The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on April 8, 2026.
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-2 are currently amended.
The objection to the disclosure for minor informalities is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 stands rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
a) claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,186,805,
b) claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,326,129,
c) claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,891,589,
d) claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,284; each in view of Caswell et al. (US 2003/0104969), hereinafter “Caswell,” for the same reasons as set forth in the previous office action.
Claim 1 stands rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,404,479 (which issued from Application No. 18/321,834) for the same reasons as set forth in the previous office action.
Claim 1 stands provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 18/312,623; claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/326,100; and claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/733,948; each in view of Caswell for the same reasons as set forth in the previous office action.
Claim 1 stands provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/846,336 in view of Caswell for the same reasons as set forth in the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum et al. (US 2019/0390142), hereinafter “Fossum” in view of Caswell et al. (US 2003/0104969), hereinafter “Caswell.”
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 12, Fossum teaches a laundry composition comprising a graft copolymer and a treatment adjunct, the graft copolymer including: (a) a polyalkylene oxide that has a number average molecular weight of from about 1000 to about 20,000 Daltons and is based on ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, or butylene oxide, (b) N-vinylpyrrolidone, and (c) vinyl ester derived from a saturated monocarboxylic acid containing from 1 to 6 carbon atoms and/or a methyl or ethyl ester of acrylic or methacrylic acid, where the weight ratio of (a):(b) is from about 1:0.1 to about 1:1, where the amount, by weight, of (a) is greater than the amount of (c) (see paragraphs [0006]-[0007]); and wherein one of the treatment adjunct is perfume (see paragraph [0056]). In Example 3B, 1.45 wt% of the graft copolymer 1D, which consists of PEG (polyethylene glycol), VP (vinyl pyrrolidone) and VAc (vinyl acetate), weight ratio of PEG:VAc is 1:0.6 (see Table 1), is added to Detergent Composition 2A which comprises perfumes (see Tables 2-3). See also Examples 3D, 3F, 4A, 4B and 4C in Tables 3-4. Fossum, however, fails to disclose the specific perfumes, say in Example 3B, as recited in claim 1, e.g., hexyl cinnamic aldehyde, 2-(4-tert-butylbenzyl)propionaldehyde (CAS 80-54-6) (also known as Lilial), 3-p-cumenyl-2-methylpropionaldehyde (CAS 103-95-7) (also known as Cymal), 2,6,10-trimethylundec-9-enal (CAS 141-13-9) (also known as Adoxal), 2-tert-butylcyclohexyl acetate (CAS 88-41-5) (also known as Verdox), 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)ethenone (CAS 54464-57-2) (also known as Iso E Super), 3a,6,6,9a-tetramethyldodecahydronaphtho[2,1-b]furan (CAS 3738-00-9) (also known as Cetalox), α-ionone (also known as Ionone Alpha), etc.
Caswell, an analogous art in laundry compositions (see abstract), teaches perfumes like Adoxal, Cetalox, Cymal, Ionone Alpha, Iso E Super, Verdox (see paragraph [0050 and Table on pages 6-9), hexyl cinnamic aldehyde, lilial, among others (see paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated hexyl cinnamic aldehyde, Adoxal (i.e., 2,6,10-trimethylundec-9-enal), Cetalox (i.e., 3a,6,6,9a-tetramethyldodecahydronaphtho[2,1-b]furan), Cymal (i.e., 3-p-cumenyl-2-methylpropionaldehyde), Ionone Alpha (i.e., α-ionone), Iso E Super (i.e., 1-(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphthalenyl)ethenone), Verdox (i.e., 2-tert-butylcyclohexyl acetate), or lilial (i.e., 2-(4-tert-butylbenzyl)-propionaldehyde) as the specific perfume in the laundry composition of Fossum, say in Example 3B, because Fossum specifically desires perfume as one of the treatment adjuncts and Caswell teaches such perfumes.
Regarding claim 2, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that the polyalkylene oxide in the graft copolymer is based on ethylene oxide (see claim 2). Fossum also teaches a graft copolymer which consists of polyethyleneglycol (PEG), vinyl pyrrolidone (VP) and vinyl acetate (VAc) (see Examples 1A to 1M in Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that the polyalkylene oxides include copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide (see paragraph [0035]), and the preferred vinyl ester is vinyl acetate (see paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that the weight ratio of (a):(c) is from about 1:0.1 to about 1:0.8 (see paragraph [0041], see also claim 7).
Regarding claim 5, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that the weight ratio of (a):(c) is from about 1:0.1 to about 1:0.8 (see paragraph [0041], see also claim 7). Fossum in view of Caswell, however, fails to disclose the weight ratio of (a):(c) from about 1:0.3 to about 1:0.9.
Considering that Fossum teaches a weight ratio of (a):(c) is from about 1:0.1 to about 1:0.8, 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 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).
Regarding claim 6, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that up to 50 mole %, or up to 40 mole %, of the grafted-on monomers of component (c) are hydrolyzed (see paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that the graft copolymer includes: (a) a polyalkylene oxide that has a number average molecular weight of from about 1000 to about 20,000 Daltons and is based on ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, or butylene oxide, (b) N-vinylpyrrolidone, and (c) vinyl ester (see paragraph [0007]). Fossum in view of Caswell, however, fails to specifically disclose the weight average molecular weight of the graft polymer.
Considering the teachings of Fossum above, 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 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).
Regarding claims 8-9, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that a liquid or gel detergent composition comprises 0.0-10.0 wt% of the graft copolymer, and the perfumes as minor ingredient (see Table 2 in Example 2). Fossum also teaches that the treatment adjunct like perfume can range from as low as 0.001% by weight to 50% by weight of the composition (see paragraph [0054]). Fossum in view of Caswell, however, fails to specifically disclose the graft copolymer and perfume (benefit agent) in amounts as those recited.
Considering the teachings of Fossum above, 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 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).
Regarding claim 11, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that the perfume may be an encapsulated perfume (see paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 13, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that the composition may include a surfactant in an amount from about 1% to about 70%, or from about 5% to about 50% by weight of the composition (see paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 14, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that in Example 2A, the liquid or gel detergent composition comprises 9.4 wt% C11.8 linear alkylbenzene sulfonic acid (see Table 2 in Example 2).
Regarding claim 15, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that the treatment adjunct may include a fatty acid (see paragraph [0056], and treatment adjuncts may be present in the composition from as low as 0.001% by weight to 50% by weight of the composition. Fossum in view of Caswell, however, fails to disclose 0.2% to 4% by weight of fatty acid.
Considering that Fossum teaches treatment adjuncts like fatty acid in an amount from 0.001% by weight to 50% by weight of the composition, 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 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).
Regarding claim 16, Fossum in view of Caswell teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Fossum teaches that the composition may be in the form of a liquid composition, a granular composition, a single-compartment pouch, a multi-compartment pouch, a sheet, a pastille or bead, a fibrous article, a tablet, a bar, flake, or a mixture thereof (see paragraph [0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum in view of Caswell, Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Fossum and Caswell because neither reference teaches or suggests combining their disclosed polymers for the Applicant’s intended purpose.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because the rationale for combining references, which may be different from Applicant’s, is permissible. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Also, "one of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.” In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). See MPEP 2144IV.
Applicant also argues that the present application demonstrates surprising and unexpected results as shown in Tables 1a-1b and 2a-2e which show that the laundry detergent compositions formulated according to the claims yield more desirable room bloom headspace results than comparative laundry detergent compositions lacking the claimed graft copolymer, see pages 19-24.
The Examiner has carefully considered the showing in Example 1 at pages 19-24 of the specification, however the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present independent claim 1. While Sample 2, Sample 4, Sample 6, Sample 8 and Sample 10, which comprise the graft copolymer, i.e., PVP/PV Ac-g-PEG at 20:30:50 ratio with MW 16,800 Dalton and Perfume A, Perfume B, Perfume C and Perfume D, respectively (see Tables 1a-1b) showed higher contents of perfume raw materials in the head space of clothes after being washed in a washing machine or tergotometer when compared with the liquid laundry detergent compositions containing no graft copolymer, i.e., Samples 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 (see Tables 2a-2e), the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present independent claim 1. The showing is only true for the specific graft copolymer, i.e., PVP/PV Ac-g-PEG at 20:30:50 ratio with MW 16,800 Dalton, and the specific Perfumes A through D (see Tables 2a to2e), which are combinations of multiple PRMs, and their respective proportions in the liquid laundry detergent composition. In addition, the showing has not been compared with the closest prior art to Fossum which already teaches a laundry composition comprising the recited graft copolymer and a generic perfume to show the criticality of the claimed perfumes with the recited graft copolymer.
With respect to the rejections on the grounds of non-statutory double patent rejections over: U.S. Patent Nos: 11,186,805; 11,326,129; 11,891,589; 12,281,284; each in view of Caswell; U.S. Patent No. 12,404,479; and the provisional rejections over copending Application Nos: 18/312,623; 18/326,100; 18/733,948; 17/846,336 each in view of Caswell; Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer, if necessary, upon indication of allowable subject matter.
The above nonstatutory double patenting rejections and nonstatutory double patenting provisional rejections are maintained until such time Applicant submits a timely filed terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights