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.
Claims 4, 8 and 9 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation of “alkyl or acyl”, and the claim also recites “preferably methyl or ethyl…preferably CH3CO or C2H5C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation of “propoxy and ethoxy”, and the claim also recites “most preferably ethoxy” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation of “propoxy and ethoxy”, and the claim also recites “more preferably 6 to 8, most preferably 6.1 to 7.0” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutique (US 2009/0005287) in view of Kiwala (US 4,335,008).
Boutique teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition comprising amphiphilic graft polymers [0002]. Boutique teaches these polymers are hydrophilic soil removal polymer, specifically ethoxysulfated hexamethylene diamine dimethyl quat ([0007] and Table 1). This compound is an alkoxylated zwitterionic polyamine polymer. Boutique further teaches the composition comprises a surfactant system [0023] and a perfume ([0007] and Table 1).
Boutique does not teach the perfume comprises a cyclohexyl moiety.
Kiwala teaches phenethyl cyclohexylether is used as perfumes in liquid detergents (col 1, lines 10-20). Kiwala teaches the exemplary compound has the structure shown below
PNG
media_image1.png
110
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
col 4, lines 5-10
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the following reasons. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the perfume compound in Kiwala into the laundry composition of Boutique. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result enhancing the scent of the laundry. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kiwala teaches a composition can contain as little as 0.5% or 20% or more depending on the strength sought for the final product. Therefore, the amount is a result effective variable. With respect to optimal ranges, it is not inventive to discover such regimens by routine experimentation when general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 9, Boutique teaches the composition has a pH range of 6.5-11. Which overlaps with the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 244.05(I).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutique and Kiwala as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-9 above, and further in view of Conrad (US 4,130,509)
The teachings of Boutique and Kiwala are discussed above. The references do not teach 2-tert-Butylcyclohexyl acetate or 3,3,5-Trimethylcyclohexylethyl ether.
Conrad teaches 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexenylethyl ether is a known perfume having natural and pleasant fragrances (column 1, lines 5-25).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by adding the 3,3,5-trimethylcyclohexenylethyl ether as taught by Conrad. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of enhancing the scent of the detergent with natural and pleasant fragrance. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW whose telephone number is (571)272-2817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8-5.
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.
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights