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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Note that, the preliminary amendment filed February 22, 2024, has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-16, drawn to an anti-dust mite laundry formulation.
Group II, claim(s) 17-20, drawn to a method for killing one or more dust mites.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an anti-dust mite laundry formulation, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of at least WO2020/223959; or Pautsch et al (US 2020/0277547) in view of WO2020/223959 and Piorkowski (US2019/0270953).
During a telephone conversation with Gale Starkey on January 22, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-4, 8-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2020/223959.
With respect to independent, instant 1, ‘959 teaches a liquid detergent composition, and preferably an aqueous laundry detergent composition, which comprises: (a) from about 1% to about 10%, preferably from about 2% to about 8%, preferably from about 3% to about 6%, of benzyl benzoate by total weight of said composition; and (b) from about 0.03% to about 1%, preferably from about 0.04% to about 0.8%, more preferably from about 0.1% to about 0.5%, of a non-polymeric, crystalline, hydroxyl-containing structuring agent by total weight of said composition. In a preferred but not necessary embodiment of the present invention, the non-polymeric, crystalline, hydroxyl-containing structuring agent is provided in a structuring premix that further comprises an anionic surfactant. For example, said structuring premix may comprise: (i) from about 1% to about 10%, preferably from about 2% to about 8%, more preferably from about 3% to about 5%, of said nonpolymeric, crystalline, hydroxyl-containing structuring agent by total weight of said structuring premix; (ii) from about 1% to about 10%, preferably from about 2% to about 8%, more preferably from about 3% to about 5%, of an alkanolamine by total weight of said structuring premix; (iii) from about 5% to about 50%, preferably from about 10% to about 30%, more preferably from about 12% to about 20%, of a C10-C20 linear alkyl benzene sulphonic acid (HLAS) by total weight of said structuring premix; and (iv) water, wherein said alkanolamine is present in an amount at least balancing the charge of the HLAS; and wherein said structuring premix is free from any added inorganic cations. Example of suitable alkanolamines include monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, and mixtures thereof.
Benzyl benzoate has been known to have anti-mite benefit when used at a relatively high concentration, e.g., at least about 1%, preferably from about 1% to about 20%, more preferably from about 2% to about 15%, most preferably from about 3% to about 10%, by total weight of the liquid detergent composition into which benzyl benzoate is formulated. Because benzyl benzoate is insoluble in water, it is preferably combined with sufficient solvent to maintain a stable dispersion in the aqueous mixture. The aqueous benzyl benzoate mixture can be an emulsion of a colloidal dispersion of benzyl benzoate in water and/or solvent. See pages 3 and 4. Specifically, ‘959 teaches a structuring premix 3.2% monoethanolamine, 16% C12-C14 linear alkyl benzene sulphonic acid, 4% hydrogenated castor oil, 0.2% preservatives, and the balance water. This premix is added to composition containing, for example, 4% by weight of the premix, 3% benzyl benzoate, 10.1% linear alkyl benzene sulphonic acid, 6% alcohol ethoxylate, 0.6% citric acid, NaOH, water, etc. ‘959 disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of ‘959 anticipate the material limitations of independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 5-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/223959.
‘959 are relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘959 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition in the form of an oil-in-water composition containing benzyl benzoate, a denaturant such as triethanolamine, a preservative, an emulsion stabilizer, a pH modifying agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate an oil-in-water composition containing benzyl benzoate, a denaturant such as triethanolamine, a preservative, an emulsion stabilizer, a pH modifying agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘959 suggest an oil-in-water composition containing benzyl benzoate, a denaturant such as triethanolamine, a preservative, an emulsion stabilizer, a pH modifying agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/223959 as applied to the rejected claims above, and further in view of Piorkowski (US2019/0270953).
‘959 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘959 does not teach the specific pH of the composition or the specific amount of a preservative as recited by the instant claims.
Piorkowski teaches a multi-chamber single dose pack comprising: a container composed of a water-soluble film, and wherein the container comprises two or more separate chambers: a buffering agent encapsulated within at least a first chamber of the two or more separate chambers; and a wash composition encapsulated within at least a second chamber of the two or more separate chambers, wherein the wash composition comprises: a detergent surfactant; water present in an amount of up to about 80 weight percent, based on the total weight of the wash composition; a water activity-reducing salt, carbohydrate, or nonaqueous solvent; and an organic or inorganic acid-based preservative, provided in either acid form or in salt-of-acid form, wherein the wash composition has a water activity of about 0.1 to about 0.9, and wherein the wash composition has a pH of about 3.5 to about 5.5. See claim 1. The organic or inorganic acid-based preservative may be included in the wash composition in an amount of about 0.01% to about 0.50%, such as about 0.02% to about 0.25%, or from about 0.05% to about 0.20%, by weight of the overall wash composition. See para. 38.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the composition as taught by ‘959 to have a pH, for example, of 5.0, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Piorkowski teaches the formulation of a similar composition to have a pH, for example, of 5.0 and further, ‘959 teaches that the amounts and types of components added to the composition may be varied which would allow for the formulation of compositions having various pH values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use, for example, 0.1% by weight of a preservative in the composition taught by ‘959, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Piorkowski teaches the use, for example, of 0.1% by weight of a preservative in a similar composition and further, ‘959 teaches the use of preservatives in general.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pautsch et al (US 2020/0277547) in view of WO2020/223959 and Piorkowski (US2019/0270953).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Pautsch et al teach improved liquid detergent concentrate compositions which are phosphorus free and utilize an acrylic copolymer to provide improved stability while maintaining viscosity are provided. Methods of using the same to wash textiles are also provided. The improved liquid detergent composition may be provided in the form of the concentrated emulsion or a use solution; and where the concentrated emulsion can be a water-in-oil emulsion or oil-in-water emulsion dependent on the amounts of water and oil in the emulsion. See Abstract. The compositions contain an alkalinity source, wherein the alkalinity source is in a concentration of between about 1 wt. % and about 90 wt. %, a chelating/sequestering agent, wherein the chelating/ sequestering agent is selected from the group consisting of a polymeric chelating/sequestering agent, an aminocarboxylic acid or salt thereof, gluconic acid or a salt thereof, or a mixture thereof an acrylic copolymer thickening agent; at least one nonionic surfactant; and at least one whitening agent; wherein the pH of the composition is between about 9 and about 14; and wherein the composition comprises a stable emulsion having a water phase and an oil phase. See para. 14. Exemplary sources of alkalinity include alkali metal hydroxides, alkali metal carbonates, alkali metal silicates, alkali metal salts, phosphates, amines, and mixtures thereof, preferably alkali metal hydroxides including sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and lithium hydroxide or mixtures thereof, triethanolamine, monoethanolamine, etc., and most preferred is sodium hydroxide and/or potassium hydroxide. See paras. 42-45. Nonionic surfactants suitable for use with the compositions of the present application include synthetic or natural alcohols that are alkoxylated (with ethylene and/or propylene and/or butylene oxide) to yield a variety of C6-C24 alcohol ethoxylates and/or propoxylates and/or butoxylates, etc. See para. 48.
Suitable aminocarboxylic acid type sequestrants include the acids or alkali metal salts thereof, e.g., amino acetates and salts thereof. Suitable aminocarboxylates include N-hydroxyethylaminodiacetic acid; hydroxyethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA); ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA); N-hydroxyethylethylenediaminetriacetic acid (HEDTA); diethylenetriaminepenta-acetic acid (DTPA); ethylenediamine-tetraproprionic acid triethylenetetraaminehexaacetic acid (TTHA), and alanine-N,N-diacetic acid; glutamic acid, N,N-diacetic acid (GLDA), methylglycinediacetic acid (MGDA), etc. See para. 85. In preferred embodiments, the total amount of chelating/sequestering agent(s) present in the composition of the present application is from about 0.1 wt. % to about 20 wt. %. See para. 88. Rheology modifiers may be used such as xanthan gum, etc., in amounts from 0.001% to 10% by weight. See paras. 114-117.
Pautsch et al do not teach the use of benzyl benzoate, a preservative, or an oil-in-water emulsion composition containing benzyl benzoate, an emulsifier, a preservative, an emulsion stabilizer, a pH modifying agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘959 and Piorkowski are relied upon as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use, for example, 0.1% by weight of a preservative in the composition taught by Pautsch et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Piorkowski teaches the use, for example, of 0.1% by weight of a preservative in a similar composition and further, Pautsch et al teach the use of a wide variety of additional ingredients in general and an preservatives would be desirable to help storage stability of the composition taught by Pautsch et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use, benzyl benzoate n the composition taught by Pautsch et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘959 teaches the use, of benzyl benzoate as an anti-mite agent in a similar composition and further, Pautsch et al teach the use of a wide variety of additional ingredients in general and an anti-mite properties/benefits would be desirable in the composition taught Pautsch et al.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate an oil-in-water composition containing benzyl benzoate, a denaturant such as triethanolamine, a preservative, an emulsion stabilizer, a pH modifying agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Pautsch et al in view of ‘959 and Piorkowski suggest an oil-in-water composition containing benzyl benzoate, a denaturant such as triethanolamine, a preservative, an emulsion stabilizer, a pH modifying agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, 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, 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/January 28, 2026