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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 4, 6-7, 9-22 are pending. Claim 1 is independent. Claim 5 is cancelled and claim 22 is newly added 3/2/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/30/2026 and 3/19/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1 and 4, 6-7, 9-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotzauer et al. (US 2018/0216041 A1) in view of Cabirol et al (US 2013/0199569) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s urge that Dotzauer et al. do not teach the claim 1 amendment to 0.001 wt%-10 wt% of a corrosion inhibitor comprising a source of aluminum ion and/or zinc ion as is required by the amendment in claim 1. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Dotzauer et al. do not teach the corrosion inhibitors listed within claim 1 and 11, the prior art guides one of ordinary skill in [0064] to include 1-10% silicate to inhibit corrosion in general and Cabirol et al. page 4, [0070] teach for example zinc citrate and the other corrosion inhibitors encompassing claims 1 and 11 are commonly used in automatic dishwashing detergent compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dotzauer et al. with the corrosion inhibitors as taught by Cabirol et al. page 4, [0070] corrosion inhibitors are commonly used in automatic dishwashing detergent compositions.
Applicant’s further urge that Cabirol et al. do not exemplify compositions with zinc or aluminum as required by claim 1. In response, arguments that one of ordinary skill reading “…the numerous anti corrosion agents disclosed by Cabirol” would not arrive at the presently claimed composition is not found persuasive because one skilled in the art is guided by Cabirol et al. [0069-0072] to include zinc ions with the manganese ions (already taught by Dotzauer) for their ability to inhibit corrosion.
Finally see the new grounds of rejection below addressing the new claim 22, with respect to Miralles et al. US 8,202,830 B2 teaching commonly known corrosion inhibitors include, the silicates of Dotzauer and the zinc of Cabirol, specifically teaching a combination of a source of aluminum ion and a source of zinc ion, as well as an alkaline metal silicate or hydrate thereof. See col.12,ln.40-col.13,ln.2.
Accordingly, the claim amendments are addressed below.
New Grounds of 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 6 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 6 is dependent on canceled claim 5. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitations of claim 6 to be dependent on claim 1, however, appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4, 6-7, 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotzauer et al. (US 2018/0216041 A1) in view of Cabirol et al (US 2013/0199569).
Dotzauer et al. teach a detergent stain remover comprising a combination of an oxidizer and a chelant. See title. Dotzauer et al. [0045] illustrate a detergent composition comprising 35 to 45 % by weight sodium carbonate, encompassing the claim 1 limitation to 40 wt.% to about 60 wt.% of an alkali metal carbonate alkalinity source.
Claim 1 limitation to about 0.5 wt.% to about 1 wt.% of an amylase is met by Doutzer et al. [0069] guiding one of ordinary skill to include an amylase enzyme in an amount of 1-15% which range also encompasses a range of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 2 wt.%. See page 6, [0069].
Doutzer et al. teach claim 1 limitation to 25 wt.% to about 45 wt.% of four or more chelating agents or water conditioning agents, teaching on page 5, [0045] teaching 20 to 25% by weight alkali metal tripolyphosphate encompassing claim 1 limitation to about 15 wt.% to about 30 wt.% of a phosphate and see [0056-0059] teaching 0.1 to 5% phosphonate. Doutzer et al. teach claim 1 limitation to from about 5 wt.% to about 25 wt.% of methylglycinediacetic acid and glutamic acid-N,N-diacetic acidan-aminecarboxytate in [0022-0026] teaching 5 to 15 % by weight MGDA, 2 to 6 % by weight GLDA. See page 2, left column including [0026].
The claim 1 limitation to about 10 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of an oxygen source comprising sodium percarbonate is met by page 5, [0045] teaching the claimed 10 to 20 % by weight sodium percarbonate. See also [0030].
Doutzer et al. teach claim 1 limitation to from about 0.01 wt.% to about 0.5 wt.% of a bleach activator according to claim 1 formula I is taught in [0011], page 1. The claim 1 formula II is taught in [0032], page 2. The claim 1 formula XIX and XX is taught in [0042], page 4. Limitation from about 0.01 wt.% to about 0.5 wt.% of a bleach activator is encompassed by the art teaching 0.01 to 0.05 % by weight of a peroxidation catalyst according to formulae (XIX) or (XX), wherein the molar ratio of the total amount of sodium tripolyphosphate, MGDA, and GLDA to sodium percarbonate is in the range of 2.0 to 2.5. See page 5, [0045].
Dotzauer et al. page 5, [0046-0047] teach the detergent composition comprises 1.5 to 5 % by weight nonionic surfactant which teaching encompasses claim 1 limitation to about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of one or more surfactants. However, Dotzauer is silent to the claim 1 nonionic EO/PO/EO poloxamer having a molecular weight in the range of about 950 to about 4000 as required by the amended claim 1. Examiner notes that Dotzauer et al. [0067] guides one of ordinary skill to polyalkylene oxide difunctional block copolymers including an ethylene oxide / propylene oxide block copolymer such as those commercially available under the trademark Pluronic (BASF) including ethylene oxide / propylene block copolymers such as those available under the name Pluronic N – 3 and Pluronic 25R2. See page 5, [0049] and page 6, [0067] and page 7, [0086]. The attached MSDS sheet for Pluronic N-3 discloses a 2200 MW. The attached search notes discloses the MW for Pluronic 25R2 is about 3100 which values encompass the claimed MW range of 950-4000. However, Dotzauer et al. do not explicitly teach a triblock poloxamer (EO / PO / EO) as required by the instant claim 1.
In the analogous dishwashing composition art, Cabirol et al. teaches a dishwashing composition comprising the claimed alkali metal carbonate, MGDA, GLDA, tripolyphosphate, phosphonate, percarbonate, a peroxidation catalysts and is further disclosed as comprising surfactants, metal complexes of a peroxidation catalysts, in example 1, Tablets A-D on page 5.
Limitation to about 40 wt.% to about 60 wt.% of an alkalinity source; [see formulations A-D in example I, 0082] of Cabirol et al. teaching about 30% sodium carbonate.
Cabirol et al. teach limitation to about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of one or more poloxamer surfactants is taught in formulations A-D in example I, 0082] of Cabirol et al.
Limitation to about 0.2 wt.% to about 2 wt.% of an amylase; is taught by Cabirol et al. [0066-0067] teaching 0.1%-2% amylase.
Cabirol et al. teach from about 25 wt.% to about 45 wt.% of one or more chelating agents; [see 0017-0018] teaching 20-50% chelating agents, and on page 2, [0035-0036] about 15%-25% builder sodium tripolyphosphate.
Cabirol et al. teach from about 10 wt.% to about 40 wt.% of a percarbonate oxygen source [see 0022-0025] teaching upto 30% sodium percarbonate,
Cabirol et al. teach from about 0.01 wt.% to about 0.5 wt.% of a bleach activator, [see 0062-0063] teaching about 1%.
All of the exemplary detergents wash tea cups (encompassing claims 19-21) and use Manganese oxalate as an oxidation/peroxidation catalyst for percarbonate. See at least [0012] and [0038-40]. And see [0039] modification with the Manganese-triazacyclononane (TACN) catalyst on page 2, [0039].
With respect to the claimed poloxamer, Cabirol et al. [0052] specifically guide one of ordinary skill to build ethylene oxide (RH) or propylene oxide (R-methyl) units which can be used in every single order for instance the claimed poloxamer (EO)(PO)(EO). See pg 3, [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the di-functional block copolymer surfactant of Dotzauer et al. with the claim 1 triblock poloxamer (EO)(PO)(EO) surfactant because Cabirol et al. guide one of ordinary skill to build ethylene oxide (RH) or propylene oxide (R-methyl) units which can be used in every single order including the claimed poloxamer (EO)(PO)(EO).
Doutzer et al. do not teach the corrosion inhibitor comprising a source of aluminum ion and or a source of zinc ion as required by claim 1. Cabirol et al. page 4, [0070] teach for example zinc citrate and other corrosion inhibitors are commonly used in automatic dishwashing detergent compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dotzauer et al. with the claim 1 corrosion inhibitors as taught by Cabirol et al. page 4, [0070] corrosion inhibitors of claim 1 are commonly used in automatic dishwashing detergent compositions.
Claim 4 limitation to further comprising one or more additional enzymes is contemplated by Dotzauer et al. [0069] teaching protease, amylase, lipase enzymes in an amount of 1-2% by weight. Dotzauer et al. appreciates that an amylase enzyme can be successfully combined with a percarbonate bleach. Specifically, Dotzauer et al. teach one of ordinary skill to include an amylase [0069] with their percarbonate detergent [0011]. See also Cabriol Ex. 1 on pg. 5 [0082] where an amylase enzyme can be successfully combined with a percarbonate bleach. See [0082] copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
498
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 limitation to wherein the bleach composition is a sodium percarbonate peroxygen bleach is met by Dotzauer et al. [0030] teaching 5-20% sodium percarbonate bleach.
Claim 7 bleach activator comprises Formula (I) or wherein the bleach activator comprises Formula (II) and the coordinating bridging groups are met by Doutzer et al. teaching from about 0.01 wt.% to about 0.5 wt.% of a bleach activator according to claim 1 formula I is taught in [0011], page 1. The claim 1 formula II is taught in [0032], page 2.
Claim 9 is met by Doutzer et al. teaching the alkali metal phosphate in [0019].
Claim 10 is met by Doutzer et al. teaching the sodium tripolyphosphate in [0019].
Doutzer et al. do not teach the corrosion inhibitors listed within claim 11. Cabirol et al. page 4, [0070] teach for example zinc citrate and the other corrosion inhibitors of claim 11 are commonly used in automatic dishwashing detergent compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dotzauer et al. with the claim 11 corrosion inhibitors as taught by Cabirol et al. page 4, [0070] corrosion inhibitors of claim 11 are commonly used in automatic dishwashing detergent compositions
Doutzer et al. [0046] teach material limitation of claim 12 to further comprising one or more additional functional ingredients.
Claims 13-15 limitations are met by Dotzauer et al. [0045] teaching 35 to 45 % by weight sodium carbonate alkalinity source and Dotzauer et al. [0030] & [0045] teach 10 to 20 % by weight sodium percarbonate encompassing 12 wt.% to about 18 wt.% of the oxygen source. Dotzauer et al. teach from about 0.02 wt.% to about 0.03 wt.% of the bleach activator by the art teaching 0.01 to 0.05 % by weight of a peroxidation catalyst. See page 5, [0045].Dotzauer et al. [0069] teach limitation 0.1 wt.% to about 1.5 wt.% of the amylase. See page 6, [0069]. Dotzauer et al. page 5, [0046-0047] teach the detergent composition comprises 1.5 to 5 % by weight nonionic surfactant. Doutzer et al. teach limitation to 35 wt.% to about 40 wt.% of four or more chelating agents or water conditioning agents by teaching on page 5, [0045] teaching 20 to 25% by weight alkali metal tripolyphosphate and see [0056-0059] teaching 0.1 to 5% phosphonate. Doutzer et al. teach limitation to from about 5 wt.% to about 25 wt.% of methylglycinediacetic acid and glutamic acid-N,N-diacetic acidan-aminecarboxytate in [0022-0026] teaching 5 to 15 % by weight MGDA, 2 to 6 % by weight GLDA. See page 2, left column including [0026].
Dotzauer et al. teach claim 16 limitation to wherein the composition is a pressed solid or a flowable solid by teaching in [0074] that the composition is a solid block or pellet prepared by extrusion [0075] thus, one of ordinary skill understands such extrusion casting requires the solid to be flowable.
Dotzauer et al. teach claim 17 limitation to wherein the composition is a liquid concentrate [0072] or a diluted use solution [0077].
Dotzauer et al. teach claim 18 method of cleaning a surface with the composition to remove the starch-based soil. [0002].
[0052] teaches that the detergent of Dotzauer et al. is used in dishwashing and warewashing in general which is known in the art to encompass glass, plastic, ceramic and metal dishes of claims 19-21.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotzauer et al. (US 2018/0216041 A1) and Cabirol et al (US 2013/0199569) as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 9-21 above and further in view of Miralles et al. (US8,202,830B2).
Dotzauer et al. (US 2018/0216041 A1) and Cabirol et al (US 2013/0199569) are relied upon as set forth above but do not teach the sodium aluminate corrosion of new claim 22.
In the analogous art of cleaning Miralles et al. teach commonly known corrosion inhibitors include, the silicates and zinc, specifically teaching a combination of a source of aluminum ion and a source of zinc ion, as well as an alkaline metal silicate or hydrate thereof. See col.12,ln.40-col.13,ln.2. Sodium aluminate is taught specifically in col.12,ln.57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Dotzauer et al. with the claim 22 sodium aluminate corrosion inhibitor taught by Miralles et al. col.12,ln.57 that the sodium aluminate corrosion inhibitor of claim 22 are commonly used in detergent compositions. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings since all are in the analogous art of cleaning compositions.
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