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 August 26, 2026. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Dihydromyrcenol is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al, US 2021/0147761.
Schaefer et al teach pro-fragrances for laundry compositions, wherein the fragrance may include camphor, beta-ionone, benzyl acetate, citronellol, geraniol, linalool, and limonene (¶15 and 34), preferred builders are gluconic acid, MGDA, GLDA, and mixtures thereof (¶57) present in preferred amounts of from 0.3 to 5% (¶86), and the composition further comprises from 12.5 to 30% surfactants (¶40). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate a laundry detergent comprising well-known perfumes, builders, and surfactant with confidence of forming an effective laundry detergent as all of these components are taught as suitable by the reference. The pH of these compositions is from 5 to 10.5 (¶88) and suitable deodorizing agents include phenoxyethanol (¶100). It is obvious to add well-known components to laundry detergents, and to formulate them at standard pH values.
Applicants traverse this rejection on the grounds the reference has a “broad catalogue of possible builder substances” but does not select the specific combination of gluconic acid with either MGDA or GLDA, and applicants go on to assert that GLDA and MGDA outperform phosphonate sequestrants for dihydromyrcenol headspace availability. First, the examiner does not dispute that GLDA and MGDA outperform phosphonate sequestrants for dihydromyrcenol headspace availability. However, dihydromyrcenol is but one of over 20 fragrances in present claim 1. Does this property apply to all the fragrances in claim 1? Moreover, example 1 of the present specification contains GLDA and gluconic acid (as well as many other ingredients), but there is no showing that a combination of gluconic acid and GLDA has any particular effect. The specification does not even contain an example with MGDA and gluconic acid. Yes, individually GLDA and MGDA outperform phosphonate sequestrants for dihydromyrcenol headspace availability, but nothing is mentioned about these chelants in combination with gluconic acid. Schaefer et al may not provide a specific reason to select gluconic acid with either MGDA or GLDA, but neither do applicants.
Turning to the reference, Schaefer et al teach gluconic acid, MGDA, and GLDA as three of seven acids that are particularly noteworthy (emphasis added by the examiner), and mixtures of these acids are contemplated by the reference (¶57). The examiner maintains this is ample teaching for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of two well-known chelants recognized in the art, absent some showing by applicants that this particular combination of acids does something unexpected, which applicants have not shown, as discussed above. MGDA and GLDA are extremely common chelants. It is not inventive to combine a well-known chelant with an organic acid, and so the rejection is maintained.
All other rejections set forth in the previous action are withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al, US 2021/0147761 in view of Cropper et al, US 2020/0056125.
Schaefer et al are relied upon as set forth above. The reference teaches many fragrances for laundry compositions, but it does not teach dihydromyrcenol and verdyl acetate.
Cropper et al teach a laundry detergent comprising dihydromyrcenol and verdyl acetate (¶112, tables 3 and 4). The reference is relied upon to demonstrate that dihydromyrcenol and verdyl acetate are common fragrances for use in laundry detergents, and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use these well-known fragrances in the laundry detergent of Schaeffer et al, as such fragrances are taught as preferred for use in laundry detergents as taught by Cropper et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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
Prosecution Insights