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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earp et al (US 2008/0221010 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Earp teaches a fabric conditioning composition (i.e. concentrate: same amounts of instant components) composition; [abstract, 2-5], comprising; ester-linked fabric conditioning compound such as di-alkenyl esters of triethanol ammonium methyl sulphate and N-N-di (tallowoyloxy ethyl) N,N-dimethyl-
Ammonium chloride in the amounts of 5-30 wt.% or 7-25 wt.%; [66, 76], nonionic surfactant of primary C8-C22 linear alcohol alkoxylate (EO = 10-25) in the amounts of 0.5-10 wt.%; [79], wherein the instantly claimed ratio of quaternary ammonium compound to nonionic surfactant (3/1 to 1/1) shares a major overlapping range with that of Earp thus rendering the claim(s) obvious. Note that, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (before the effective filing date of the invention) to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See [MPEP § 2144.05]. Furthermore, Earp’s composition comprises free perfume in the amounts such as 0.95 wt%; [101: table 5].
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earp et al (US 2008/0221010 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Burgess et al. (US 2022/0195337 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Earp teaches rheology modifying agents such as guar and xanthan gums (80) but does not teach their amount. However, the analogous art of Burgess teaches a laundry treatment and conditioning (i.e. quaternary ammonium softeners: 29) with rheology modifiers such has xanthan and guar gums in the amounts of 1-3 wt.%; [81, 83]. 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 adjust the viscosity of the composition at the instantly claimed range with the motivation of facilitating its ease of use via its flowability and dissolution in the washing media, as taught by Burgess above. Furthermore (instant claim 6), Earp does not teach encapsulated perfumes and only teaches free perfume for its composition; [101: table 5]. However, Burgess teaches encapsulated perfume(s) for its composition in the amounts of 1-8 wt.%; [53-54]. 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 encapsulated perfume to Earp’s composition, in claimed amounts, with the motivation of enhancing fabric clothing’s aroma for a longer time thus more preferred condition of laundered fabrics.
Claims 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earp et al (US 2008/0221010 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Buron et al. (US 6,432,911 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Earp does not, expressly, teach the instantly claimed range of 300 to 500 mPa.s, rather it teaches a viscosity of 203; [98: table 4]. However, the analogous art of Buron teaches a fabric conditioning composition comprising similar quaternary ammonium fatty acid esters compound and other active agents wherein the viscosity is between 200 and 500 mPa.s.; [C.8: Lines 37-41]. Considering the fact that Earp discusses the states of higher viscosities for its composition (104), therefor 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 adjust, by increasing, the viscosity of Earp’s composition (in view of the amounts of rheology modifier(s) above) with the motivation of making the intended fabric conditioner with designed properties as taught by both Earp and Buron above.
Regarding claims 7-9, Earp does not, expressly, teach the steps of claimed method of preparing its concentrated fabric conditioning composition. However, the analogous art of Buron teaches mixing the conditioning composition with water (diluting); [C.8: L.65], at a dilution ratio of 1:9 (one part composition to 9 parts water); [C.8: 65]. Furthermore, Buron teaches addition of conditioning composition to the rinse stage of the laundry process; [C.8: L.58-60].
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
2026/08/21
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights