DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5-6, 8-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Deurzen et al. (US 2002/0010121 A1) and alternatively in view of Gohl et al. (US 2017/0081618 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-6, Deurzen teaches an aqueous laundry treatment composition (18) comprising hydrogen peroxide in amount of 1-15%; [9-10, 360], a homopolymer of polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) in amounts of 0.01-10%; [17, 23], with molecular weight of 5000-50,000 D (instant claims 5, 6); [23], wherein the ratio (instant claim 2) of PVP/H2O2 by considering the above given corresponding amounts is rendered obvious by a considerable overlaps. Furthermore, With respect to overlapping ranges of PVP/H2O2, and the molecular weight of PVP, it is noted that; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (before the effective filing date of the invention) to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05. The pH of composition (instant claim 1) is taught to be from 6 to 11; [341]. It would have been obvious to the lower pH range in the laundry wash for the conditions under which regular soil or stains are more susceptible for dissolution and removal.
Regarding claim 1, The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties, such as viscosity, are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, in the claimed ranges, was prepared under similar conditions, and that the original specification specifies that the properties arise from a combination of specific ingredients or process step and that it is rendered obvious by the applied art. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e.viscosity, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Regarding claims 8-9, Deurzen teaches surfactants such as nonionic, anionic and cationic; [372-373], and pH of 6-11; [341]. With respect to amount of water, the reference does not expressly teach this proportion, however it teaches, as an example, dissolution of 5 grams of composition in one liter of water; [451, 457]. This is considered as a routine laboratory experimental practice which does not impart patentability. It would have been obvious to select a solution of a given dilution, by water, with the motivation of adjusting the soil and stain removing efficacy of composition considering the state of laundry fabrics to be washed. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir), [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 12, Deurzen teaches all of the instantly claimed limitation without mentioning composition’s use as an additive. However, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed composition is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed article from a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitation. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987), [MPEP 2114, R-1].
Regarding claims 13-16, Deurzen teaches a method of washing a garment (i.e. textile); [title, 1, 2, 9, claim 16]. Furthermore, Deurzen teaches the method of removing statis from laundry fabrics and inhibiting the dye transfer from garments by virtue of comprising dye transfer inhibiting agent of polyvinylpyrrolidone; [7, 23, 25]. The composition is used (instant claims 15-16) to remove tomato stains which contains phenolic molecules removes; [462-465].
Note: Claims 10 and 12 are also alternatively rejected below in view of Gohl et al.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Deurzen et al. (US 2002/0010121 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gohl et al. (US 2017/0081618 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Deurzen teaches the aqueous liquid (wash liquor; 18, claim 13) fabric treating composition but it does not teach its amount. However, the analogous art of Gohl teaches a liquid laundry bleaching and cleaning composition comprising 5-90% of water; [1687, 171]. At the time, before effective filing date, of invention it would have been obvious to use, by adding, the amount of water with desired dilution with the motivation of adjusting the composition’s efficacy without harming the fabrics due to corrosiveness of the bleaching agent, as taught by Gohl above. With respect to instant claim 12, Deurzen does not teach the composition could be used as additive. However, Gohl teaches this limitation, wherein it could be used independently or as a separate additive; [210].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of record does not teach the instantly claimed pH range considering the chemical construct and constituents of the instantly claimed composition according to instant claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/01/21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because,
In response to applicant’s argument (pages 6-7) that; “Van Deurzen does not disclose liquid laundry compositions which are used in a laundering operation by being further mixed with water. Rather Van Deurzen only discloses solid laundry compositions, which are mixed with water during their use in a washing operation to launder items (see Formulation A in 0451 and paragraphs 0018 and 0026 of Van Deurzen). Van Deurzen is not in any way concerned with the provision of a liquid laundry composition, which is mixed with water during the laundry operation. Rather Van Deurzen is only concerned with the provision of a solid laundry composition which is mixed with water during the laundry operation to produce an aqueous, dilute wash liquor. This is not technically in any way the same as formulating a liquid laundry composition to be used by a consumer in a washing operation as according to the current claims. Van Deurzen's solid composition, when dissolved in an aqueous wash liquor (See [0018] of Van Deurzen, which the Examiner cites to as supporting an aqueous laundry composition.) does not produce a liquid detergent composition with the claimed amount of ingredients or any of the claimed physical characteristics.”. It should be noted that applicant’s argument/assertions it is considered and acknowledged. However, this argument would have been persuasive and applicable if the instant claim 1 was directed to a method of making the liquid laundry composition instead of the composition by itself. It is clearly quite evident that the solid composition of Deurzen must be used in aqueous media (solution) to be considered as a laundry washing composition. This is how the composition of Deurzen is interpreted and examined accordingly.
In response to applicant’s argument (page 7) on “appropriate molecular weight of polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP)” the argued molecular weight of a water soluble polymer is not expected to change upon dissolution in water. Argument is not clear nor persuasive.
C- In response to applicant’s argument (page 7) on combinability of Gohl and Van Deurzen and the issue of viscosity, due to cancelation of claim 11 this argument is moot now.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/05/24
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights