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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 19, and 20 are pending. Claims 3, 5-9, 12, and 14-18 have been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed May 18, 2026, have been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 2/17/26 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 2 and 19 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 2, 4, 11, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobrawa et al (US2013/0118531).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Dobrawa et al teach a composition comprising an emulsion comprising a) oil(s) in an amount of from 2 to 75 weight %, b) polymeric cationic emulsifiers P in an amount of from 0.05 to 40 weight %, wherein P is the product of the polymerization of A) one or more cationic ethylenically unsaturated monomers (monomer A), B) one or more linear or branched alkyl(meth) acrylates (monomer B), C) from 0 to 30 weight % of one or more C₂-Cg monoethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acids (monomer C), c) surfactant(s) S, in an amount of from 0 to 25 weight %, d) additive(s) A in an amount of from 0 to 20 weight % and e) water in an amount of from 10 to 97.95 weight %, based on the total weight of the emulsion. Aspects of the invention include the use of the emulsion compositions disclosed herein in laundry detergent compositions (e.g., TIDETM), hard surface cleaners (e.g., MR CLEANTM), automatic dishwashing liquids (e.g., CASCADETM), and dishwashing liquids (e.g., DAWNTM). The cleaning compositions disclosed herein are typically formulated such that, during use in aqueous cleaning operations, the wash water will have a pH of between about 6.5 and about 12, or between about 7.5 and 10.5. Liquid dishwashing product formulations typically have a pH between about 6.8 and about 9.0. See para. 201.
In one aspect, the fabric treatment composition may comprise from about 0.01% to about 10%, from about 0.05 to about 5%, or from about 0.15 to about 3% of a deposition aid. In one aspect, the deposition aid may be a cationic or amphoteric polymer. In another aspect, the deposition aid may be a cationic polymer. In one aspect, the cationic polymer may have a cationic charge density of from about 0.005 to about 23, from about 0.01 to about 12, or from about 0.1 to about 7 milliequivalents/g, at the pH of intended use of the composition. See para. 205. Suitable cationic polymers may be formed from cationic monomers such as diallyl dialkyl ammonium chloride (e.g. diallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride), methacrylamidopropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride, etc. and a second monomer such as a C1-C12 alkyl acrylate, C1-C12 hydroxyalkyl acrylate, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, etc. See para. 206-209. The weight-average molecular weight of the polymer may be from about 500 Daltons to about 5,000,000 Daltons, or from about 1,000 Daltons to about 2,000,000 Daltons, or from about 2,500 Daltons to about 1,500,000 Daltons, as determined by size exclusion chromatography relative to polyethylene oxide standards with RI detection. In one aspect, the MW of the cationic polymer may be from about 500 Daltons to about 37.500 Daltons. See para. 214.
The products of the present invention may comprise from about 0.11% to 80% by weight of a surfactant. In one aspect, such compositions may comprise from about 5% to 50% by weight of surfactant. Surfactants utilized can be of the anionic, nonionic, zwitterionic, ampholytic (i.e., amphoteric) or cationic type or can comprise compatible mixtures of these types. See para. 215. The anionic surfactant may comprise a C11-C18 alkyl benzene sulfonate surfactant; a C10-C20 alkyl sulfate surfactant; a C10-C18 alkyl alkoxy sulfate surfactant, etc. See para. 220.
Dobrawa et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a quaternised acrylic copolymer, a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant, and a cosurfactant such as an amphoteric surfactant and/or a zwitterionic surfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a quaternised acrylic copolymer, a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant, and a cosurfactant such as an amphoteric surfactant and/or a zwitterionic surfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Dobrawa et al suggest a composition containing a quaternised acrylic copolymer, a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant, and a cosurfactant such as an amphoteric surfactant and/or a zwitterionic surfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobrawa et al (US2013/0118531) as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Li et al (US2019/0390141).
Dobrawa et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Dobrawa et al do not teach the use of an amine oxide surfactant in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Li et al teach a liquid laundry detergent with improved soil suspension benefit is provided, which contains a from about 0.1 wt % to about 5 wt % of an alkoxylated polyethyleneimine and a specific surfactant system including both nonionic (NI) surfactant(s) and anionic (AI) surfactant(s) at an NI-to-AI weight ratio of about 1.7-20. See Abstract. Other surfactants useful herein include amphoteric surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants and cationic surfactants. Such surfactants are well known for use in laundry detergents and are typically present at levels from about 0.2 wt %, 0.5 wt % or 1 wt % to about 10 wt %, 20 wt % or 30 wt %. Preferred amphoteric surfactants are selected from the group consisting of amine oxide surfactants, such as, for example, alkyl dimethyl amine oxide or alkyl amido propyl dimethyl amine oxide, more preferably alkyl dimethyl amine oxide and especially coco dimethyl amino oxide. See para. 53.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an amine oxide surfactant in the composition taught by Dobrawa et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Li et al teach the use of amine oxide surfactants in a similar composition and further, Dobrawa et al teach the use of amphoteric surfactants in general.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using Dobrawa et al, Applicant states that Dobrawa et al do not teach all the elements of the present invention.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of Dobrawa et al suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II).
For example, Dobrawa et al clearly teach that the fabric treatment composition may comprise from about 0.01% to about 10%, from about 0.05 to about 5%, or from about 0.15 to about 3% of a deposition aid, and in one aspect, the deposition aid may be a cationic or amphoteric polymer. Additionally, Dobrawa et al clearly teach that the cationic polymer may have a cationic charge density of from about 0.005 to about 23, from about 0.01 to about 12, or from about 0.1 to about 7 milliequivalents/g, at the pH of intended use of the composition, and quaternized acrylic copolymers containing the same monomers as recited by the instant claims (See paras. 205-210 of Dobrawa et al). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Dobrawa et al are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of instant claim 10 under 35 USC 103 using Dobrawa et al, further in view of Li et al, Applicant states that the teachings of Dobrawa et al are not sufficient to suggest the claimed invention and that the teachings of Li et al are not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies of Dobrawa et al. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Dobrawa et al are sufficient to suggest the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that Li et al is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and Dobrawa et al and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of Li et al to cure the deficiencies of Dobrawa et al with respect to instant claim 10. Li et al is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of an amine oxide surfactant. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use an amine oxide surfactant in the composition taught by Dobrawa et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Li et al teach the use of amine oxide surfactants in a similar composition and further, Dobrawa et al teach the use of amphoteric surfactants in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Dobrawa et al, further in view of Li et al, are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights