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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-15, 17, 20-22, 24-26 and 32 are pending in the application. Claims 4, 11, 13, 16, 18-19, 23, and 27-31 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 20-22, and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Intriago (CN 114599773 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 7-8 and claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Intriago (CN 114599773 A) and Fossum (EP 3541910 B1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 14-15 and claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Intriago (CN 114599773 A) and Bautista (WO 2019014086 A1) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 and claims 7-9 are rejected 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. Claim 2 and claims 7-9 recite 0wt% of polydimethylsiloxane and 0wt% of polyquaternium 7. These values fall outside of the scope of claim 1, wherein the lower limit of silicone is disclosed as 0.1wt% and the lower limit of a copolymer of acrylamide and diallyldimethylammonium chloride is disclosed as 0.01wt%. Further, claim 8 and claim 9 recite 1.2wt% of polydimethylsiloxane. This value falls outside of the scope of claim 1, wherein the upper limit of silicone is disclosed as 1wt%.
Claim 2 and claims 7-9 recites the limitation "polyquaternium-7" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Henceforth, “polyquaternium-7” will be interpreted as “a copolymer of acrylamide and diallyldimethylammonium chloride”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 and claims 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 states “a silicone or a copolymer”. Claim 2 states “a silicone and a copolymer”. Further, each line of claims 2 and 7-9 has a total of three percentages. This requires all of the components and would fall outside of the scope of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12, 20-22, 26 , and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intriago (CN 114599773 A) and Fossum (EP 3541910 B1).
With regard to claims 1-3, 6-10, 12, 20-22, 24-26, and 32, Intriago discloses a fabric care composition (see Abstract) and further discloses the composition may be a liquid (see [0029]). Intriago further discloses 1-15wt% of a cationic softener (see [0037]), including a dialkylester of triethanol methyl ammonium sulphate (see [0007]). Intriago further teaches 0-5wt% (see [0081]) of poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (see [0044]). Intriago further discloses about 0.3wt% of polydimethylsiloxane (see [0105]). Intriago further discloses “about” to mean “+ or – 15wt%” (see [0024]). This results in a range of 0.26wt% to 0.35wt%. Intriago further teaches water at greater than 60wt% (see [0051]).
However, Intriago fails to disclose a modified copolymer of acrylamide and diallyldimethylammonium chloride.
Fossum discloses a fabric treatment composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Fossum further discloses the composition may comprise a polymer, which may be a diallyldimethylammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer (see [0012]-[0013]). Fossum further teaches the polymer may comprise a cross-linking agent, which may be butadiene (see [0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the modified diallyldimethylammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer of Fossum in the composition of Intriago as Intriago discloses the composition may comprise poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride) and the modified diallyldimethylammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer of Fossum is a poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride).
With regard to claim 5, Intriago and Fossum disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Intriago further discloses lactic acid and etidronic acid as preservatives (see [0039]). Intriago further discloses etidronic acid may function as both a preservative and chelating agent (see [0039]) and further discloses etidronic acid at 0-0.3wt% (see [0111]). Intriago further discloses lactic acid at 0.0625wt% (see [0115]).
With regard to claim 32, Intriago discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Intriago fails to disclose a method of reducing or preventing the adhesion of pet hair to a fabric, the method comprising applying to a fabric a liquid composition wherein the anti-adhesion component is present in an amount effective to reduce the adhesion of pet hair to a fabric.
Fossum discloses a fabric treatment composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Fossum further discloses a method of treating a fabric comprising the steps of contacting a fabric with a fabric treatment composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the method of Fossum with the composition of Intriago as Intriago discloses a fabric care composition and Fossum discloses a method of utilizing a fabric care composition. Therefore, the method of Fossum should be effective with the fabric care composition of Intriago.
Claims 14-15 and claim 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intriago (CN 114599773 A) and Fossum (EP 3541910 B1), and in further view of Bautista (WO 2019014086 A1).
With regard to claims 14-15 and claim 17, Intriago and Fossum disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Intriago further discloses additional ingredients at 0-5wt% and further teaches thickeners as suitable additional ingredients (see [0057]).
However, Intriago fails to disclose a thickening system comprising an acrylate copolymer.
Bautista discloses a fabric care composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Bautista further discloses the fabric care composition comprises an esterquat and a co-softening agent including polyquaternium-7 (see Abstract). Bautista further teaches 0.001wt% or more of a thickener (see [0011]) and the most preferred thickener may be a cross-linked copolymer of a quaternary ammonium acrylate or methacrylate in combination with an acrylamide comonomer (see [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the cross-linked copolymer of a quaternary ammonium acrylate or methacrylate in combination with an acrylamide comonomer of Bautista in the composition of Intriago as Intriago discloses the composition may comprise thickeners.
Claim 24 and claim 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intriago (CN 114599773 A) and Fossum (EP 3541910 B1), as evidenced by Shandong IRO Polymer Chemicals Co., Ltd (Textile Antistatic Agent).
With regard to claim 24 and claim 25, Intriago and Fossum disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
While Intriago does not disclose a liquid fabric care composition reduces the electrostatic force between pet hair and a fabric,. It stands to reason that the disclosed composition would meet the requirement of reducing the electrostatic force between pet hair and a fabric. Shandong discloses a copolymer of cation monomer Dimethyl Diallyl Ammoniun Chloride and nonionic monomer Acrylamide as an antistatic agent (see paragraph 1). Shandong further discloses the copolymer may be used to speed up the emission of the charges effectively on fabric and consequently reduce the static electricity and have multiple antistatic effect (see paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-15, 17, 20-22, 24-26 and 32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Intriago fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
As stated above, Intriago discloses a fabric care composition (see Abstract) and further discloses the composition may be a liquid (see [0029]). Intriago further discloses 1-15wt% of a cationic softener (see [0037]), including a dialkylester of triethanol methyl ammonium sulphate (see [0007]). Intriago further teaches 0-5wt% (see [0081]) of poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (see [0044]). Intriago further discloses about 0.3wt% of polydimethylsiloxane (see [0105]). Intriago further discloses “about” to mean “+ or – 15wt%” (see [0024]). This results in a range of 0.26wt% to 0.35wt%. Intriago further teaches water at greater than 60wt% (see [0051]).
Intriago fails to disclose a modified copolymer of acrylamide and diallyldimethylammonium chloride.
Fossum discloses a fabric treatment composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Fossum further discloses the composition may comprise a polymer, which may be a diallyldimethylammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer (see [0012]-[0013]). Fossum further teaches the polymer may comprise a cross-linking agent, which may be butadiene (see [0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the modified diallyldimethylammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer of Fossum in the composition of Intriago as Intriago discloses the composition may comprise poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride) and the modified diallyldimethylammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer of Fossum is a poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride).
Applicant further argues that the composition of Fossum comprises less than 5wt% of an anionic surfactant. Applicant further argues that Fossum fails to teach, suggest, or motivate a skilled artisan in the field to modify any specific formulation of Intriago. The entire reference must be considered. Further, as stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the modified diallyldimethylammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer of Fossum in the composition of Intriago as Intriago discloses the composition may comprise poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride) and the modified diallyldimethylammonium chloride and acrylamide copolymer of Fossum is a poly(acrylamide-co-diallyldimethylammonium chloride).
Applicant further argues that Bautista fails to teach, suggest, or motivate a skilled artisan in the field to modify any specific formulation of Intriago. The entire reference must be considered. Further, as stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the cross-linked copolymer of a quaternary ammonium acrylate or methacrylate in combination with an acrylamide comonomer of Bautista in the composition of Intriago as Intriago discloses the composition may comprise thickeners.
Applicant further argues unexpected results. However, the results are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
Applicant discloses PQ7 as providing considerable advantages. However, claim 1 does not state PQ7. Only the broad category of “a copolymer of acrylamide and diallyldimethylammonium chloride modified with a linear or branched hydrocarbon” is disclosed in claim 1. Applicant argues unexpected results, particularly with regard to modifying the fabric fibers and producing a repellant shielding effect. Applicant specifically cites PQ-7 for this purpose. PQ-7 is a copolymer of acrylamide and diallyldimethylammonium chloride, as disclosed by Ataman Chemicals (see paragraph 3). Further, PQ-7 is known to have film-forming and antistatic properties when used in conditioning agents, as shown by Ataman Chemicals (see paragraph 12). Human hair is a type of fiber. It stands to reason that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, would think to utilize PQ-7 as a film-forming and antistatic agent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights