace poly(tetramethylene glycol) with 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol of George in the polymer of Morschhauser as low molecular weight diols, such as 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol, provide dispersibility at temperatures greater than 25oC when used in combination with polyethylene glycol, as disclosed by George.
With regard to claim 11, Morschhauser discloses the polyesters may also be supplied as a mixture with alkylarylsulfonates (see [0064]).
With regard to claim 12-14, Morschhauser discloses the polyester granules may be incorporated into liquid washing and cleaning compositions (see [0070]). Morschhauser further discloses the use of the inventive polyester granules for laundry, fabric softeners, textile finishing compositions, and light duty washing compositions (see [0071]-[0072]).
With regard to claim 15, Morschhauser discloses hydrotropes present at 1-10wt% (see [0065]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 11th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither George nor Morschhauser are directed to polyesters that are biodegradable nor does either reference teach or suggest that the compositions include biodegradable components.
George nor Morschhauser disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant further argues that George does not teach or suggest a cleaning composition with a dihydroxyl compound present in an amount ranging from 0.1% to 50% based on the 100 molar % of a biodegradable soil release polyester polymer, nor suggest that its addition in the claimed amount would impart biodegradability to the soil release polyester.
As stated above, George discloses a polyester textile softening agent (see Abstract). George further discloses a reaction product comprising about 1 to about 99mol% of hydroxyl equivalents (see Abstract). George further discloses the second diol component (d) may comprise ethylene glycol and 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol (see Claim 11) and the polyester may comprise terephthalic acid (see Claim 8). George further teaches that low molecular weight diols, such as 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol, provide dispersibility at temperatures greater than 25oC when used in combination with polyethylene glycol (see page 5 line 21-24). Morschhauser discloses ethylene glycol as a suitable monomer. George further discloses 87.3 grams (0.45 moles) of dimethyl terephtalate, 14.8 grams (0.05 moles) dimethyl-5-sodiosulfoisophthalate, 79.5 grams (0.75 moles) diethylene glycol, and 50 grams (0.05 moles) of poly(tetramethylene glycol) having a number average molecular weight of 1000 g/mole, 0.35 grams of Irganox 1010 antioxidant, and 1.3 mLof a 1.25% wt/vol solution of titanium(IV)isopropoxide in n-butanol (see page 23 line 22-27). This equates to 3.85mol% of poly(tetramethylene glycol). George further teaches poly(tetramethylene glycol) and 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol as suitable diols (see page 11 line 21-26). It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to replace poly(tetramethylene glycol) with 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol of George in the polymer of Morschhauser as low molecular weight diols, such as 1,2-cyclohexanedimethanol, provide dispersibility at temperatures greater than 25oC when used in combination with polyethylene glycol, as disclosed by George.
Applicant further argues that Morschhauser discloses soil release polymers that feature very good water solubility for washing compositions detergents for textiles and George discloses a textile softening agent. Applicant further argues that fabric softeners typically rely on hydrophobicity or lubricity in order to impart a soft hand feel to a fabric and that this required property for fabric softeners is functionally opposite to the hydrophilicity required for soil release polyesters. Morschhauser discloses the inventive polyesters may be used in compositions for laundry, particularly in a fabric softener. George discloses a polyester textile softening agent. A fabric softener is analogous art to a textile softening agent.
Applicant further argues unexpected results. Table 1 of the instant specifications discloses 0.25mol of sulphonated dicarboxylic acid monomers, 0.046mol of unsulphonated dicarboxylic acid monomers, 1.51mol of polyhydric polyol, 1.39mol of prepolymer, and 0.1mol of dihydroxyl compound. This is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. No mol% or mol amount is disclosed in the instant claims, aside from the mol% of the dihydroxyl compound.
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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights