DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed August 5, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 10 and 18. Currently, claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-19 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office actions, Paper Nos. 20241001, 20250121, 20250715, 20251216 and 20260408.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant, an alkyl ethoxy sulphate, and a combination thereof, wherein substantially free of means comprising less than 100 ppm of an alkyl sulphate surfactant, an alkyl ethoxy sulphate, or a combination thereof” in independent claims 1, 10 and 18 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Delaney et al, US 2018/0195029, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brennan et al, WO 2013/160022, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10-14 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bastigkeit et al, CA 2,599,224, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10-14 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Blum et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,854,187, is maintained for the reasons of record.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-19 are 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant” in independent claims 1, 10 and 18. The limitation “substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant” renders the claim vague and indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation “substantially free of”. Furthermore, the specification does not contain guidelines describing what numerical values are encompassed by the limitation “substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant”. Is a composition that contains 5% of these components “substantially free of” them? Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Delaney et al, US 2018/0195029, requires an alkyl ethoxy sulphate in their composition which is excluded in the instant claims with the newly added limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant” in independent claims 1, 10 and 18. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that the detergent compositions disclosed in Delaney et al contain as little as 4% by weight of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant (see paragraph 33). Accordingly, since it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant”, the examiner asserts that the compositions disclosed in Delaney et al are substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant.
Applicant further argues that Brennan et al, WO 2013/160022, requires an alkyl ethoxy sulphate in their composition which is excluded in the instant claims with the newly added limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant” in independent claims 1, 10 and 18. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that the detergent compositions disclosed in Brennan et al contain as little as 3% by weight of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant (see page 2, lines 20-24). Accordingly, since it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant”, the examiner asserts that the compositions disclosed in Brennan et al are substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that the instant claims, as presently written, do not have to be free of external builders.
Applicant further argues that Bastigkeit et al, CA 2,599,224, requires an alkyl ethoxy sulphate in their composition which is excluded in the instant claims with the newly added limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant” in independent claims 1, 10 and 18. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that the detergent compositions disclosed in Bastigkeit et al contain as little as 1.5% by weight of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant (see paragraph 13). Accordingly, since it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant”, the examiner asserts that the compositions disclosed in Bastigkeit et al are substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant.
Applicant further argues that Blum et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,854,187, requires an alkyl ethoxy sulphate in their composition which is excluded in the instant claims with the newly added limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant” in independent claims 1, 10 and 18. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that the detergent compositions disclosed in Blum et al contain as little as 0.01% by weight of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant (see col. 9, line 3). Accordingly, since it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “wherein the composition is substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant”, the examiner asserts that the compositions disclosed in Blum et al are substantially free of an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that the instant claims, as presently written, do not have to be free of an oil phase.
Furthermore, the examiner asserts that applicant’s results in Figure 1 of the instant specification are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims, as required in MPEP 716.02(d). Accordingly, the examiner asserts that applicant has not shown that the unexpected results occur over the entire claim range.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights