DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 5-6 and 10-11, and tetrahydrolinalool in the reply filed on 7 May 2026, is acknowledged.
During a telephone conversation with Hanxing Zheng on 3 June 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the polymer species polyacrylate.
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending in the instant Office Action.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7 May 2026.
Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the following species:
the specific fragrance compound tetrahydrolinalool and
the specific polymer polyacrylate.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2016-030826 A, published on 7 March 2016, references to English translation, hereafter referred to as Yamamoto).
Yamamoto teaches a concentrated liquid detergent composition that comprises 0.5-5% w/w of a compound represented by the general formula (1) (Abstract and Claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
69
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example compound A-1 contains an alkyl group with 8 carbons (R in formula (1) above) and two oxyethylene groups (A1O and A2O above), which is the compound 2,2’-(octylimino)bis[ethanol].
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim
Applicant is claiming a product in claim 5. Once the structure is met by the prior art the intended use of the claim is an innate property of the product or composition. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. Therefore, because the product is taught by the prior art, the intended use of “counteracting sweat malodor in air space or a substrate” is met.
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2016-030826 A, published on 7 March 2016, references to English translation) in view of Vankar (Resonance 2004, 9, 30.).
Yamamoto has been described above, and particularly relevant to claim 6, Yamamoto teaches that their composition comprises a fragrance (pg. 5, line 36).
Yamamoto does not teach the fragrance in their composition to be tetrahydrolinalool. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Vankar.
Vankar teaches an overview of essential oils and fragrances that are derived from natural sources (Title and Abstract). Vankar defines essential oils as plant distillates or volatile liquids distilled from a plant part, which emit and diffuse a fragrant odor (pg. 30, Introduction). Compounds which possess floral odor-character are described as fresh and natural and examples of such compounds are taught to be tertiary monoterpene alcohols and their esters, with double bonds increasing their “freshness and naturalness” (pg. 36, para. 1). Described as “[q]uantitatively the most important chemical compound with a fresh floral odor-character”, linalool is taught to occur in many flowers and is used in many perfume products (pg. 36, Linalool, Tetrahydrolinalool and their Acetates). The linalool derivative tetrahydrolinalool is taught to be useful in “functional perfumery” because it has improved stability in “more aggressive media” (pg. 36, Linalool, Tetrahydrolinalool and their Acetates).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, in view of the teachings of Vankar to select tetrahydrolinalool as the fragrance compound in the invention of Yamamoto because the combination of prior art elements to impart a known benefit produces predictable results. Yamamoto teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising 2,2’-(octylimino)bis[ethanol] and a fragrance compound, but does not teach a specific fragrance compound. In view of the teachings of Vankar, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to select tetrahydrolinalool as the fragrance compound because Vankar teaches tetrahydrolinalool to have fresh floral odor-character and to be stable in aggressive media. The ordinary artisan would recognize the desirability of a consumer product to have a fresh floral odor and would desire their fragrance compound to be stable in their detergent composition. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at claims 5-6 in view of the teachings of Yamamoto and Vankar.
Claims 5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2016-030826 A, published on 7 March 2016, references to English translation) in view of Nagarajan (J. Am. Oil. Chem. Soc. 1985, 62 (5), 949.).
Yamamoto has been described above, and particularly relevant to claims 10-11, Yamamoto teaches that their composition comprises a polymer compound (pg. 5, lines 36-37).
Yamamoto does not teach the polymer compound in their composition to be polyacrylate. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Nagarajan.
Nagarajan teaches an overview of polyacrylate polymers and their multifunctionality in laundry and dishwashing detergents (Abstract). Alkali metal salts of polyacrylates are taught to be water-soluble and multifunctional, finding use in detergent compositions as early as ~1970, but Nagarajan found that literature on “the diverse functional benefits they confirm upon the end use performance of a compounded detergent product is, at best, scanty” and endeavored to address this deficiency (pg. 949, Introduction, para. 1). Using experiments that measure adsorption ability, dispersancy, sequestration, buffer capacity, and detergency, (pg. 949-950, Experimental Procedures), Nagarajan found that sodium polyacrylates protect anionic surfactants in hard water via sequestration and buffering, removed, dispersed, and prevented the redeposition of soil particulate, and prevented “lime-soap soil buildup on washed fabrics” (pg. 954, Overview of Polyacrylate Functions in Detergents).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, in view of the teachings of Nagarajan to select a polyacrylate as the polymer compound in the invention of Yamamoto because the combination of prior art elements to impart a known benefit produces predictable results. Yamamoto teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising 2,2’-(octylimino)bis[ethanol] and a polymer compound, but does not teach a specific polymer compound. In view of the teachings of Nagarajan, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to select a polyacrylate as the polymer compound because Nagarajan teaches polyacrylate polymers to be multifunctional in detergent compositions, lending benefits such as protecting surfactants, removing and preventing the redeposition of particulates, and preventing buildup on washed fabrics. An ordinary artisan would recognize these functions as beneficial in the detergent composition taught by Yamamoto and would be motivated to combine a polyacrylate with the invention of Yamamoto to impart the known benefits. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 5 and 10-11 in view of the teachings of Yamamoto and Nagarajan.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 6,328,951 B1 (granted 11 December 2001, assigned to the same Applicant as the instant application) teaches an ironing aid-freshening composition which eliminates undesirable aromas (Abstract and col. 3, lines 17-28). The composition is taught to comprise a fragrance which may be tetrahydrolinalool (Example 1) or derivatives of tetrahydrolinalool (claims 8-9, 17-18, and 26) and a surfactant which may be 2,2’-(octylimino)bis[ethanol] (col. 10, lines 50-66).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean J. Steinke, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, David Blanchard, can be reached at (571) 272-0827. 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.
/S.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/TIGABU KASSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights