CTNF 18/926,742 CTNF 90089 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness et al (WO2005/005591) in view of Adair et al (2004/0063597) . Ness et al teaches a fabric freshener composition comprising a water soluble support and one fragrance (see page 3, 2 nd paragraph). Ness et al teaches the composition is used to launder fabrics (See page 3). Ness et al does not teach the chlorine scavenger. Adair et at teaches a fabric care composition comprising sodium chloride, 0.6% a chlorine scavenger and fragrance (See example 1). Adair also teaches the chlorine scavengers are added to the compositon for their secondary benefit due to their ability to eliminate or reduce the chlorine odor on fabrics ([0012]). Adair et al teaches exemplary chlorine scavengers include amino acids such as arginine and lysine ([0180]). 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 a chlorine scavenger to the composition of Ness in order to create a laundry composition that enhances smell of fragrance and eliminate odors from the close One of ordinary skill in the art would add 0.6% arginine and lysine since Adair notes they are preferred amino acids due to having more than one amino group. 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 5 and 6, Ness et al teaches the preferred water-soluble support is sodium chloride at 83.5% (see page 4, last paragraph and page 9, example 1). Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ness teaches the composition comprises fragrance and a fragrance carrier at 15% (see page 9, example 1). Regarding claims 9 and 10, Ness teaches 1.5% amorphous silica (example 1) 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ness et al and Adair et al as applied to claim s 1-10 above, and further in view of Dunlop Jr (US 3,198,740) . The teachings of Adair and Ness are discussed above. Ness et al teaches the composition can be held in a container but does not explicitly state the container is water soluble. Dunlop Jr teaches water soluble packets made of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) the holds detergents (column 1, lines 10-12). Dunlop teaches the convienence of these packets allows one to simply drops the unit packet into water eliminating the opening and disposal of the former water-insoluble packets. (column 1, lines 40-45). 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 encapsulate the composition into the PVA packets taught by Dunlop Jr. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of creating a single packet that is easily transferable and useable. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/926,742 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/926,742 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/926,742 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761
Prosecution Insights