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 1-11, 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).
Regarding claims 1-8 and 18, Behal teaches a laundry treatment composition (24, 26, 39) comprising (instant claims 1, 7-8); a)- a cationic biocidal active (instant claims 4-5, 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], 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 ethoxylate alcohol in the amount of 0.5-10%; [54, 57].
Regarding claims 1-3, 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 oleyl alcohol octadecene 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 Grandma ire 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).
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.
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 9 AM- 6 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, 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
2026/03/05
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767