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 .
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 is indefinite in the recital of “the composition” in line 2 because it is not clear to which composition in claim 1 it is referring to, the laundry sanitizer composition or the microcapsule composition?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1) as being anticipated by Bird et al. (US 2009/0036346), hereinafter “Bird.”
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 9 and 14-15, Bird teaches an aqueous conditioning composition comprising: (i) a water-insoluble, non-ester, quaternary ammonium fabric conditioning agent having at least 2 alkyl and/or alkenyl groups of at least 12 carbon atoms, or an alkyl or alkenyl group having a chain length of at least 20 carbon atoms, (ii) a water-soluble quaternary ammonium cationic surfactant and (iii) perfume, at least a portion of which is encapsulated (see abstract; claim 1). In Example 1, Bird teaches aqueous conditioning composition comprising 6.5 wt% dihardened tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride, wherein the tallow is known to have mainly C16 and C18 carbon atoms; 0.4 wt% Benzalkonium chloride (50% in water); 0.89 wt% ‘Merlin’ perfume; and 0.4 wt% melamine-formaldehyde encapsulated perfume (see Table in [0052]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Bird teaches in Example 1F a method of preparing the above aqueous condition composition which comprises mixing the encapsulated perfume into the aqueous base conditioning composition (see [0056]).
Bird teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Bird anticipates the claims.
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 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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-15 above.
Regarding claim 7, Bird teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Bird teaches that the water-insoluble fabric softener, e.g., dihardened tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride, is present in an amount in the range from 0.05 to 50, preferably 1 to 25% by weight of the composition (see [0012]). Bird, however, fails to specifically disclose the tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride in an amount between about 1 wt% to about 4 wt%.
Considering that Bird teaches from 0.05 to 50, preferably 1 to 25% by weight of the composition of the water-insoluble fabric softener, e.g., dihardened tallow dimethyl ammonium chloride, 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 (i.e., about 1 wt% to about 4 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).
Regarding claim 8, Bird further teaches that the pH of the aqueous conditioning composition is from about 2.5 to about 7 (see [0034]). Bird, however, fails to specifically disclose the composition having a pH of about 7.
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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-15 above, and further in view of Fossum et al. (US 2018/0142188), hereinafter “Fossum.”
Regarding claim 3, Bird teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Bird teaches in Example 1, an aqueous conditioning composition comprising melamine-formaldehyde encapsulated perfume (see Table in [0052]). Bird, however, fails to disclose the shell of the microcapsule comprising polyurea polymer.
Fossum, an analogous art in fabric treatment composition (see abstract), teaches the equivalency of melamine-formaldehyde with polyurea as shell material for encapsulated perfume (see [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the melamine-formaldehyde of Bird with polyurea because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Fossum is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one shell material for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 12-15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0112341), hereinafter “Kim.”
Regarding claims 10-11, Bird teaches the features as discussed above. Bird, however, fails to disclose the fragrance or perfume to be biodegradable as recited in claim 10, and the shell surrounding the core being biodegradable as recited in claim 11.
Kim, an analogous art, teaches a biodegradable capsule which is a capsule having a form in which a capsule wall surrounds fragrance or oil, wherein a polymer, formed by the reaction of a fibrous polymer, a protein polymer, an aliphatic polyesterpolyol and an aliphatic crosslinking agent, constitutes the capsule wall of the capsule (see abstract), and wherein the fragrance may be a material such as an aromatic herb fragrance, a rose fragrance, a jasmine fragrance, a lavender fragrance, a mint fragrance, a banana fragrance, an apple fragrance, a strawberry fragrance, a vanilla fragrance, a mixture thereof, etc. (see [0069]), or the oil may be a natural oil like jojoba oil, olive oil avocado oil or coconut oil (see [0070]). The biodegradable capsules are useful in the fields of household goods, cosmetics and the like and are safe for the human body (see [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the melamine-formaldehyde encapsulated perfume of Bird with the biodegradable capsule encapsulating aromatic herb fragrance of Kim not only because the substitution of perfume microcapsules for another is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, but also the substitution provides biodegradable products which are safe for the human body as taught by Kim.
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