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 September 23, 2025.
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-16 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The provisional rejection of claim 1 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/846,336 in view of Caswell et al. (US 2003/0104969) is withdrawn because the Application number was written incorrectly. The correct Application number is 17/846,336. Please see corrected provisional rejection below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a) on page 23, Table 2a, the CAS number of Limonene should correctly recite
“5989-27-5”
b) on page 23, Table 2c, the CAS number of Vernaldehyde should correctly recite
“66327-54-6”
Appropriate correction is required.
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]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is 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.
Each of US ‘805, US ‘129, US ‘589 and US ‘284 teaches composition comprising similar
graft copolymer comprising (a) a polyalkylene oxide which has a number average molecular weight of from about 1000 to about 20000 Da 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; wherein (a) and (b) are present at a weight ratio of (a):(b) which overlaps those recited; wherein by weight, (a) is present in an amount greater than (c); and a perfume, differing only in that each of the references fails to disclose the specific perfumes like hexyl cinnamic aldehyde, Adoxal, Cetalox, Cymal, Ionone Alpha, Iso E Super, linalool, Verdox, 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 each of the above references because each of the references desires perfume and Caswell teaches such perfumes.
Claim 1 is 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). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to similar laundry detergent composition comprising a) a polyalkylene oxide which has a number average molecular weight of from about 1000 to about 20000 Da 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; wherein (a) and (b) are present at a weight ratio of (a):(b) from about 1:0.1 to 1:2; wherein by weight, (a) is present in an amount greater than (c); and similar perfumes which overlap those recited like delta damascone, lilial, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and adoxal, among others.
Claim 1 is 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.
Each of copending Application No. ‘623, ‘100 and ‘948 teaches similar laundry detergent composition comprising a) a polyalkylene oxide which has a number average molecular weight of from about 1000 to about 20000 Da 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; wherein (a) and (b) are present at a weight ratio of (a):(b) from about 1:0.1 to 1:2; wherein by weight, (a) is present in an amount greater than (c) (see claim 7); differing only in that each of copending Application No. ‘623, ‘100 and ‘948 fails to disclose the specific perfumes like hexyl cinnamic aldehyde, Adoxal, Cetalox, Cymal, Ionone Alpha, Iso E Super, Verdox, 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 each of copending Application No. ‘623, ‘100 and ‘948 because each of these references desires perfume and Caswell teaches such perfumes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 is 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.
Copending Application No. ‘336 teaches similar laundry detergent composition comprising a) a polyalkylene oxide which has a number average molecular weight of from about 1000 to about 20000 Da 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; wherein (a) and (b) are present at a weight ratio of (a):(b) from about 1:0.1 to 1:2; wherein by weight, (a) is present in an amount greater than (c) (see claim 7), differing only in that copending Application No. ‘336 fails to disclose the incorporation of the specific perfumes like hexyl cinnamic aldehyde, Adoxal, Cetalox, Cymal, Ionone Alpha, Iso E Super, Verdox, etc.
Caswell, an analogous art in laundry compositions for supplying fabric care benefits to clothing or fabrics (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) in the laundry composition of copending Application No. ‘336 because it is known to incorporate these specific perfumes in a laundry composition to supply fabric care benefits to clothing or fabrics as taught by Caswell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2025 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 Caswell teaches away from making the combination suggested in the Office Action because Caswell teaches a composition having less than 5% of detergent surfactant; moreover, Caswell prefer a “fabric care composition free of detergent surfactant,” see [0019] and [0023].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because both Fossum, the primary reference, and Caswell, the secondary reference, are in the same analogous art of laundry or fabric care compositions (see at least the Title and abstract of each references). In addition, the present independent claim 1 does not require surfactants, and in the present claim 13, which requires from about 0.1% to about 50%, by weight of the composition, of surfactant, please note that Fossum teaches a surfactant in an amount from about 1% to about 70%, by weight of the composition (see paragraph [0061]). The “less than 5 detergent surfactant” in [0019] of Caswell overlaps the range of proportions of the surfactant in Fossum. Please also note that the teaching in [0019] in Caswell regarding the fabric care composition is free of detergent surfactant is only a preferred embodiment. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Hence, Caswell does not teach away from making the combination with Fossum.
Applicant also argues that even if, arguendo, a prima facie case of obviousness is established, it has been overcome by the showing of unexpected results in the specification. Applicant argues that the laundry detergent compositions according to the present application provides an improved efficacy of perfume raw materials compared to detergent compositions without the graft copolymer as seen in Tables 2a-2e.
The Examiner has carefully considered the showing in Example 1 at pages 21-24 of the specification, however, the showing has not been compared to the closest prior art to Fossum in view of Caswell. Please note that Fossum already teaches a laundry detergent composition which comprises a graft copolymer, say in Example 3B, as discussed above, wherein the detergent composition comprises 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) and perfumes (see Tables 2-3). See also Examples 3D, 3F, 4A, 4B and 4C in Tables 3-4. Also as discussed above, even though Fossum does not explicitly disclose the specific perfumes, Caswell teaches the specific perfumes as recited in the present claim 1. The showing in Example 1 at pages 21-24 compared liquid laundry detergent compositions which comprises PRM (perfume raw materials) in Perfume A, PRM in Perfume B, PRM in Perfume C, or PRM in Perfume D, with or without the graft copolymer, i.e., PVP/PV Ac-g-PEG at 20:30:50 ratio with MW 16,800 Dalton, wherein each of the Perfume A, Perfume B, Perfume C and Perfume D comprises a combination of several PRMs as seen in Tables 2a through 2e. While Sample 2, Sample 4, Sample 6, Sample 8 and Sample 10, which comprises the graft copolymer and Perfume A, Perfume B, Perfume C and Perfume D, respectively, showed higher contents of perfume raw materials in the head space of clothes after being washed compared to the liquid laundry detergent compositions containing no graft copolymer, see Samples 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, the showing does not overcome Fossum in view of Caswell because Fossum, the primary reference, already teaches a laundry composition comprising the recited graft copolymer and a generic perfume, and no comparison has been shown with the recited graft copolymer with any other perfume, or any other combination or perfumes. In addition, the showing is not commensurate in scope with the present independent claim 1. The showing is only limited to the specific graft copolymer, and the specific Perfumes A through D, which are combinations of multiple PRMs, and their respective proportions in the liquid laundry detergent composition.
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; 12,404,479; each in view of Caswell; 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 rejections and provisional rejections are maintained until such time Applicant submits a timely filed terminal disclaimer.
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