DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US22/75435 08/25/2022; PCT/US22/75435 has PRO 63/277,671 11/10/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 02/05/24, 08/29/25, and 03/27/26 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and species
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on 02/03/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 7-20 are directed to a non-elected invention. Accordingly, claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 C.F.R. §1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-6 are examined in this Office action.
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.
Claims 1-6 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 1, improperly recite the Markush group in the form of “a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, or C”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which members of the group are part of the claimed invention. A proper Markush groups may be recited as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C." See MPEP § 2173.05(h). please See claim 1 lines 21 and 31.
Claims 2-6 depends from rejected claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohei (JP 2017218713) in view of Madore (US 5057240).
PNG
media_image3.png
186
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 5, Shohei discloses an emulsion formulation suitable for treating a textile, wherein the emulsion formulation comprises a water repellant acrylic silicone copolymer comprised of monomer (A) such as stearyl (meth)acrylate in an amount of 50 to 95 wt%, overlapping claimed range of w values of 80 to 98.75, monomer (B) such as structure E, e.g.
in an amount of 0.01 to 50 wt%, encompassing claimed range of x value of 0.25 to 15, and monomer (C) such as 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate in an amount of 0.01 to 30 wt%, encompassing claimed range of y value of 1 to 5 (page 2, lines 15-, page 3, lines -40, page 4, lines 22-36).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the emulsion composition, wherein Shohei discloses monomer (A) in an amount of 50 to 95 wt%, overlapping the requirement of claim 1 and monomer (B) in an amount of 0.01 to 50 wt% and monomer (C) in an amount of 0.01 to 30 wt%, encompassing the requirement of claim 1. It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Shohei further discloses water dispersible crosslinker comprises blocked isocyanate, a surfactant, and water (page 4, lines 22-58). Shohei discloses a textile softener (page 4, line 57) but does not disclose claimed alkylpolysiloxane textile softener.
PNG
media_image4.png
188
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Madore discloses a liquid detergent for textile containing textile softener comprising alkylpolysiloxane of formula
, overlapping the claimed repeating unit of 20 to 300, wherein the alkylpolysiloxane provides no discoloration or yellowing of the fabric (column 2, lines 42-43, column 10, lines 16-18, column 4, lines 15-35).
PNG
media_image4.png
188
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Shohei with the textile softener comprising alkylpolysiloxane of formula
, as taught by Madore. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Madore that to do so would provide no discoloration or yellowing of the fabric.
Regarding claim 3, Shohei discloses additives such as antibacterial agents or wrinkle reducing agent (page 4, lines 57-58).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohei (JP 2017218713) in view of Madore (US 5057240) as applied to claims 1, 3 above, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 2019/0382930).
Shohei includes the features of claims 1, 3 above.
Regarding claim 3, Shohei does not discloses penetrating agent (elected species).
However, Matsumoto discloses water repellent composition for the treatment of textile, wherein the composition comprises penetrating agent (para [0075]), wherein the penetrating agents are essential for uniform absorption and effective penetration of dyes and chemicals into fabrics.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Shohei with the penetrating agent, as taught by Matsumoto for uniform absorption and effective penetration of dyes and chemicals into fabrics.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohei (JP 2017218713) in view of Madore (US 5057240) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sadato (US 2010/0071115).
Shohei includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Shohei discloses acrylic silicone copolymer in an amount of 0.3 to 5.0 wt% (page 5, lines 1-3), fall into instant claim range of 0.25-7.5 wt%, and Madore discloses alkylpolysiloxane in an amount of 0.12 wt% (column 7, lines 58-59), fall into claimed range of 0.01-0.5 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Shohei with the textile softener comprising alkylpolysiloxane in an amount of 0.12 wt%, as taught by Madore. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Madore that to do so would provide no discoloration or yellowing of the fabric.
Claimed (II-2) is not a required feature. Shohei does not disclose water dispersible crosslinker in an amount of 0.05-0.5 wt%.
However, Sadato discloses a water repellant for the fabric comprises water dispersible crosslinker such as blocked isocyanate in an amount of 0.1 to 1.0 wt% (para [0071]), overlapping claimed range of 0.05-0.5 wt%, wherein dispersible crosslinker such as blocked isocyanate is used for optimum crosslinking.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of dispersible crosslinker disclosed by Shohei over the same range as Sadato’s dispersible crosslinker, given that both are being used in a similar context for the same purpose, e.g. crosslinking of the water repellant composition for the treatment of the fabric.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the emulsion composition, wherein Sadato discloses a water repellant for the fabric comprises water dispersible crosslinker such as blocked isocyanate in an amount of 0.1 to 1.0 wt%, overlapping the requirement of claim 6. It is well-settled that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Closet prior arts are Shohei (JP 2017218713) and Madore (US 5057240).
Regarding claim 2, R3 = -OSi(CH3)2(CH2)2Si(OSi(CH3)3) is not disclosed in Shohei and/or Madore.
Regarding claim 4, additive (II-2) is not disclosed in Shohei and/or Madore.
Closest prior arts do not teach or suggest claims 2, 4 features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766