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 August 10th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-25 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11, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morschhauser (US 20120309665 A1) and George (WO 2009085097 A1) is withdrawn.
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, 17-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morschhauser (US 20120309665 A1), evidenced by Spinacé (“Determination of intrinsic viscosity of poly(ethylene terephthalate) using infrared spectroscopy and multivariate calibration method”).
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 discloses a formulation comprising 4wt% of lauryl alcohol ethoxylate, 7EO (see [0095]). Lauryl alcohol ethoxylate is a nonionic surfactant. Poly(ethylene terephthalate) has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.346-0.780dL/g, as evidenced by Spinacé (see Abstract).
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. Morschhauser further discloses 1-15% of 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid based on the total amount of the monomers used (see [0052]).
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. Morschhauser teaches 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]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect to create a polyester suitable for use in washing compositions as polyesters with terephthalate units and sulfo-containing end groups, more particularly sulfoethoxylated end groups, are known to be useful in washing compositions and fabric softeners (see [0005]) and the polyesters disclosed by Morschhauser exhibit a good graying inhibition effect for textiles, can be supplied as granules in free-flowing form, have good solubility in water, are stable to hydrolysis and substantially retain a mobile consistency in dissolved form, even in the case of prolonged storage (see [0010]), effects achieved by sulfo-containing polyesters below having a particular propylene glycol/ethylene glycol (PG/EG) ratio (see [0011]).
While Morschhauser does not disclose at least 70% biodegradability according to OECD 302B standard, Morschhauser discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. It stands to reason that the disclosed composition would meet the requirement of at least 70% biodegradability according to OECD 302B standard. 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).
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]).
With regard to claim 20, Morschhauser discloses the inventive washing and cleaning composition formulations contain at least 0.01% by weight, preferably between 0.1 and 10% by weight (see [0077]).
With regard to claim 25, Morschhauser discloses the inventive washing and cleaning composition formulations contain at least 0.01% by weight, preferably between 0.1 and 10% by weight of polyesters (see [0077]). Further, Morschhauser discloses a formulation comprising 4wt% of lauryl alcohol ethoxylate, 7EO (see [0095]).
With respect to the ratio of surfactant(s) to biodegradable soil release polymer of 1:2 to 1:1 considering that Morschhauser teaches a formulation comprising 4wt% of lauryl alcohol ethoxylate, 7EO in [0095] and between 0.1 and 10% by weight of polyesters disclosed in [0077], the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 4.0 wt% of lauryl alcohol ethoxylate: 4 wt% of polyesters or 1:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morschhauser (US 20120309665 A1), as evidenced by Spinacé (“Determination of intrinsic viscosity of poly(ethylene terephthalate) using infrared spectroscopy and multivariate calibration method”), and further in view of Hochburg (US 20090293210 A1).
With regard to claim 21, Morschhauser discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
However, Morschhauser fails to disclose an anti-foaming agent.
Hochburg discloses the use of a combination of a free fluorescent whitening agent and cationic polymer as a brightening agent for a synthetic single or blended textile, an analogous art (see Abstract). Hochburg further discloses the fabric softening composition may also comprise additives which are customary for standard commercial fabric softening compositions and further discloses antifoams as customary additives (see [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the antifoam of Hochburg in the composition of Morschhauser as antifoams are customary additives in fabric softening compositions, as disclosed by Hochburg.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morschhauser (US 20120309665 A1), as evidenced by Spinacé (“Determination of intrinsic viscosity of poly(ethylene terephthalate) using infrared spectroscopy and multivariate calibration method”), and further in view of Bettiol (US 6964943 B1).
With regard to claims 22-24, Morschhauser discloses all of the limitations of claim 15.
However, Morschhauser fails to disclose a detergency builder selected from the group consisting of inorganic phosphates and polyphosphonates.
Bettiol discloses a laundry detergent composition comprising a cotton soil release polymer, an analogous art (see Abstract). Bettiol further discloses the performance of the laundry detergent compositions of the present invention is enhanced by the addition of another detergent ingredient selected from a builder, especially a zeolite, a sodium tripolyphosphate and/or layered silicate (see Col 3 line 10-14). Bettiol further discloses detergency builder salts are normally included in amounts of from 5% to 80% by weight of the composition preferably from 10% to 70% and most usually from 30% to 60% by weight (see Col 49 line 48-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sodium tripolyphosphate of Bettiol in the composition of Morschhauser for the purpose of enhancing the performance of the laundry detergent composition, as disclosed by Bettiol.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-25 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.
Applicant argues that Morschhauser is directed to polyesters formed by polymerizing: a) at least one sulfo-free aromatic dicarboxylic acid, salt thereof, anhydride thereof, and/or ester thereof, b) optionally at least one sulfo-containing dicarboxylic acid, salt thereof, anhydride thereof, and/or ester thereof, c) 1,2-propylene glycol, d) ethylene glycol, e) at least one compound of the formula (1): R1O(CHR2CHR3O)nH , f) optionally at least one compound of the formula (2): H-(OCH2CH2)m SO3X, and g) optionally at least one crosslinking polyfunctional compound. In comparing the biodegradable polyester of the present claims with that of Morschhauser, it is apparent that the pending claims rely on both sulphonated dicarboxylic acid monomers (SA) and an unsulphonated aliphatic dicarboxylic acid (A), Morschhauser's sulfo-containing dicarboxylic acids are entirely optional.
Morschhauser discloses an optional sulfo-containing dicarboxylic acid (see [0014]). Morschhauser further discloses that a preferred embodiment comprises 0.3-1.1mol of sulfo-containing dicarboxylic acid (component b) (see [0027]). Polyester 1 of Morschhauser discloses 0.5mol of dimethyl 5-sulfoisophthalate Na salt (see [0082]). Dimethyl 5-sulfoisophthalate Na salt is disclosed as a preferred compound of component b (see [0039]). As component b is disclosed as preferred and further disclosed in Polyester 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the optional sulfo-containing dicarboxylic acid of Morschhauser as Morschhauser discloses the optional sulfo-containing dicarboxylic acid as preferred and further discloses at least one example utilizing the optional sulfo-containing dicarboxylic acid.
Applicant further argues that Morschhauser fails to disclose the biodegradability of the polymer. As stated above, while Morschhauser does not disclose at least 70% biodegradability according to OECD 302B standard, Morschhauser discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. It stands to reason that the disclosed composition would meet the requirement of at least 70% biodegradability according to OECD 302B standard. 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).
As George is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding George are moot.
Applicant further argues that Morschhauser does not teach or suggest a prepolymer viscosity as set forth in claim 19. As stated above, Poly(ethylene terephthalate) has an intrinsic viscosity of 0.346-0.780dL/g, as evidenced by Spinacé. Further, Morschhauser discloses the inventive washing and cleaning composition formulations contain at least 0.01% by weight, preferably between 0.1 and 10% by weight (see [0077]).
Applicant further argues that, while Morschhauser recognizes that cleaning and washing compositions may include surfactants, the amounts relied on by the Examiner point to a granulating process where the polyester and optionally additives may be formed into granules. Therefore, this teaching in Morschhauser does not point a person of ordinary skill in the art to include an amount of surface active agent in a cleaning composition. Instead, it directs a person of ordinary skill to forming polyester granules.
As stated above, Morschhauser further discloses discloses a formulation comprising 4wt% of lauryl alcohol ethoxylate, 7EO (see [0095]). Lauryl alcohol ethoxylate is a nonionic surfactant.
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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights