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 1-13, in the reply filed on July 22 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 22, 2026.
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 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockett et al. (US 20030139309), hereinafter “Brockett.”
Regarding claims 1-7 and 11, Brockett teaches a fabric care composition which comprises a solid carrier and an anti-wrinkle agent (see abstract), wherein the solid carrier may be any solid carrier like sugar or sugar derivative like maltodextrin (see [0025] and [0036]), and the composition typically comprises the solid carrier in an amount from 0.001% to 10% by weight of the composition (see [0027]), wherein the average molecular weight of the maltodextrin should be within those recited. The above composition can be used in the form of a fabric conditioner composition which preferably include a fabric softening and/or conditioning compound which may be a cationic compound (see [0087]), like a quaternary ammonium ester compound (see [0095-[0098]]), and perfume which is preferably from 0.1 to 5% by weight (see [0121]), wherein the product form of the fabric conditioner composition is suitable for delivery from a substrate e.g., a flexible sheet, for use during a tumble dryer cycle (see [0089]). Brockett, however, fails to specifically disclose a dryer sheet comprising a highly branched cyclic dextrin like maltodextrin, fabric softening agent and fragrance or perfume as recited in claim 1, and the amount of the maltodextrin as recited in claims 2-4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared a dryer sheet comprising maltodextrin, fabric softening agent and perfume or fragrance because the teachings of Brockett encompasses these suitable ingredients.
With respect to the specific proportions of the maltodextrin, considering that Brockett teaches maltodextrin in an amount an amount from 0.001% to 10% by weight of the composition (see [0027]), 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 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).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockett as applied to claims 1-7 and 11 above, and further in view of Kvita et al. (US 2005/0020477), hereinafter “Kvita.”
Regarding claim 13, Brockett teaches the features as discussed above. Brockett, however, fails to disclose the sheet comprising a woven material.
Kvita, an analogous art, teaches a tumble dryer sheet article comprising a flexible substrate (see [0280]), wherein the flexible substrate is a woven or non-woven cloth substrate (see [0283]).
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 flexible substrate of the dryer sheet of Brockett as a woven cloth substrate because this is a typical flexible substrate for dryer sheet as taught by Kvita.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Brockett, the closest prior art, teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Brockett teaches fabric softening compounds at levels from 8% to about 50% by weight, when the compositions are considered concentrates (see [0088]). Hence, the proportions of the fabric softening compounds of Brockett are outside the scope of the present claims 8-10 and 12.
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