CTNF 18/886,356 CTNF 78424 Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1 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 07-30-02 AIA 2 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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. Claims 1 and 19 recite the term “particular” . The term “particular” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Correction is required. Claims 2-18 and 20 are dependent upon a rejected based claim. Therefore, claims 2-18 and 20 are rejected as well. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 3 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. 07-20-aia AIA 4 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelletier et al. (US 20210198601 A1) in view of Dahlmeyer et al. (US 20230063888 A1) . 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), wherein the water carrier include sodium acetate trihydrate, sodium sulfate and trisodium phosphate dodecahydrate as claimed in claim 2 (see page 3, paragraph, 0061), wherein the fragrance is an ester, an ether, an aldehyde or a ketone as claimed in claim 10 (see page 4, paragraph, 0067), wherein the buffer system is a solid buffer system selected from sodium hydrogen carbonate, sodium carbonate and disodium hydrogen phosphate as claimed in claim 11 (see claim 5), and wherein the composition also comprises rheology modifiers as claimed in claims 12-14 (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 in claims 15 and 16 (see claims 10-11), and wherein the composition also comprises a plurality of individual particles in the form of melt bodies as claimed in claims 17-18 and 20 (see claim 17). Pelletier et al. (US’ 601 A1) also teaches a method of cleaning fabric comprising adding the composition for fabric treatment (CFT) to fabric in the washing cycle of a laundry and wherein the (CFT) provides additional beneficial agents including fragrance to the washed fabric as claimed in claim 19 (see page 2, paragraph, 0033). The instant claims differ from the teaching of Pelletier et al. (US’ 601 A1) by reciting a composition for fabric treatment comprising from about 0.05 wt. % to about 5.0 wt.% of a highly-branched cyclic dextrin. 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 claims 1, 3-9 and 19 (see page 2, paragraph, 0015). Therefore, in view of the teaching of Dahlmeyer et al. (US’ 888 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the composition of Pelletier et al. (US’ 601 A1) by incorporating the highly branched cyclic dextrin as taught by Dahlmeyer et al. (US’ 888 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious based on the teaching of Dahlmeyer et al. (US’ 888 A1) that suggests to use the highly branched cyclic dextrin in the composition as a malodor control agent (See page 1, paragraph, 0001), and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the highly branched cyclic dextrin in a fabric treatment composition with a reasonable expectation for controlling the malodor of the fabric, and would expect such a composition to have similar results and similar property as those claimed, absent unexpected results. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/886,356 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/886,356 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/886,356 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/886,356 Page 5 Art Unit: 1761
Prosecution Insights