DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received July 30, 2026. Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 16-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants base their traversal on the stipulation that trimethylolpropane tricaprylate/tricaprate, relied upon by the examiner in all rejections to satisfy the polyol ester claimed, is not the polyol ester of the invention as the caprylate portion has eight carbon atoms and so R6, R7, and R8 would have 7 carbon atoms which is outside the 8-10 carbon atoms claimed, and so these references should not be used.
The examiner does not disagree with this characterization of caprylic acid, however applicants’ examples use Zelec 887, a commercially available polyol ester preferred by applicants. An internet search for Zelec 887 yields the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
388
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that Zelec 887 is also a trimethylolpropane tricaprylate/tricaprate, and so absent further explanation or amendment from applicants, the examiner maintains that trimethylolpropane tricaprylate/tricaprate does indeed satisfy the polyol ester claimed.
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.
All prior art rejections in the previous action under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iavarone et al, US 2011/0059143.
Iavarone et al teach a method for extending perfume substantiation on a fabric or garment (¶14), an example of which comprises 0.1% trimethylolpropane tricaprylate/tricaprate and 1% perfume (¶226, example II). These compositions may contain up to 10% of optional components including perfumes (¶110) and the reference gives an extensive list of suitable perfumes (¶97-102) including perfumes present in present claims 6 and 10. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a bit more perfume in example II with confidence of forming an effective perfume extender on fabrics as greater amounts of perfume are contemplated by the reference.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankenbach et al, US 2013/0061402 alone or in view of Iavarone et al, US 2011/0059143.
Frankenbach et al teach a multipurpose cleaner comprising 0.1% trimethylolpropane tricaprylate/tricaprate and 0.55% perfume (¶99, table 1). These multipurpose cleaners may be used for laundering fabrics (claim 16) and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cleaner of table 1 to launder a fabric and so render obvious the claims at hand.
With respect to the amount of polyol ester and perfume, the reference teaches up to 1% perfume (¶101, table 2) and an amount of perfume of 1.56% will achieve the 6% claimed. It is obvious for persons of skill in the art to use any amount of perfume based on the needs of the formulator, and 1.56% perfume is well within typical amounts used in the detergent arts.
In the alternative, Iavarone et al are relied upon as set forth above. The reference teaches it is up to the formulator to add more perfume as desired and so the addition of more perfume to the composition of table 1 is an obvious design choice to the skilled formulator.
Claims 8, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dykstra, US 2007/0275866.
Dykstra teaches a shampoo comprising 0.1% trimethylolpropane tricaprylate/tricaprate and 1% perfume (¶165, example 18A). Dykstra contemplates larger amounts of perfume (¶36) and it is obvious for persons of skill in the art to use any amount of perfume based on the needs of the formulator.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
