DETAILED ACTION
1 This action is responsive to the amendment filed on September 23, 2026.
2 The cancelation of claim 7 is acknowledged. Pending claims are 1-6 and 8-21.
3 The rejection of the claims under 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment.
4 Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103 over Pelletier et al., (US’ 601 A1) in view of Dahlmeyer et al. (US’ 888 A1) for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action that mailed on May 27, 2026.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
5 Applicant's arguments filed on 09/23/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of the claims under 103 over Pelletier et al., (US’ 601 A1) in view of Dahlmeyer et al. (US’ 888 A1), applicant argued that the combination of Pelletier and Dahlmeyer does not render obvious the claimed composition as recited in amened claim 1 or the claimed method as recited in amended claim 19.
The examiner respectfully, disagrees with the above arguments, because Dahlmeyer et al., (US888 A1) as a combined (secondary reference) clearly teaches a fabric treatment composition comprising highly branched cyclic dextrin in the amount of about 1.0 wt.% to about 8.0 wt.% (see page 2, paragraph, 0015) and when, if range of prior art and claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the range are close enough that one would not expect a difference in properties, In re Wooddruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. V. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA). Also a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.051.
In this case the word “about” permits some tolerance (see In re Ayers, 69 USPQ 109, and In re Erickson, 145 USPQ 207), the upper limit of about 0.75 wt% of a highly-branched cyclic dextrin in the present claim 1 may be considered to read on the lower limit of about 1.0 wt% of a highly-branched cyclic dextrin in the prior art reference of Dahlmeyer et al., (US888 A1). Further, as the optimization of results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variable when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case applicants have not shown on record the criticality of the claimed weight percents of a highly-branched cyclic dextrin in the claimed composition.
8 With regards to claim 21, Pelletier et al. (US’ 601 A1) teaches a composition for fabric treatment comprising from about 20 to about 95 wt. % of at least one water-soluble carrier, from about 0.1 to about 20 wt. % of at least one fragrance and from about 0.1 to about 10 wt.% of at least one buffer system, wherein wt.% is based on the total weight of the solid particulate composition as claimed in claim 1 (see page 1, paragraph, 0007), and wherein the composition also comprises rheology modifiers (see claims 7-9), and wherein the composition also comprises an emulsifying substance in the amount of from about 0.10% to about 10% by wt., as claimed (see claims 10-11). Dahlmeyer et al. (US’ 888 A1) in analogous art of fabric treatment formulation, teaches a composition comprising highly branched cyclic dextrin having an average molecular weight from about 100 kilo Daltons to about 5000 kilo Daltons and from about 500 kilo Daltons to about 3000 kilo Daltons and wherein the highly branched cyclic dextrin included in the fabric composition in the amount of about 1.0 wt.% to about 8.0 wt.% which is overlapped with the claimed ranges as claimed in claim 21 (see page 2, paragraph, 0015). Therefore, the combined references of Pelletier et al., (US’ 601 A1) and Dahlmeyer et al. (US’ 888 A1) teach the limitations of the newly added claim 21.
9 THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
