DETAILED ACTION
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 .
2nd Action Non-Final Rejection
Claims 1, 8, 10 and 14-20 are pending. Claim 1 is independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Pre-Appeal Brief conference request, filed 9/22/2025, urge Warr et al. teaches only PEO polyesters and not PEO polymers. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments Warr et al. teach PEO polymers in (col.17,ln.30-35) and the same is addressed in this 2nd Non-Final action below.
Applicant’s also urge that Warr is not combinable with Islam being non-analogous art. In response, the combination is proper because Warr et al. teach by example 14 a hand wash laundry powder consisting of the claim 1 ingredients including polyethylene oxide polymer. Because Warr is silent as to the claimed polyethylene oxide having a MW of 4,000,000-6,000,000 as required in claim 1, the Examiner has put forth MSDS sheet on polyethylene oxide disclosing a weight average molecular weight, Mw, of 4,000,000 Daltons is commonly available industry standard that one of ordinary skill would reasonably use the claimed PEO having the claimed MW is that is readily available in industry standard and does not provide a contribution over the art. Further POSITA is motivated to modify Warr et al. with the claimed polyethylene oxide having a MW of 4,000,000-6,000,000 because Islam et al. (US 2004/0102614 A1) example 10 [0190-0191] teaches that the claimed MW PEO is commonly used as viscosity enhancer or gel inhibitor [0010] to promote stability in a formulation for treating fibers in concentrations of 0.03-0.2% in general. It is the Examiner’s position that even though Islam is not a detergent, Islam is still analogous to the claimed invention because Islam is treating fibers by hand in the same field as Warr et al’s detergent used by hand and both are in the same field of hand washing detergent as claimed. Furthermore, Islam et al. is being relied upon for the same property disclosed by the PEO MSDS that is commonly known molecular weight of the polyethylene oxide polymers already disclosed by Warr et al. in general.
Accordingly the claims are addressed below with the correct citation to the polyethylene oxide polymers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 8, 10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warr et al. (US 7,538,079 B2) in view of Islam et al. (US20040102614A1) Yoshiyuki et al. (WO 2011129438A1) and MSDS of polyacrylic acid and MSDS of Poly(ethylene oxide).
With respect to claim 1, limitation to a powder laundry detergent formulation for handwashing textiles consisting of:
14 to 20 wt% linear C10-20 alkylbenzenesulfonate detergent surfactant, Warr et al. teach a powder laundry detergent formulation (see title and col.1,ln.13-15) comprising: 1-55% LAS (see col.15,ln.48-50) which teaching overlaps with the claimed language to 14 to 20 wt% linear C10-20 alkylbenzenesulfonate detergent surfactant.
Warr et al. teach polyphosphate, zeolite or carbonate builder in an amount from 0.5-60% in col.22,ln.27 which range overlaps with the claim 1 limitation to 40 to 65 wt% builders recited by the Markush of builders in claim 1.
Claim 1 limitation to 7 to 10 wt% of builder being a zeolite builder is taught in example 13 of War et al. col.28, teaching 8% zeolite.
Claim 1 limitation to 7 to 10 wt% of builder being sodium tripolyphosphate is suggested in example 17 col.29, ln.46 with motivation to optimize the amount within the claimed range is col.22,ln.25-30 teaching 0.5%-60% polyphosphate builder in general.
Claim 1 limitation to 25 to 35 wt% of builder being sodium carbonate, is disclosed by example 15, in col.29,ln.42 teaching 33% sodium carbonate. Accordingly, Warr et al. guide one of ordinary skill to a similar powder laundry detergent consisting of the claimed builder ingredients within overlapping ranges in general. When the reference discloses “overlapping” ranges and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 1 limitation to 0.05 to 0.5 wt% polyethylene oxide polymers is taught at col.17,ln.24-35, however, Warr et al. is silent to the PEO having a weight average molecular weight, Mw, of 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 Daltons.
Claim 1 limitation to 0.75 to 1.5 wt%, a poly(acrylic acid) is taught by Warr et al. Example 12, col.28,ln.44 teaching 1% Sokalan CP5 which has a MW of 70,000. Thus, Warr et al. do not teach a weight average molecular weight, Mw, of 3,000 to 6,000 Daltons. Examiner notes that Warr et al. teach the tradename Repel-O-Tex, which attached MSDS disclosure provides a teaching greater than 1000MW. See page 2, item 2 in the middle of the page guiding one of ordinary skill to polymers having a broad range of MW in general and the attached MSDS of polyacrylic acid in 50 wt.% solution in water has approx. M.W. 3,000 to 5,000 is commonly known.
Claim 1 limitation to 0 to 10 wt%, a sodium perborate or sodium percarbonate bleaching agent is met by Warr et al. teaching on col.22,ln.55 teaching 0-35% and noting it is optional.
Claim 1 limitation to 0 to 10 wt%, of tetra acetyl ethylene diamine, sodium nonanoyloxybenzene sulfonate bleach activator is met by Warr et al. teaching in col.20,ln.20 as optionally useful detergent builders.
Claim 1 limitation to 0 to 2 wt%, carboxymethylcellulose, cellulose ether anti-redeposition agent is met by Warr et al. teaching carboxymethylcellulose optionally used in an amount upto 0.15-0.4 in exemplary formulations 9-13 with 0% in formulation examples 10 and 11. See col.28,ln.51.
Claim 1 limitation to 0 to 2 wt% protease, cellulase, amylase, lipase enzyme is taught by Warr et al. col.22,ln.61 teaching 0-1% protease enzymes.
Claim 1 limitation to 0 to 50 wt%, sodium sulfate, sodium chloride filler is met by Warr et al. teaching sodium sulfate is a well-known filler that can be added in an amount of 20.5%. See col.5,ln.3.
Warr et al. teach the claim 1 optional limitation to rose and jasmine fragrances in col.11,ln31.
Warr et al. do not explicitly teach their polyacrylic acid has a MW of 3,000-6,000 as is required in claim 1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Warr et al. with the claimed polyacrylic acid having a MW of 3,000-6,000 as claimed because Warr et al. guide one of ordinary skill to tradenames Repel-O-Tex having greater than 1000MW and Sokalan CP5 having 70000 MW which range taught by Warr overlaps with the claimed range in general and it is commonly understood in the art that polyacylic acid in 50 wt.% solution in water has approx. M.W. 3,000 to 5,000 is commonly known and does not provide a contribution over the art.
Warr et al. col.17,ln.24-35 teach the claimed 0.05 to 0.5 wt% polyethylene oxide polymers, however, Warr et al. is silent as to the PEO having a weight average molecular weight, Mw, of 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 Daltons.
In the analogous art of treating fabric fibers, Islam et al. (US 2004/0102614 A1) example 10 [0190-0191] teaches 0.03-0.2% PEO having the claimed Mw is commonly used viscosity enhancer or gel inhibitor [0010] to promote stability in a formulation for treating fibers in general. Also see the attached SDS sheet on Polyethylene oxide disclosing a weight average molecular weight, Mw, of 4,000,000 Daltons would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the claimed PEO having the claimed MW as that is readily available in industry standard and would not provide a contribution over the art of record.
Warr et al. and Islam et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of treating fibers by hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Warr et al. with the claimed polyethylene oxide having a MW of 4,000,000-6,000,000 because Islam et al. (US 2004/0102614 A1) example 10 [0190-0191] teaches that the PEO having the claimed MW is commonly used as viscosity enhancer or gel inhibitor to promote stability in a formulation for treating fibers in concentrations of 0.03-0.2% which amount overlaps with the teaching in Warr et al. Also see the attached SDS sheet on Polyethylene oxide disclosing a weight average molecular weight, Mw, of 4,000,000 Daltons would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the claimed PEO having the claimed MW as that is readily available in industry standard and would not provide a contribution over the art of record.
Warr et al. do not teach the optional 0 to 0.3 wt%, of a 4-4'-bis(2-sulfostyryl)biphenyl optical brightener fluorescent whitening agent of claim 1. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill is guided to modify the teachings of Warr et al. with an optical brightener in general in col.21,ln.63.
In the analogous art of laundry powders, Yoshiyuki et al. (WO 2011129438A1) teach on page 7, under [Fluorescent brightener] teach the claimed 4-4'-bis(2-sulfostyryl)biphenyl optical brightener fluorescent whitening agent of claim 1 are commonly available in industry formulated as laundry powders for handwashing laundry. See the Google Patents Translation provided 3 paragraphs under <PH> on page 8 and abstract of Yoshiyuki et al.
Warr et al. and Yoshiyuki et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of handwash laundry powders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Warr et al. with the claimed 4-4'-bis(2-sulfostyryl)biphenyl as taught by Yoshiyuki et al. teaching the claimed 4-4'-bis(2-sulfostyryl)biphenyl optical brightener fluorescent whitening agent are commonly available in industry for use in a similar handwash laundry powder in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to include optical brighteners by Warr et al. col.21,ln.63 and one of ordinary skill is guided to include the claimed 4-4'-bis(2-sulfostyryl)biphenyl optical brightener fluorescent whitening agent because that is what is an industry standard available to readily use.
Accordingly, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made 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 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05I.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Warr et al. with that of Islam et al. and Yoshiyuki et al. since all are in the analogous hand treatment of fibers in general.
Claim 8 method of handwashing with the detergent, is met by Warr et al. example 14, in col.29 teaching their handwash powder detergent composition can be mixed easily and uniformly in a slurry in a domestic clothes washing machine (col.23,ln.42-51) or by handling the laundry (col.2,ln.10-14).
Claim 10 ratio of detergent to water at a weight ratio of 1:100 to 1:1000 is encompassed by handwash powder of example 14, in col.29 and the method of using it in a domestic clothes washing machine (col.23,ln.42-51) which one of ordinary skill will use several gallons of water reasonably encompassing the claimed ratio.
Claim 14 limitation to 0 wt% bleaching agent is met by the hand wash powder example 14 in col.29, not having a bleach. See also Warr et al. teaching on col.22,ln.55 teaching 0-35% and noting it is optional in col.21, ln.59-65.
Claim 15 limitation to 0 wt% bleach activator is met by col.21, ln.59-65 teaching that bleach activators are optional. See also Warr et al. teaching in col.20,ln.20 as optionally useful detergent builders.
Claim 16 limitation to 0 % anti-redeposition agent is met by Warr et al. teaching carboxymethylcellulose optionally used in an amount upto 0.15-0.4 in exemplary formulations 9-13 with 0% in formulation examples 10 and 11. See col.28,ln.51 and col.2, ln.37 teaching that anti-redeposition agent are optional in general.
Claim 17 limitation to 0 wt% enzyme is met by col.21, ln.59-65 teaching that enzymes are optional and Warr et al. col.22,ln.61 teaching 0-1% protease enzymes.
Claim 18 limitation to 0 wt% optical brightener is met by col.21, ln.59-65 teaching that optical brighteners are optional and the hand wash powder example 14 in col.29, not having a optical brightener.
Claim 19 limitation to 0 wt% filler is met by Warr et al. teaching sodium sulfate is a well-known filler that is not included in the Example 13 in col.28, thus, guiding one of ordinary skill to it being optional.
Warr et al. teach the claim 20 limitation to 0% fragrance in col.11,ln31 teaching rose and jasmine fragrance as optional and the hand wash powder example 14 in col.29, not having a fragrance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights