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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 15th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on January 15th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, and 9-15 are pending in the application. Claims 2-3 and claims 7-8 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gani (“Characterization of Encapsulated Titanium Dioxide Using Engkabang Fat Esters for Cosmeceutical Purposes”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 and claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gani (“Characterization of Encapsulated Titanium Dioxide Using Engkabang Fat Esters for Cosmeceutical Purposes”) and Bianca (BR 102015012999 A2) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miracle (CA 3081891 A1) and Gani (“Characterization of Encapsulated Titanium Dioxide Using Engkabang Fat Esters for Cosmeceutical Purposes”) is withdrawn.
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 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, 4-6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miracle (CA 3081891 A1) and in further view of Gani (“Characterization of Encapsulated Titanium Dioxide Using Engkabang Fat Esters for Cosmeceutical Purposes”), De Rose (US 20180237729 A1), and Bianca (BR 102015012999 A2).
With regard to claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 11, Miracle describes a laundry care composition comprising surfactants (see page 42 line 22), encapsulated materials (see page 49 line 24), a plurality of suspension particles (see page 84 line 12-13) which may include encapsulates, beads, or polymeric particles (see page 84 line 22-23), a rheology modifier (see page 88 line 22-24), and which, when in liquid form, may be aqueous (see page 88 line 7-9). Miracle further discloses up to 90wt% water (see page 42 line 22-23 to page 43 line 1-2), 5-40wt% surfactants which may be linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (see page 43 line 26-27), C8-C18 ethoxylated sulfate (see page 44 line 10), and ethoxylated alcohol (see page 45 line 18), 3-6wt% hydrotropes (see page 85 line 20-21), and 0.01-5wt% of particles (see page 84 line 12-13).
However, Miracle fails to disclose specifically sodium lauryl ethoxysulfate.
De Rose discloses a laundry composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). De Rose further discloses sodium laureth sulfate as known in the art (see [0027]). Sodium laureth sulfate is another name for sodium lauryl ethoxysulfate, as evidenced by PubChem.
However, Miracle fails to disclose metal oxide particles that are partially or completely encapsulated by a natural wax.
Gani discloses encapsulated titanium dioxide and further discloses encapsulated titanium dioxide as giving higher absorbance than un-encapsulated titanium dioxide (see Abstract). Gani further discloses coated metallic oxide sunscreens as stable (see page 725 paragraph 1) and teaches example formulations (see Table 1). Gani further discloses the titanium dioxide as encapsulated in beeswax and engkabang fat esters (EFE) (see Abstract). Gani further teaches the un-encapsulated titanium particles having a mean particle size of 241nm-294nm and encapsulated particles having a mean particle size of 191nm-295nm (see page 727, Particle Size Measurement). Gani further discloses water (see page 730, Table 1).
Further, while Gani fails to disclose encapsulated particles having an average size of 300-500nm, Gani discloses encapsulated particles having an average size of 191nm-295nm. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to slightly increase the particle size from 295nm to 300nm, as disclosed in the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the particles of Gani in the laundry care composition of Miracle, as Miracle discloses encapsulated particles may be used and Gani discloses encapsulated particles. Further, the formulation of Gani comprises particles, a rheology modifier, and water, and a surfactant. It stands to reason that the method of Miracle, which utilizes a laundry detergent which may comprise particles, a surfactant, water, and a rheology modifier, would work with the detergent of Gani or if the particles of Gani were incorporated into the detergent of Miracle.
However, Gani fails to disclose the natural wax as consisting of carnauba wax, Candelilla wax, bayberry wax, castor wax, coco butter, esparto wax. Japan wax, ioioba wax, laurel wax. ouricurv wax, palm wax, rice bran wax, soy wax, sunflower wax.shea butter, tallow tree wax and mixtures thereof.
Bianca discloses a composition for photoprotective action, an analogous art (see Abstract). Bianca further discloses carnauba wax, which may encapsulate titanium dioxide, as increasing the quality of inorganic photoprotectors (see [013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilized the carnauba wax, as disclosed by Bianca, in the compositions of Gani for the purpose of enhancing the quality of titanium dioxide photoprotectors, as disclosed by Bianca.
With regard to claim 6, Miracle discloses the laundry care composition may comprise a rheology modifier (see page 48 line 10).
With regard to claim 10, Miracle discloses a method of treating a textile which includes providing a laundry care composition, adding the composition to a liquid medium, placing the textile articles in the liquid medium, optionally rinsing the textile, and drying the textile (see Abstract).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gani (“Characterization of Encapsulated Titanium Dioxide Using Engkabang Fat Esters for Cosmeceutical Purposes”) and in further view of Villalobos-Hernández (“Novel nanoparticulate carrier system based on carnauba wax and decyl oleate for the dispersion of inorganic sunscreens in aqueous media”).
With regard to claim 12, Gani discloses encapsulated titanium dioxide and further discloses encapsulated titanium dioxide as giving higher absorbance than un-encapsulated titanium dioxide (see Abstract). Gani further discloses coated metallic oxide sunscreens as stable (see page 725 paragraph 1) and teaches example formulations (see Table 1). Gani further discloses the titanium dioxide as encapsulated in beeswax and engkabang fat esters (EFE) (see Abstract). Gani further teaches the un-encapsulated titanium particles having a mean particle size of 241nm-294nm and encapsulated particles having a mean particle size of 191nm-295nm (see page 727, Particle Size Measurement). Gani further discloses water (see page 730, Table 1).
However, Gani fails to disclose a particle size of 388nm.
Villalobos-Hernández discloses nanoparticle dispersions in sunscreens (see Abstract). Villalobos-Hernández further discloses titanium dioxide as an ultraviolet radiation attenuator (see Abstract). Villalobos-Hernández further teaches an increase in particle size as reinforcing UV-blocking properties of the encapsulated substances (see page 121, 4.2.6). Villalobos-Hernández further teaches encapsulated titanium dioxide particles as having a particle size of 337.9nm-772.9nm (see Table 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the larger particle size of Villalobos-Hernández for the encapsulated particles of Gani for the purpose of reinforcing UV-blocking properties of the encapsulated substances, as taught by Villalobos-Hernández.
With regard to claim 13, Gani discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Gani further discloses water at 70wt% (see Table 1).
With regard to claim 14, Gani discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Gani further teaches xanthan gum, which is a rheology modifier (see Table 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gani (“Characterization of Encapsulated Titanium Dioxide Using Engkabang Fat Esters for Cosmeceutical Purposes”) and Villalobos-Hernández (“Novel nanoparticulate carrier system based on carnauba wax and decyl oleate for the dispersion of inorganic sunscreens in aqueous media”), and in further view of Bianca (BR 102015012999 A2).
With regard to claim 15, Gani and Villalobos-Hernández disclose all of the limitations of claim 12.
However, Gani fails to disclose carnauba wax.
Bianca discloses a composition for photoprotective action, an analogous art (see Abstract). Bianca further discloses carnauba wax, which may encapsulate titanium dioxide, as increasing the quality of inorganic photoprotectors (see [013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilized the carnauba wax, as disclosed by Bianca, in the compositions of Gani for the purpose of enhancing the quality of titanium dioxide photoprotectors, as disclosed by Bianca.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 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 Gani does not teach or suggest a laundry detergent formulation.
Miracle describes a laundry care composition comprising surfactants (see page 42 line 22), encapsulated materials (see page 49 line 24), a plurality of suspension particles (see page 84 line 12-13) which may include encapsulates, beads, or polymeric particles (see page 84 line 22-23), a rheology modifier (see page 88 line 22-24), and which, when in liquid form, may be aqueous (see page 88 line 7-9). Miracle further discloses up to 90wt% water (see page 42 line 22-23 to page 43 line 1-2), 5-40wt% surfactants which may be linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (see page 43 line 26-27), C8-C18 ethoxylated sulfate (see page 44 line 10), and ethoxylated alcohol (see page 45 line 18), 3-6wt% hydrotropes (see page 85 line 20-21), and 0.01-5wt% of particles (see page 84 line 12-13).
As Gani is no longer used as a primary reference, Applicant’s arguments regarding Gani are moot in view of Miracle.
Conclusion
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