DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In instant claims 1 and 12, a comma should be inserted between “verdyl acetate” and “dimethylbenzylcarbinol acetate” for grammatical purposes. Claims 3-10 are included in this objection for being dependent upon claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “pH of 5 to 10”, followed by the narrow recitation of “more preferably 6 to 8”, “most preferably 6.1 to 7.0”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Batchelor et al, WO 022/228903.
The applied reference has a common inventor/assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Batchelor et al, WO 022/228903, discloses a liquid unit dose laundry detergent comprising a methyl ester ethoxylate, and a method for treating a textile with an aqueous solution of 0.5-20 grams per liter of the detergent, and optionally drying the textile (see abstract). It is further taught by Batchelor et al that the methyl ester ethoxylate has the formula depicted on page 2, line 23-page 3, line 15, wherein R1 contains 18 carbon atoms, that the methyl ester ethoxylate comprises monounsaturated C18, wherein the weight proportion of the monounsaturated C18 to other C18 components is at least 2.2, and preferably from 2.9-7.0 (see page 4, lines 12-16), that the composition has a pH of 6.1-7 (see page 5, lines 30-31), that the composition contains 10-50% by weight of the methyl ester ethoxylate (see page 6, lines 1-3), that the total level of surfactant in the composition is 4-95% by weight (see page 6, lines 16-18), that the composition contains 0.1-5% by weight of cationic surfactants, such as alkyl dimethyl ammonium halides (i.e., a cationic fabric softening agent; see page 21, lines 7-16), and 0.5-30% by weight of fragrances, such as limonene, dimethyl benzyl carbonate acetate, geraniol, verdyl acetate, cyclamal, and beta-ionone (see page 25, line 32-page 27, line 17), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Example on pages 38 and 39.
Although Batchelor et al generally discloses a laundry detergent containing 0.1-5% by weight of cationic surfactants, such as alkyl dimethyl ammonium halides, the reference does not require such laundry detergents containing this component with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a laundry detergent, as taught by Batchelor et al, which contained 0.1-5% by weight of cationic surfactants, such as alkyl dimethyl ammonium halides, because such laundry detergents fall within the scope of those taught by Batchelor et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a laundry detergent containing 0.1-5% by weight of cationic surfactants, such as alkyl dimethyl ammonium halides, is expressly suggested by the Batchelor et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 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.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
January 13, 2026