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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 4-5 and 9-11 in the reply filed on May 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that JP 2002309285 A does not disclose or suggest the laundry composition recited in Groups I-III. This is not found persuasive because Groups I-IV lack unity of invention according to PCT Rule 13.2 as stated in the previous office action, the technical feature of a fragrance composition comprising α-guaiene is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of JP 2002309285 A and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions require a different field of search and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 4, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 3, line 4, “compositing” after “laundry” should be replaced with “composition.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claim does not end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boutique et al. (US 2017/0362539), hereinafter “Boutique,” as evidenced by Weide et al. (US 2006/0134239, already cited in IDS dated 04/22/2024), hereinafter “Weide.”
Regarding claims 4-5 and 10, Boutique teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition comprising a perfume composition providing superior malodour neutralization of fabrics without causing a colour change of the composition (see abstract). In Example 4, Boutique teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition comprising C11-C13 HLAS, C12-C14AE1-3S (both of which are anionic surfactants), Neodol ® 25-7 (a nonionic surfactant), citric acid (a builder), protease (an enzyme), among others (which meet the “laundry composition base”), and 1.2 wt% perfume composition according to Example 3 (see [0059] and Table 4), wherein the perfume composition in Example 3 comprises allyl cyclohexane propionate, benzyl acetate, cashmeran, among others, and 0.60 wt% patchouli (see [0058] and Table 3). As evidenced by Weide, patchouli oil comprises 14.3 wt% alpa-guaiene (see [0325] and Table 3). The amount of the α-guaiene, by calculation in ppm, in the laundry composition is (1.2 x 0.60/100 x 14.3/100 x 10,000) = 10.3 ppm α-guaiene.
Hence, Boutique, as evidenced by Weide anticipates the claims.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutique, as evidenced by Weide as applied to claims 4-5 and 10 above.
Regarding claim 9, Boutique, as evidenced by Weide teaches the features as discussed above. Boutique further teaches that the patchouli in the generic perfume composition in Example 1, can range from 0.05-2.5 wt% (see [0056] and Table 1, pages 5-6). Boutique, as evidenced by Weide, however, fails to specifically disclose the fragrance composition comprising 1-30 wt% of the α-guaiene.
Considering that Boutique teaches that the perfume composition has a maximum amount of 2.5 wt% in the perfume composition, and as evidenced by Weide, patchouli oil comprises 14.3 wt% alpa- guaiene (see [0325] and Table 3), the amount of the α-guaiene in the perfume composition would be (2.5 x 14.3/100) = 0.36 wt% or 0.40 wt% α-guaiene. Hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (1 wt% vs 0.40 wt%) that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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, and rewritten to overcome the minor informality discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As discussed above, Boutique teaches that the patchouli in the generic perfume composition in Example 1, can range from 0.05-2.5 wt% (see [0056] and Table 1, pages 5-6), and as evidenced by Weide, patchouli oil comprises 14.3 wt% alpa- guaiene (see [0325] and Table 3). Boutique also teaches that the liquid laundry detergent composition comprises from 0.5% to 3% by weight of the liquid laundry detergent composition of a perfume composition comprising patchouli (see [0020] and [0025]). The maximum amount of the α-guaiene, by calculation in ppm, in the laundry composition is (3 x 2.5/100 x 14.3/100 x 10,000) = 107.25 ppm α-guaiene. Hence, the 107.25 ppm maximum amount of α-guaiene in the laundry composition of Boutique, as evidenced by Weide is outside the scope of 800-15000 ppm α-guaiene in the laundry composition as required in claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights