The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on March 11, 2026.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending. Claim 4 was cancelled. Independent claims 1 and 15 are currently amended.
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 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinson et al. (US 2016/0068784, already of record), hereinafter “Vinson.”
Regarding claims 1, 5-8 and 11-18, Vinson teaches a detergent composition which contains 2-alkyl primary alcohol sulfates having specific alkyl chain length distributions which provide increased grease removal (particularly in cold water) (see paragraph [0037]). The detergent composition comprises from about 0.1% to about 99% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, where the first surfactant consists essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants having m+n=11; where from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; and where X is an hydrophilic moiety (see paragraph [0006]). At least about 25% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n=10, m+n=11, m+n=12, and m+n=13, where n is 0, 1, or 2, or m is 0, 1, or 2. At least about 30%, or at least about 35%, or at least about 40%, by weight of the first surfactant, may be surfactants having m+n=10, m+n=11, m+n=12, and m+n=13, where n is 0, 1, or 2, or m is 0, 1, or 2 (see paragraph [0040]). As stated above, from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants having m+n=11, which means that from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the composition are C15 alcohols (see paragraph [0067]). In the process of making the 2-alkyl branched alkyl sulfates, as discussed above, impurities such as branched and cyclic components may be formed, however, such impurities and contaminants are typically removed (see paragraph [0075]). In addition to the first surfactant, the detergent composition may comprise an additional surfactant, e.g., a second surfactant, a third surfactant, selected from the group consisting of anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, ampholytic surfactants, and mixtures thereof, in amounts from about 1% to about 75%, by weight of the composition (see paragraph [0115]). The additional surfactant may comprise one or more anionic surfactants, for example alkoxylated alkyl sulfates containing from about 8 to about 30 carbon atoms, or between about 10 carbon atoms to about 18 carbon atoms in the alkyl group (see paragraphs [0117]-[0118]); and may comprise one or more nonionic surfactants in an amount from about 0.1% to about 40% by weight of the composition (see paragraph [0126]), for example ethoxylated alcohols (see paragraph [0127]). The detergent composition may also contain adjunct cleaning additives like builders, enzymes, enzyme stabilizing system, hueing agents, anti-redeposition agents, bleaching agents, among others (see paragraph [0152]). In Example 18, Vinson teaches a unit dose liquid laundry detergent formulation AH comprising one or multiple compartments, the laundry detergent formulation AH comprising 5 wt% 2-alkyl branched alkyl sulfate of Invention, 14.5 wt% LAS (linear alkylbenzenesulfonate having an average aliphatic carbon chain length C11-C12, an anionic surfactant), 7.5 wt% AES (C12-14 alkyl ethoxy (3) sulfate anionic surfactant; i.e. C12-C14 alkyl alkoxylated sulfate surfactant), 2 wt% AE (C12-14 with an average degree of ethoxylation of 9, as one selection, an ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, see paragraph [0290]), 2.0 wt% enzymes, 0.0001 wt% hueing agent and 10 wt% water, among others, and solvents as the balance of the formulation (see paragraph [0287] and Table 15). In the above example, the total amount of surfactants is 5 wt% + 14.5 wt% + 7.5 wt% + 2 wt% = 29 wt% (which reads on the total amount of surfactants in independent claims 1 and 15); and the ratio of the first surfactant (i.e., 2-alkyl branched alkyl sulfate of Invention) to the ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant (i.e., AE) is 5:2 or 2.5:2, which reads on about 2:1 because the word “about” permits some tolerance (see In re Ayers, 69 USPQ 109, and In re Erickson, 145 USPQ 207). Vinson, however, fails to specifically disclose a liquid detergent composition, say as in Example 18, formulation AH, wherein the first surfactant comprises Formula I and II wherein from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants having m+n=11; wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; wherein between about 25% and about 50% by weight of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n = 0, as recited in independent claims 1 and 15; wherein the first surfactant is free of C16 as recited in claim 1; the weight ratio of the first surfactant to the second surfactant comprising ethoxylated nonionic surfactant as recited in claim 5; and wherein the first surfactant comprises about 2% or less of branching at a position other than the 2-alkyl position as recited in claim 15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the 2-alkyl branched alkyl sulfate isomers, say in Example 18, formulation AH, with surfactant isomers having Formula I and II, as discussed above, wherein from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants having m+n=11; wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; and wherein between about 25% and about 50% by weight of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n = 0 because the teachings of Vinson encompass such surfactants as recited in paragraphs [0006] and [0040]). In addition, the substitution of one surfactant isomer mixture for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
With respect to the first surfactant being free of C16 as recited claim 1, even though Vinson teaches that at least about 30% by weight of the first surfactant may be surfactants having m+n=10, m+n=11, m+n=12, and m+n=13 in paragraph [0040], in which case, the first surfactant may have a total carbon atoms of 14 (C14) when m+n=10, a total carbon atoms of 15 (C15) when m+n=11, a total carbon atoms of 16 (C16) when m+n=12, and a total carbon atoms of 17 (C17)when m+n=13, the first surfactant having m+n=12 or m+n=13 are only alternative embodiments and not required limitations. Vinson teaches from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant having m+n=11 as disclosed in paragraphs [0006], [0038], [0041]-[0043], where the total carbon atoms is C15 (see paragraph [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the first surfactant to be free of C16, in particular when 100% by weight of the first surfactant have m+n=11.
With respect to the weight ratio of the first surfactant to the second surfactant comprising ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, considering that Vinson teaches a detergent composition comprising from about 0.1% to about 99% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, where the first surfactant consists essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II (see paragraph [0040]), and nonionic surfactants in an amount from about 0.1% to about 40% by weight of the composition (see paragraph [0126]), for example ethoxylated alcohols (see paragraph [0127]), the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 5 wt% first surfactant and 5 wt% ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, i.e., 1:1 weight ratio) 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, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the first surfactant comprising about 2% or less of branching at a position other than the 2-alkyl position as recited in claim 15, considering that Vinson teaches that even though impurities such as branched and cyclic components may be formed in the process of making the 2-alkyl branched alkyl sulfates, such impurities and contaminants are typically removed as disclosed in paragraph [0075], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the first surfactant to have a branching at a position other than the 2-alkyl position within those recited because other branched impurities are typically removed as taught by Vinson.
Regarding claims 2-3, 9-10 and 19, Vinson teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Vinson teaches that the detergent compositions are used for removing soils and stains (see paragraph [0258]), which is understood to include discriminating sebum, grass, spaghetti sauce or dust, as these are generally known stains in fabric. Vinson also teaches that the 2-alkyl branched alkyl sulfate provides stain removal benefits across a wide variety of greasy stains (see paragraph [0281]). Vinson, however, fails to specifically disclose the stain removal score properties of the liquid detergent composition as recited in the above claims.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the detergent compositions of Vinson to exhibit similar properties because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence, would behave similarly.
Regarding claim 20, Vinson teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Vinson teaches a detergent composition comprising from about 0.1% to about 99% by weight of the composition of a first surfactant, where the first surfactant consists essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II (see paragraph [0040]), and nonionic surfactants in an amount from about 0.1% to about 40% by weight of the composition (see paragraph [0126]), for example ethoxylated alcohols (see paragraph [0127]). Vinson, however, fails to specifically disclose the proportions of the first surfactant to the ethoxylated nonionic surfactant as recited in claim 20.
Considering the teachings of Vinson above, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 5 wt% first surfactant and 5 wt% ethoxylated nonionic surfactant) 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, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,493,725, or claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,493,726, or claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,807,831 (which issued from copending Application No. 17/541,312) in view of Vinson.
US ‘725 or US ‘726 or US ‘831 teaches similar detergent compositions comprising a first surfactant consisting essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 and Formula 2 having overlapping proportions and parameters, and a second surfactant or an additional surfactant like an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant or mixtures thereof. US ‘725 or US ‘726 or US ‘831, however, fails to disclose C12-15 alkyl alkoxylated sulfate surfactant as the specific anionic surfactant and ethoxylated alcohol as the specific nonionic surfactant, the proportions of the ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, the weight ratio of the first surfactant to the ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, adjunct ingredients like enzymes, and the properties of the detergent composition as recited in the claims; wherein the first surfactant is free of C16 as recited in claim 1; wherein the first surfactant comprises about 2% or less of branching at a position other than the 2-alkyl position as recited in claim 15; and wherein the total surfactant is up to 30% by weight as recited in claim 1, or from about 5% about 30% by weight as recited in claim 15.
Vinson teaches the features as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated alkoxylated alkyl sulfate like AES (C12-14 alkyl ethoxy (3) sulfate anionic surfactant) and an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant like C12-14 with an average degree of ethoxylation of 9 in its optimum proportion because it is known from Vinson that the above surfactants are typical anionic and nonionic surfactants in similar detergent compositions as shown in Example 18, Formulation AH.
With respect to the proportions of the ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, the weight ratio of the first surfactant to the ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, considering that Vinson teaches ethoxylated nonionic surfactants in an amount from about 0.1% to about 40% by weight of the composition, and US ‘725 or US ‘726 teaches 0.1% to about 99% by weight of the first surfactant, or US ‘831 teaches about 1% to about 30% by weight of the first surfactant, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 5 wt% first surfactant and 5 wt% ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, i.e., 1:1 weight ratio) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated detergent adjunct like enzymes to the detergent compositions because these are typical detergent adjuncts as taught by Vinson.
With respect to the first surfactant being free of C16 as recited in claim 1, considering that US ‘725 or US ‘726 teaches that the first surfactant comprises from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant of isomers having m+n=11 (see claim 1 in each of US ‘725 and US ‘726), or US ‘831 teaches that the first surfactant comprises from about 90% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant of isomers having m+n=11 (see claim 1 of US ‘831), where the total carbon atoms is C15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the first surfactant to be free of C16.
With respect to the first surfactant comprising about 2% or less of branching at a position other than the 2-alkyl position as recited in claim 15, even though US ‘725 or US ‘726 or US ‘831 is silent to this limitation, Vinson teaches that impurities such as branched and cyclic components which can be formed in the process of making the 2-alkyl branched alkyl sulfates are typically removed as disclosed in paragraph [0075], hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the first surfactant of US ‘725 or US ‘726 or US ‘831 to have a branching at a position other than the 2-alkyl position within those recited because other branched impurities are typically removed as taught by Vinson.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the detergent compositions of US ‘725 or US ‘726 or US ‘831, each in view of Vinson to exhibit similar properties because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence, would behave similarly.
With respect to the total amount of the surfactant, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the total amount of the surfactants in the detergent compositions of US ‘725 or US ‘726 or US ‘831 to be within those recited because it is known from Vinson that a similar composition has a 29 wt% total surfactant as seen in laundry detergent formulation AH of Example 18.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 17/541,316 in view of Vinson.
Copending Application ‘316 teaches similar detergent compositions comprising a first surfactant consisting essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula 1 and Formula 2 having overlapping proportions and parameters, and an additional surfactant like an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant or a combination thereof. Copending Application ‘316, however, fails to disclose C12-15 alkyl alkoxylated sulfate surfactant as the specific anionic surfactant and ethoxylated alcohol as the specific nonionic surfactant, the proportions of the ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, the weight ratio of the first surfactant to the ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, adjunct ingredients like enzymes, and the properties of the detergent composition as recited in the claims; wherein the first surfactant is free of C16 as recited in claim 1; wherein the first surfactant comprises about 2% or less of branching at a position other than the 2-alkyl position as recited in claim 15; and wherein the total surfactant is up to 30% by weight as recited in claim 1, or from about 5% about 30% by weight as recited in claim 15.
Vinson teaches the features as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated alkoxylated alkyl sulfate like AES (C12-14 alkyl ethoxy (3) sulfate anionic surfactant) and an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant like C12-14 with an average degree of ethoxylation of 9 in its optimum proportion because it is known from Vinson that the above surfactants are typical anionic and nonionic surfactants in similar detergent compositions as shown in Example 18, Formulation AH.
With respect to the proportions of the ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, the weight ratio of the first surfactant to the ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, considering that Vinson teaches ethoxylated nonionic surfactants in an amount from about 0.1% to about 40% by weight of the composition, and copending Application ‘316 teaches about 1% to about 30% by weight of the first surfactant, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 5 wt% first surfactant and 5 wt% ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, i.e., 1:1 weight ratio) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated detergent adjunct like enzymes to the detergent composition because these are typical detergent adjuncts as taught by Vinson.
With respect to the first surfactant being free of C16 as recited in claim 1, considering that copending Application ‘316 teaches that the first surfactant comprises from about 90% to about 100% by weight of the first surfactant of isomers having m+n=11 (see claim 1), where the total carbon atoms is C15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the first surfactant to be free of C16.
With respect to the first surfactant comprising about 2% or less of branching at a position other than the 2-alkyl position as recited in claim 15, even though copending Application ‘316 is silent to this limitation, Vinson teaches that impurities such as branched and cyclic components which can be formed in the process of making the 2-alkyl branched alkyl sulfates are typically removed as disclosed in paragraph [0075], hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the first surfactant of copending Application ‘316 to have a branching at a position other than the 2-alkyl position within those recited because other branched impurities are typically removed as taught by Vinson.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the detergent composition of copending Application ‘316 in view of Vinson to exhibit similar properties because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence, would behave similarly. With respect to the total surfactant, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the total amount of the surfactants in the detergent composition of copending Application ‘316 to be within those recited because it is known from Vinson that a similar composition has a 29 wt% total surfactant as seen in laundry detergent formulation AH of Example 18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 over Vinson, Applicant argues that claims 1 and 15 now limit the amount of total surfactant present in the claimed liquid detergent composition to not exceed about 30% by weight, and the amendments are commensurate in scope of the specification disclosure and reflect the unexpected results presented therein.
It is noted that the amount of the total surfactant present in Example 18, Composition AH is 29 wt% as discussed in paragraph 5 above.
Applicant also argues that any prima facia case of obviousness has been overcome by the showing of unexpected results presented in the specification as demonstrated in Table 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because the showing in Table 1 of the specification is still not commensurate in scope with the present claims. The showing is only true for the specific branched alkyl sulfate and the specific surfactants shown in the Inventive Composition I in Tables 1 and 5. As shown in Example 1 and Table 5, the showing is only true for the composition, i.e., Inventive Composition 1, comprising branched alkyl sulfate, NOVEL® 1412-9 from Sasol and Surfonic L24-9 (nonionic ethoxylated alcohol), linear alkyl benzene sulfonate and C12-15 alkylethoxy sulfate, as the surfactants, in their respective proportions, wherein the weight ratio of the branched alkyl sulfate to the nonionic ethoxylated alcohols is 4.23:(4.23 + 1.21) or 1:1.3.
With respect to the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 9,493,725 or US. Patent No. 9,493,726 or U.S. Patent No. 11,807,831, and the provisional rejection on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over copending Application No. 17/541,316, Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer upon indication of allowable subject matter.
The above obviousness-type double patenting rejections are maintained until such time Applicant submits a timely filed terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights