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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July 30th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on July 30th, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Typo 1: In claim 10 line 2, “graftcopolymer” should be re-written as “graft copolymer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4, in lines 7-10, recites “preferably N,N-bis[2-[bis(carboxymethyl)amino]ethyl]glycine (CAS 67-43-6), N,N- bis(carboxymethyl)-L-Glutamic acid (CAS 58976-65-1) and N,N'-1,2-ethanediylbis-L- Aspartic acid (CAS 20846-91-7)”. “Preferably” renders claim 4 indefinite.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert (US 20160244698 A1), in view of Kalaivani (“Free Radical Scavenging, Cytotoxic, and Hemolytic Activities of an Active Antioxidant Compound Ethyl Gallate from Leaves of Acacia Nilotica (L.) Wild. Ex. Delile Subsp. Indica (Benth.) Brenan”)
With regard to claims 1-3 and claims 6-7, Schubert discloses a fabric treatment composition having softening benefits (see Abstract). Schubert further discloses the composition may comprise 2-18wt% of formaldehyde scavengers and further discloses ethyl gallate as a suitable formaldehyde scavenger (see [0298]-[0299]). Schubert further discloses the composition may have a pH of 3-9 (see Claim 2). Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select ethyl gallate as a suitable formaldehyde scavenger as ethyl gallate is known to be effective as a free radical scavenger, as evidenced by Kalaivani (see Abstract).
However, Schubert fails to disclose a motivation to select ethyl gallate in particular for use in the composition.
Kalaivani discloses ethyl gallate as a known effective free radical scavenger. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select ethyl gallate as a suitable formaldehyde scavenger for use in the composition of Schubert as ethyl gallate is known to be effective as a free radical scavenger, as disclosed by Kalaivani.
Schubert further fails to disclose a single embodiment comprising all elements of the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the ethyl gallate of Schubert to produce a fabric treatment composition. Schubert discloses a fabric treatment composition comprising ethyl gallate as a formaldehyde scavenger. Kalaivani discloses ethyl gallate as a known free radical scavenger. A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect to create a cleaning composition having softening benefits, as disclosed by Schubert.
With regard to claim 4, Schubert discloses 0.01-3wt% of a chelant and further discloses DTPA as a suitable chelant (see [0276]). DTPA is another name for the claimed N,N-bis[2-[bis(carboxymethyl)amino]ethyl]-glycine.
With regard to claim 5, Schubert discloses 0.05-0.2wt% of xyloglucanase (see [0345]).
With regard to claim 8, Schubert discloses 0.11-80wt% of surfactants (see [0163]). Schubert further discloses anionic, nonionic, zwitterionic, ampholytic, or cationic type surfactants, or compatible mixtures of these types.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert (US 20160244698 A1) in view of Kalaivani (“Free Radical Scavenging, Cytotoxic, and Hemolytic Activities of an Active Antioxidant Compound Ethyl Gallate from Leaves of Acacia Nilotica (L.) Wild. Ex. Delile Subsp. Indica (Benth.) Brenan”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Traverso-Soto (“Analysis of Surfactants in Environmental Samples by Chromatographic Techniques”).
With regard to claim 9, Schubert and Kalaivani disclose all of the limitations of claim 8. Schubert further discloses alkyl alkoxy sulfates as suitable anionic surfactants (see [0166]).
However, Schubert and Kalaivani fail to disclose the surfactant is an anionic surfactant comprising at least one of alkyl ethoxylated sulfate, sodium lauryl sulfate, linear alkyl benzene sulfonic acid, branched 2-alkyl primary alkyl alcohol sulfate,alkyl sulphate, or a combination thereof.
Traverso-Soto discloses surfactants are mainly used in the formulation of detergents, personal care products, paints, textiles, pesticide formulations, pharmaceutical, and many other products, anionic surfactants are one of the three main groups (see paragraph 1). Traverso-Soto further discloses linear alkylbenzenesulfonates (LAS), alkyl ethoxysulfates (AES) and alkyl sulfates (AS) are the most widely used anionic surfactants (see paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the linear alkylbenzenesulfonates (LAS), alkyl ethoxysulfates (AES) and alkyl sulfates (AS) of Traverso-Soto in the composition of Schubert and Kalaivani as linear alkylbenzenesulfonates (LAS), alkyl ethoxysulfates (AES) and alkyl sulfates (AS) are the most widely used anionic surfactants, as disclosed by Traverso-Soto.
Further, Schubert discloses alkyl alkoxy sulfates as suitable anionic surfactants and alkyl ethoxysulfates (AES) are alkyl alkoxy sulfates.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert (US 20160244698 A1) in view of Kalaivani (“Free Radical Scavenging, Cytotoxic, and Hemolytic Activities of an Active Antioxidant Compound Ethyl Gallate from Leaves of Acacia Nilotica (L.) Wild. Ex. Delile Subsp. Indica (Benth.) Brenan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fossum (US 20190390142 A1).
With regard to claim 10, Schubert and Kalaivani disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Schubert and Kalaivani fail to disclose a graft copolymer.
Fossum discloses a fabric care composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Fossum further discloses the use of a graft co-polymer as a dye transfer inhibitor in a fabric care composition, preferably where the dye is a reactive dye, more preferably a hydrolyzed reactive dye, where the graft copolymer includes (a) a polyalkylene oxide which has a number average molecular weight of from about 1000 to about 20,000 Daltons and is based on ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, or butylene oxide, preferably based on ethylene oxide, (b) N-vinylpyrrolidone, and (c) vinyl ester derived from a saturated monocarboxylic acid containing from 1 to 6 carbon atoms and/or a methyl or ethyl ester of acrylic or methacrylic acid, preferably a vinyl ester that is vinyl acetate or a derivative thereof, where the weight ratio of (a):(b) is from about 1:0.1 to about 1:1, where the amount, by weight, of (a) is greater than the amount of (c) (see [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the graft copolymer of Fossum in the composition of Schubert and Kalaivani for the purpose of inhibiting dye transfer, as disclosed by Fossum.
Claim 11 and claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert (US 20160244698 A1) in view of Kalaivani (“Free Radical Scavenging, Cytotoxic, and Hemolytic Activities of an Active Antioxidant Compound Ethyl Gallate from Leaves of Acacia Nilotica (L.) Wild. Ex. Delile Subsp. Indica (Benth.) Brenan”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fossum (US 20220056380 A1).
With regard to claim 11 and claim 12, Schubert and Kalaivani disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Schubert further discloses the composition may further comprise a dye transfer inhibiting agent (see [0003]).
However, Schubert and Kalaivani fail to disclose an antioxidant wherein the antioxidant is a hindered phenol and the hindered phenol as 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-benzenepropanoic acid, methyl ester.
Fossum (hereinafter referred to as Fossum 2) discloses cleaning compositions, an analogous art (see Abstract). Fossum 2 further discloses the composition may comprise an antioxidant (see [0162]). Fossum 2 further discloses hindered phenols as suitable antioxidants (see [0165]) and 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-benzenepropanoic acid, methyl ester as a suitable hindered phenol (see [0167]). Fossum further discloses non-yellowing hindered phenol antioxidants, may be preferred and antioxidants that form such yellow by-products may be avoided if they lead to perceptible negative attributes in the consumer experience (see [0170]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-benzenepropanoic acid, methyl ester of Fossum 2 in the composition of Schubert and Kalaivani for the purpose of avoiding yellow by-products, as disclosed by Fossum 2. Further, Schubert discloses a dye transfer inhibiting agent and the 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-benzenepropanoic acid, methyl ester of Fossum 2 acts as such an agent, preventing yellow by products, as disclosed by Fossum 2.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Policicchio (US 20050215459 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Policicchio discloses cleaning compositions, pads, wipes, and implements to provide effective cleaning of hard surfaces (see Abstract). Policicchio further discloses propyl gallate as a radical scavenger at 0.01-0.25wt% (see [0141]). Policicchio further discloses that the pre-moistened wipe is made by wetting the dry substrate with at least about 1.0 gram of liquid composition per gram of dry fibrous web (see [0380]).
However, Policicchio fails to disclose a single embodiment comprising both the disclosed wipe and the radical scavenger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the propyl gallate of Policicchio in a pre-moistened wipe. Policicchio teaches cleaning compositions, pads, wipes, and implements to provide effective cleaning of hard surfaces. Policicchio further discloses the composition may comprise propyl gallate as a radical scavenger. A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect to create a wipe to effectively clean hard surfaces, as disclosed by Policicchio.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/LORNA M DOUYON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights