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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 5,955,093) in view of Maas et al. (US 2012/0048959 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5, Woo teaches a packaged product (fabric refreshening liquid inside a container); [abstract, 3: 55-67, 28: 56-67], comprising a liquid fabric freshening composition with cyclodextrin (instant claims 3,4) in the amount of 0.1-5 wt.%; [abstract, 2: 30-35, claim 9], and a trigger-type spray dispenser; [29: 1-5, 30: 25-30], wherein upon manual trigger activation the freshening composition is delivered onto surface of a substrate (i.e. a fabric material). Note that cyclodextrin is of hydroxy propyl alpha-cyclodextrin (HPACD) and hydroxy propyl beta-cyclodextrin (HPBCD) type (instant claim 2); [36: 25-26, 63-64]. The liquid composition further comprises (Instant claim 5) cyclodextrin compatible surfactant(s); [36: 47-50], and perfume; [36: 34-35].
Regarding claims 1 and 6-9, Woo does not teach its trigger spray device as being able to deliver the liquid material in spray form for a precise period of time as desired. However, the analogous art of Maas teaches a trigger spray dispenser for delivering liquid compositions on surfaces which is designed with unique and special mechanism that can spray the liquid in continuous or semi-continuous way with any desired time duration; [abstract, 6, 27, 45-46]. 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 use (by replacing) the trigger spray device (container) of Mass for Woo’s composition for enabling to treat a substrate’s surface with any desired amount of liquid active material at any desired period of time with the motivation of saving the chemicals from waste and over use, as instantly claimed and identically taught by Maas above.
Regarding claims 10-12, Woo teaches the average droplet size (as construed DV50) of 10-120 micron; [claim 25].
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (US 5,955,093) in view of Maas et al. (US 2012/0048959 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Woo teaches a method refreshing variety of fabric articles’ surfaces (i.e. minimal dimension of 0.6 meters) such as carpet, bedding, upholstery, clothes; [31: 58-67], with a liquid composition comprising 0.1-5 wt.% cyclodextrin; [abstract, 2: 30-35, claim 9], with a trigger spray type dispenser; [29: 1-5, 30: 25-30].
Woo does not teach its trigger spray device as being able to deliver the liquid material in spray form for a precise period of time as desired. However, the analogous art of Maas teaches a trigger spray dispenser for delivering liquid compositions on surfaces which is designed with unique and special mechanism that can spray the liquid in continuous or semi-continuous way with any desired time duration; [abstract, 6, 27, 45-46]. 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 use (by replacing) the trigger spray device (container) of Mass for Woo’s composition for enabling to treat a substrate’s surface with any desired amount of liquid active material at any desired period of time with the motivation of saving the chemical from waste and over use, as instantly claimed and identically taught by Maas above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/06/01 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because,
In response to applicant’s argument (page 6) 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. Unexpected results are demonstrated in the specification regarding the use of a liquid fabric freshening composition that comprises from 1 wt% to 5 wt% of cyclodextrin in a manually activated trigger-type spray
dispenser capable of continuously dispensing the liquid fabric freshening composition for a duration of at least 0.4 seconds and the effect on focused non-volatile delivery.”, it should be noted that the very prior art of Maas teaches this limitation identically by stating the spray time in any desired time duration; [45], thus rendering the argument moot.
B- In response to applicant’s argument (page 7) that: “Notably, the effect of changing from the non-continuous trigger-activated spray dispenser to the continuous trigger-activated spray dispenser with the high-cyclodextrin composition was much larger-Inventive Sample (I) delivered about 255% more weight of non-volatiles over Comparative Sample (B). Applicant's specification states that:..……”, it is noted that; I)- the combination of prior arts of record would indeed provide the same results according to the claimed limitations and there is no reason to assume or conclude the otherwise. II)- Furthermore the comparison and explanation of samples A, B and C and further synergistic effects as argued (see page 6 2nd paragraph: "surprisingly and unexpectedly delivers a synergistically improved odor control and malodor reduction benefit (in comparison with similar packaged products either with a lower level of cyclodextrin or with a non-continuous trigger-activated spray dispenser).") not only considered being expectedly taught by prior arts, but at the same time are not even commensurate with scope of the claims at hand.
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
2026/09/03
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights