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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on July 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 30, 2026.
Abstract of the Disclosure
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 5 of the paragraph, the phrase “formula (III) (II) (III), wherein is pendent oxygen. . .” needs correction. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the phrase “enhances deposition . . .” in lines 23-25 (last three lines) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-8, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partain, III et al. (WO 2020051049, already cited in IDS dated 09/17/2024), hereinafter “Partain, III.”
Regarding claims 1-4, Partain, III teaches a fabric care composition including water; a modified carbohydrate polymer having a weight average molecular weight of < 500,000 Daltons, preferably, 50,000 to 480,000 Daltons (see [0010]) and a Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, of ≥ 0.5 wt%, preferably, 0.5 to 5.0 wt (see [0014]); and a cleaning surfactant; wherein the modified carbohydrate polymer is a carbohydrate polymer functionalized with quaternary ammonium moieties; wherein the quaternary ammonium moieties on the modified carbohydrate polymer include: trimethyl ammonium moieties having formula (I) and dimethyl(alkyl) ammonium moieties having formula (II)
PNG
media_image1.png
254
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each R is independently selected from a C8-22 alkyl group (see abstract), most preferably each R is a C12 alkyl group (see [0014]). Preferably, the fabric care composition further comprises: 0 to 10 wt%, preferably, 0.1 to 10 wt%, based on the weight of the fabric care composition, of a fragrance (see [0025]). The modified carbohydrate polymer has a mol% substitution ratio of trimethyl ammonium moieties of formula (I) to dimethyl(alkyl) ammonium moieties of formula (II) of > 2 to < 100 (see claim 4), for example, 99.0 to 3.3 (see Table 1).One of the preferred carbohydrate polymer is dextran (see [0013]), which is a known complex branched glucan. It is noted that the fabric care composition of Partain, III does not contain silicone. Partain, III, however, fails to specifically disclose the dextran having a weight average molecular weight of 140,000 to 500,000 Daltons; and that the degree of substitution of the trimethyl ammonium moieties on the dextran polymer is 0.1 to 0.2, and the degree of substitution of the dimethyl(alkyl) ammonium moieties or dimethyldodecyl ammonium moieties on the dextran polymer is 0.005 to 0.02, or a ratio of trimethyl ammonium substitution to dimethyldodecyl ammonium substitution of 40:1 to 5:1 as recited in claim 1; and the modified carbohydrate polymer having a Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles of 0.5 to 2.0 wt% as recited in claim 3.
Considering that Partain, III teaches that the modified carbohydrate polymer, like dextran, has a weight average molecular weight of < 500,000 Daltons, preferably, 50,000 to 480,000 Daltons; and the modified carbohydrate polymer has a mol% substitution ratio of trimethyl ammonium moieties of formula (I) to dimethyl(alkyl) ammonium moieties of formula (II) of > 2 to < 100 (see claim 4), for example, 99.0 to 3.3 (see Table 1), the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., MW of 140,000 to <500,000; ratio of 40:1 to 5:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, considering that Partain, III teaches that the modified carbohydrate polymer has a Kjeldahl nitrogen content corrected for ash and volatiles, TKN, of > 0.5 wt%, preferably, 0.5 to 5.0 wt%, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 0.5 to 2.0 wt% because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partain, III as applied to claims 1-4 above, as evidenced by Sivik et al. (WO 2021/257793, already cited in IDS dated 09/17/2024), hereinafter “Sivik.”
Regarding claims 5-8, Partain, III teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Partain, III teaches that the cleaning surfactant is selected from the group consisting of anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants and mixtures thereof, preferably a mixture a linear alkyl benzene sulfonate, sodium lauryl ethoxysulfate and a nonionic alcohol ethoxylate (see [0016]). Partain, III also teaches that the fabric care composition is a laundry detergent (see [0022]), for example, an aqueous laundry detergent (see [0042] and Table 2). Partain, III, however, fails to specifically disclose that the branched chain dextran polymer comprises a plurality of glucose structural units, wherein 90 to 98 mol% of the glucose structural units are connected by α-1,6 linkages and 2 to 10 mol% of the glucose structural units are connected by α-1,3 linkages as recited in claim 5.
As evidenced by Sivik, the dextran may comprise a backbone of glucose monomer units wherein at lest 90% of the glucose monomer units are linked via alpha-1,6-glycosidic linkages (see page 18, lines 1-6 and 27-29), and the backbone of the dextran can comprise at least 3% or at least 5% glucose monomer units which are linked via alpha-1,3 glycosidic linkages (see page 18, lines 17-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the glucose units of the dextran of Partain, III to be connected by alpha-1,6-glycosidic linkages and alpha-1,3 glycosidic linkages within those recited because, as evidenced by Sivik, the dextran may comprise a backbone of glucose monomer units wherein at least 90% of the glucose monomer units are linked via alpha-1,6-glycosidic linkages and the backbone of the dextran can comprise at least 3% or at least 5% glucose monomer units which are linked via alpha-1,3 glycosidic linkages.
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