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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/2026 has been entered.
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 26, 30, 31, 33, 39, 40, 55, 56, 60-65, 67, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachmann et al. (US 5,403,505), and further in view of Bratescu et al. (US 2004/0071653).
Regarding Claim 26: Hachmann teaches a detergent composition, comprising:
0.5% to 4% by weight of an antimicrobial agent comprising didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride based on the total weight of the detergent composition (col. 3, ll. 41-42; col. 5, line 48);
4%-10% by weight of a low-foaming, non-ionic surfactant comprising an alcohol alkoxylate, based on the total weight of the detergent composition (col. 4, ll. 27-29col. 5, line 50); and
water (col. 4, ll. 44-45).
It is noted that the concentrations of the antimicrobial agent and the surfactant overlap the claimed ranges. Absent any additional information and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Hachmann does not expressly disclose an enzyme. However, Bratescu teaches that it is known to provide an enzyme to enhance soil removal in a cleaning solution [0226]. 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 the composition of Hachmann with an enzyme to enhance soil removal, as suggested by Bratescu.
Regarding Claims 30, 63, and 64: Hachmann and Bratescu teach the elements of Claim 26 as discussed above. Bratescu is cited for teaching an enzyme, and further teaches the enzyme is a subtilisin protease [0227].
Regarding Claim 31: Hachmann further teaches that the composition has a pH in the range of 6.5 to 7.5 which is within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 33: Hachmann further teaches that the detergent composition comprises at least 10% by weight of water based on the total weight of the detergent composition (col. 5, ll. 44-53).
Regarding Claim 55: Hachmann further teaches that the alcohol alkoxylate comprises a fatty alcohol ethylene oxide/propylene oxide copolymer derivative (col. 4, ll. 27-54).
Regarding Claim 56: Hachmann and Bratescu teach the elements of Claim 26 as discussed above. Hachmann teaches the dodecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride is present in an amount ranging from 0.5% to 4.0% by weight which is noted as overlapping the claimed range at an endpoint. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 60-62: Hachmann and Bratescu teach the elements of Claim 26 as discussed above. Hachmann further teaches the composition comprises at least one solvent including propylene glycol (col. 4, ll. 65-67) in an amount of 10% to 30% (col. 5, line 6), which is within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 65: Hachmann further teaches the detergent composition comprises a chelating agent (col. 5, ll. 8-29).
Regarding Claims 67 and 68: Hachmann and Bratescu teach the elements of Claim 26 as discussed above. The compositions as described contain no measurable boron-containing compound and no hydrotrope.
Regarding Claims 37 and 38: Hachmann and Bratescu teach the composition of Claim 26 as discussed above. Hachmann further teaches a diluted composition formed by adding water to the composition of Claim 26 (col. 2, ll. 55-60).
Regarding Claims 39 and 40: Hachmann and Bratescu teach the detergent composition of Claim 26 as discussed above. Hachmann further teaches a method of forming a diluted composition by adding water to the detergent composition of claim 26 (col. 2, ll. 55-60).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachmann et al. (US 5,403,505) and Bratescu et al. (US 2004/0071653) as applied to Claim 26 above, and further in view of Matta et al. (US 2016/0175051).
Regarding Claim 57: Hachmann and Bratescu teach the elements of Claim 26 as discussed above.
Hachmann teaches pH adjusters, but does not expressly disclose a buffer system as claimed. However, it is well known to provide a buffer system in a detergent composition. For example, Matta teaches it is known to provide a buffer system comprising a conjugate acid-base pair for maintaining the pH of the detergent composition within a desired range [0014]. 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 the detergent composition of the prior art with a buffer system having a conjugate acid-base pair as taught by Matta in order to maintain the pH of the composition within the desired range. Since the claimed lower limit of pH 8 is close to the prior art upper limit of 7.5, the position is taken that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the composition’s cleaning ability at a pH of 7.5 would have been similar to that of the cleaning ability within the claimed range. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain a pH within the claimed range (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachmann et al. (US 5,403,505) and Bratescu et al. (US 2004/0071653) as applied to Claim 65 above, and further in view of Flugge-Berendes et al. (US 2019/0241839).
Regarding Claim 66: Hachmann and Bratescu teach the elements of Claim 65 as discussed above. Hachmann teaches a chelating agent, but does not expressly disclose tetrasodium N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamate. However, Flugge-Berendes teaches disinfectant cleaning compositions comprising tetrasodium N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamate as a suitable chelating agent [0024]. It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07). 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 the composition of Hachmann and Bratescu with a chelating agent comprising tetrasodium N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-L-glutamate since it is a known chelator used for the same purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights