DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3, 5-11, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behal et al. (US 2009/0203570 A1) in view of Grandmaire et al. (WO 94/04643) as additionally evidenced by Metcalfe et al. (WO 2018/0108466 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11 and 18, Behal teaches a laundry treatment composition (24, 26, 39) comprising (instant claims 1, 7-8); a)- a cationic biocidal active (instant claims 5, 11, 18) such as dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (ADBAC same as BKC) in the amount of 0.1-5 wt.%; [11, 39], taught as given formula; [11-13], or cationic fabric conditioner (cationic quaternary ammonium compounds are also classified a biocides) such as general cationic compound of R5 R6 (R7)2 N+ X- wherein R5 and R6 =C8-C24 alkyl and R7= C1-C3 alkyl which includes dialkyldimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC); [27, 29], and (ii); general cationic compound of formula R2 R3 (R4)2 N+ X- , wherein R2 =C6-C18, R3= benzyl and R4= C1-C3 alkyl in the amounts of 0.1-5% (11, 39, claim 1), thus rendering alkyl dimethyl benzylammonium chloride (ADBAC same as BKC) obvious; [39, table 1]. It is noted that cationic compounds of alkylammonium chloride and more specifically alkyl dimethyl benzalkonium chloride are both known as biocidal, antibacterial and sanitizing agents. The selection of (DDAC) and (ADBAC) in laundry compositions with biocidal properties are well known and further evidenced by analogous art of Metcalfe; [pg.3: 18-19]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious (instant claims 5, 11) to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select only the (DDAC) and (BKC) active agents as a functional equivalent alternative in the given general formulas above by Behal. b)- cationic quaternary ammonium fabric conditioner (instant 6) such as tallow ester quat in the amount of 0.1-20 wt.%; [61: table 1, 25-31], and; c)- emulsifiers such as nonionic alcohol ethoxylate in the amount of 0.5-10%; [54, 57].
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Behal does not specifically teach unsaturated fatty alcohol as emulsifier. However, the analogous art of Grandmaire teaches a fabric conditioning composition (abstract, pg. 2: 24-30) comprising monounsaturated fatty alcohols of lauryl alcohol, oleyl alcohol, octadecanol and hexadecanol in the amount of 0.2-5 wt.%; [pg. 3: 8-11, pg. 5: 3-8]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add (or partially substitute) the monounsaturated fatty alcohols of Grandmaire to Behal’s composition with the motivation of further enhancing its grease and fatty stain removing properties as taught by Grandma ire above.
Regarding claims 9-11 and 16-17, Behal’s teaching of the corresponding amounts of cationic biocide active, cationic fabric softener and emulsifier would readily render their instantly claimed ratios (instant 9-10) obvious. Furthermore, Behal teaches (instant 11); i)- dialkyldimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC) in amount of 0.1-20 wt.%; [27, 25], ii)- alkyldimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (R2R3 (R4) N+Cl-) R2= R4= C1 -C3, and R3 = benzyl (BKC = ADBAC) in the amounts of 0.1-5 wt.%; [39] and; iii)- cationic fabric softeners in amount of 0.1-20 wt.%; [25-31]. Note that; in the case where the 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed Cir. 1990), [MPEP 2144.05, R5].
iv)- Behal does not teach (instant 16-17) the instantly claimed oleyl alcohol. However, Grandmaire teaches this alcohol as a contributing emulsifier in the amounts of 0.2-5 wt.%; [pg. 3: 8-11, pg. 5: 8].
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Behal teaches a method of machine washing (laundry process) wherein 5 grams of powder composition is added to a rinse aqueous liquor (water); [64]. However, Behal (instant 13) teaches that the composition could also be in liquid form; [53]. Consequently, at the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to add any desired amount of conditioner, in liquid form, to washing (i.e. rinsing step) which is a matter of routine experimental practice not imparting patentability. Behal teaches (instant 19) partially hydrogenated tallow ester-quat softener; [28, 34].
Regarding claim 15, and the instantly claimed method of stabilizing a cationic liquid dispersion, it is noted: Section 2112.02 of the MPEP provides direction as to how phrases such as this are to be treated: “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81 (preamble is not a limitation where claim is directed to a product and the preamble merely recites a property in an old product defined by the remainder of the claim).
Regarding claim 22, The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties (at least 4 log reduction of instantly claimed bacterial agents) are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, in the claimed ranges, was prepared under similar conditions, and that the original specification specifies that the properties arise from a combination of specific ingredients or process step and that it is rendered obvious by the applied art. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. at least 4 log reduction of instantly claimed bacterial agents, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Claims 12 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behal et al. (US 2009/0203570 A1) Grandmaire et al. (WO 94/04643), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Inamorata (US 3,959,157).
Regarding claims 12 and 20-21, Behal teaches nonionic surfactant (vi) of ethoxylate alcohol in the amount of 0.5-10%; [54, 57]. However, it does not teach the propylene glycol solvent (v). However, the analogous art of Inamorata teaches a fabric conditioning composition comprising glycol solvents such as propylene glycol in amounts of up to 15 wt.%; [4: 55-60]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to also include the propylene glycol as a solvent that is (i.e. motivation) biodegradable, liquid stabilizer, viscosity modifier and ingredient(s) emulsifier for a liquid consistency (please consult any organic chemistry textbook) as taught by Inamorata above. Note that Behal teaches emulsifiers (instant claim 21) such as nonionic alcohol ethoxylate in the amount of 0.5-10%; [54, 57].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/06/09 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments filed 2026/06/04 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please note that for the sake of brevity the applicant’s repetitious argument, on different pages, are only responded to once. Also note that some of the stated arguments are addressed in the revised body of the final action (i.e. claim 1-preamble) above.
In response to applicant’s argument (7-8) that: 1)- “Contrary to the text of the Paper copied above, Behal does not teach a laundry composition comprising a biocidal active. Instead, Behal teaches a fabric conditioner composition that comprises cationic fabric conditioner active, anion quencher and C 1-C8 organic acid, as is succinctly summarized in the following paragraph. 2)- “Behal discloses that this combination provides improved fabric softening and retention of fragrance on the fabric. [Behal, at para 0008.] In the Examples, Behal measures fabric softness in Table 2 and Fabric Softness and Fragrance Retention in Tables 3 and 4. Behal never expressly disclose any biocides or any germ kill results.”, it should be noted that, It is noted that the response for these remarks is already stated above on claim 1 rejection regarding the interpretation of the claim preamble(s). Also, it should be noted that contrary to applicant’s assertion above the instant claims are directly related to a specific composition being used on conditioning and treating laundry material which is also construed as sanitizing the fabric by virtue of having the same composition as instantly claimed. Applicant appears to use a discontinued paragraphs of prior art’s teaching without considering the totality of its teaching, which is not persuasive. In short, the prior art of Behal teaches (regardless of the names) exactly the very same active agents that applicant has claimed as “sanitizing compound(s)” and renders the argument unpersuasive. It should be noted that chemical compounds almost always possess different characteristics or properties (multi-properties) which behave or react differently under different circumstances. Again, BKC is a well-known antibacterial and biocide agent which is fully capable of sanitizing laundry substrates. As stated on the action above, analogous art of Metcalfe teaches these properties clearly; [pg.3: 18-19].
In response to applicant’s argument (page 7) that, “The content of the prior art is determined at the time the invention was made to avoid impermissible hindsight. MPEP 2141.01 III. The jurisprudence recognizes this: "To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction…”, it should be noted that, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument (page 7) that, “One of ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize the extremely large number of compounds covered by this formulation. In its Examples (reproduced from Behar, below) Behar uses benzalkonium chloride (BKC or ADBAC as claimed) or cetyl trimethyl ammonium chloride (Cl6TAC) as its 'anion quencher' and di-hydrogenated tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride (Arquad 2HT) as its cationic fabric conditioner active.”, it should be noted that: “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004), [MPEP 2141.02].
In response to applicant’s argument (page 10) that: “To address this deficiency, the present Paper relies upon Grandmaire for allegecly teaching a fabric conditioning composition comprising monounsaturated fatty alcohols of oleyl alcohol octadecene and hexadeconal at page 3 lines 8-11, and page 5, lines 3-8, (reproduced below). [ Applicant notes that the disclosure does not include "oleyl alcohol octadecene" and believes that was a typo for "oleyl alcohol" (unsaturated) and "octadeconal" (saturated). If incorrect, clarification is respectfully requested.”, I)- for the mentioned correction(s) please see the above action. And, “the present Paper mischaracterizes Grandmaire' s teachings. As can be seen from the cited paragraphs, Grandmaire broadly discloses any fatty alcohol, not just the claimed unsaturated fatty alcohol. For this reason alone, withdrawal of the present rejection is requested.”, II)- it is noted that, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant allegation on uncombinability of references would have a merit if and if the asserted combination would result in complete chemical destabilization of Behar’s composition which is evidenced.
In response to applicant’s argument (pages 11, and 14 on 3rd paragraph) that; “As shown in formulation A of the examples of the present application, the addition of a Cl2-16 alcohol ethoxylate having 7 EO to ADBAC, DDAC, and esterquat is unstable at room temperature. Example B discloses that the addition of Grandmaire' s proposed hexadecanol (synonymous with cetyl alcohol) is also unstable. Example C discloses that the addition of Grandmaire' s proposed stearyl alcohol is also unstable.”, the formulations A, B and C are reviewed (instant Pg.Pub. US 2024/0343995 Al) on paragraph 0074 are apparently mischaracterized by applicant. First, there is no indication of an ethoxylated fatty alcohol having adverse effect on Behar’s composition whatsoever, table only shows presence of fatty alcohols! Second, the combination of Behar and Grandmaire is only and only because of the very same fatty alcohols as instantly claimed by applicant and not anything else. Third, Applicant’s has additionally , and impermissibly, added ethoxylated fatty alcohols of Grandmaire to Bahar’s composition which is not the reason for combination of these two references. And finally, the assertion that ethoxylated fatty alcohols would destabilize instantly claimed composition is incorrect. It should be noted that the Pg.Pub. paragraphs 0047 and 0064 do indeed teach the inclusion of ethoxylated nonionic compounds which are basically ethoxylated fatty acids, thus rendering applicant’s statement contradictory.
Again in response to applicant’s arguments (pages 12-13) that: “With regard now to the rejection at page 3 of the Paper lodged against claims 9-11, 16, 17 the applicant also traverses this rejection, particularly in light of the claims resented supra. At page 3 of the Paper is stated that Behal teaches DDAC in amount of 0.1-20% wt in para 25 and 27, BKC in the amount of 0.1-5% wt in para 39 and cationic fabric softeners in amount of 0.1-20% wt in para 25-31.” and; “Applicant notes that the Paper cites paras [0025] and [0027] in Behal for both the DDAC and the fabric conditioner active of claim 11. Applicant respectfully notes that paras [0025] - [0031] however never disclose "or combinations thereof." As a result, Behal does not and cannot disclose a composition comprising DDAC and a fabric softener based on paras [0025] - [0031]. For this reason alone, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”. it is, again, noted that the general formulas taught by Behar (11, 27, 29, 39) with the very precise given parameters (chemical groups) do indeed include the very claimed DDAC and ADBAC wherein for simplicity are further evidenced, with more clarity by Metcalfe reference. The argument is not persuasive.
It is, respectfully, suggested that perhaps a more concise and distinct amendment of instant claim(s) would, probably, be more effective in further distinguishing the claims from the teaching of the prior arts of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/09/02
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights