DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed June 18, 2026. Applicant has amended claim 1. Claim 7 has been cancelled. New claim 11 has been added. Currently, claims 1-6 and 8-11 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20260324.
The objection of the first line of the specification is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaschig et al, WO 03/089108, as evidenced by Colson et al, EP 1,075,864 is maintained for the reasons of record.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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 and 8-11 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “each R7 is independently selected from an acyclic group having 10 to 20 carbon atoms and wherein each R7 is a hydrocarbyl group” in independent claim 1. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since R7 cannot be both an acyclic group having 10 to 20 carbon atoms and any hydrocarbyl group. Claims 2-6 and 8-11 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaschig et al, WO 03/089108, as evidenced by Colson et al, EP 1,075,864.
Kaschig et al, WO 03/089108, discloses a particulate foam control agent comprising 1-30 parts by weight of a silicone antifoam (i.e., a drainage aid component), 45-99 parts by weight of a particulate solid carrier for the antifoam, 2-50 parts by weight of a fluorescent whitening agent, and from 1-40 parts by weight of a binder (see abstract and page 1, line 31-page 2, line 1). It is further taught by Kaschig et al that the silicone antifoam contains a combination of a liquid organopolysiloxane of formula (1) and an organosilicon resin, as described in Colson et al, EP 1,075,864 (see page 2, line 6-page 4, line 2 of Kaschig et al, WO 03/089108), wherein Colson et al, EP 1,075,864, discloses in paragraph 18 that the organosilicon resin is present in an amount of 2-30% by weight based on the organopolysiloxane (i.e., resulting in a foam control agent that contains 70-98% by weight of an organopolysiloxane and 2-30% by weight of an organosilicon resin), that the particulate foam control agent contains 1-25% by weight of a filler particle, such as silica (see page 4, line 4-page 5, line 6), that suitable carriers include zeolites (see page 5, lines 8-27), that suitable binders include polyethylene glycol (see page 12, line 20-page 15, line 1), wherein the particulate foam control agent is combined in an amount of 0.02-5 parts by weight with a detergent composition in powder form that contains dyes and perfumes, and is used in a process to wash laundry in a washing machine according to European washing conditions that include a liquor ratio of 10-1 and 1-5 wash cycles, (see page 16, line 1-page 22, line 12), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-6.
Although Kaschig et al generally discloses a particulate foam control agent containing 70-98% by weight of an organopolysiloxane and 2-30% by weight of an organosilicon resin, the reference does not require such particulate foam control agents containing these components with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a particulate foam control agent, as taught by Kaschig et al, which contained 70-98% by weight of an organopolysiloxane and 2-30% by weight of an organosilicon resin, because such particulate foam control agents fall within the scope of those taught by Kaschig et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a particulate foam control agent containing 70-98% by weight of an organopolysiloxane and 2-30% by weight of an organosilicon resin is expressly suggested by the Kaschig et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant seems to argue that Kaschig et al, WO 03/089108, does not teach or suggest in general a particulate foam control agent that contains 0.01-25% by weight of a drainage aid component, wherein the drainage aid component contains 40-99% by weight of a linear organopolysiloxane of formula III, as required by applicant in newly amended claim 1. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Kaschig et al clearly discloses that their particulate foam control agent comprises a silicone antifoam that contains a combination of a liquid organopolysiloxane of formula (1) and an organosilicon resin, as described in Colson et al, EP 1,075,864 (see page 2, line 6-page 4, line 2 of Kaschig et al, WO 03/089108), wherein Colson et al, EP 1,075,864, discloses in paragraph 18 that the organosilicon resin is present in an amount of 2-30% by weight based on the organopolysiloxane (i.e., resulting in a foam control agent that contains 70-98% by weight of an organopolysiloxane and 2-30% by weight of an organosilicon resin), as required by applicant in the newly amended claims. The examiner further notes that the R1 and R3 groups disclosed in Kaschig et al are identical to the R7 groups required in the instant claims when c is zero and b is zero.
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 BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 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.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights