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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behal et al. (US 2009/0203570 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 and 16-19, Behal teaches a fabric treatment composition (i.e. laundry); [9, 15], comprising; (i); 0.1-20% cationic fabric conditioner (cationic quaternary ammonium compounds are also classified a biocides) such as instantly claimed formula-I with R1-R2 = C1-C3 alkyl group (R7 of reference), R3, R4 = C8-C24 (R5, R6 of reference) alkyl or alkenyl groups (including diester quats & straight chain; instant claim 16); [25-37, 30, 46], wherein X- (instant claims 17, 19) is Cl-, Br-, I-, NO3- ; [27]. Behal teaches the instant formula (ii); with instant R1-R2 = C1-C3 alkyl group (R4 of reference) and instant R3= C6-C18 (R2 of reference) alkyl or alkenyl group (including straight chain; instant claims 2 and 18), instant R4 (R3 of reference) a methyl substituted benzyl group; [38-43], and (iii); 0.1-10% C4-C8 organic tricarboxylic (with significant overlap instant claims 1, 5-6) acid such as citric acid; [47-49], wherein the citric acid (instant claim 3) is the only acid present; [Tables 1-3]. The composition is construed (instant claim 8) as not comprising any further quaternary ammonium compound; [Tables 2-3].
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Behal’s teaching on the amounts of the quaternary ammonium biocidal compounds of formula (i) and (ii) is in total of about 5% which has considerable overlap with the teaching of Behal (01-20%). Behal does not teach the individual amounts of (i) and (ii), however this is construed as an obvious laboratory experimentation practice with the motivation of obtaining a required biocidal efficiency due to each formula’s specific activity. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the instantly claimed amounts of each quaternary ammonium biocide with the motivation of enhancing the combined efficacy.
Regarding claims 9-10, 12 and 20-21, Behal teaches presence of no bleach; [Tables 2-3], wherein the pH of composition is in the range of 6.9 to 8.9; [Tables 2, 4, Column 65]. For claim 12 the dimethyldialkyl ammonium chloride (DDAC) and alkyldimrthyl benzalkonium chloride are taught by formulas (i) and (ii) as discussed above. Water is taught by Behal; [53].
Regarding claim 14, Behal teaches a method of sanitizing a laundry washing by adding 2.5 grams of composition to a liter of aqueous liquor of an automatic washing machine for a certain period of time. At the time before the effective filing date of invention to add any amount of liquid biocidal composition as intended for disinfecting and removal of contaminating agents from the fabric substrates.
Claims 4, 7, 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behal et al. (US 2009/0203570 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Eppler et al. (US 2018/0289601 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 7, 11 and 22, Behal’s does not teach the tricarboxylic acid salts with the instantly claimed anions. However, the analogous art of Eppler et al. teaches a similar sanitizing laundry treatment composition (10, 50, 57, 80, claims 19, 39) comprising citric acid, NaOH and thus its sodium salts ( as pH adjusting or buffering agent) in the amounts 0.1-10%; [66]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the NaOH of Eppel to Behal’s composition with the motivation of stabilizing the pH of solution for a further synergistic biocidal activity of the composition, as taught by Eppler above. Note that (instant claim 11) water of the composition is taught by Behal; [53].
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 9 AM- 6 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, 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
2026/02/15
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights