DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 24, 2026 has been entered.
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed March 24, 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 and 20251216.
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an alkyl sulphate surfactant, an alkyl ethoxy sulphate, or a combination thereof” in independent claims 1, 10 and 18 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks. However, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on applicant’s newly amended claims is addressed below.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 18-19 are rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the instant specification does not provide support for the newly added limitation “wherein substantially free of means comprising less than 100 ppm of an alkyl sulphate surfactant, an alkyl ethoxy sulphate, or a combination thereof” that is recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 18. Claims 2-6, 8, 11-16 and 19 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claims 1, 10 and 18.
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 “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. This limitation renders the claims vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the composition must be substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant and an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant or if the composition only has to be substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant or an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant. For examination purposes, the examiner will treat the instant claims as only having to be substantially free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant or an alkyl ethoxy sulphate surfactant. Claims 2-6, 8, 11-16 and 19 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon independent claims 1, 10 and 18. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 24, 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, 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. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, as addressed above, the examiner respectfully maintains that the detergent compositions disclosed in Delaney et al are completely free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant, and thus meets the newly added limitation “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.
Applicant further argues that Delaney et al, US 2018/0195029, does not teach or suggest in general a composition that contains a nonionic alcohol ethoxylate surfactant that has a carbon chain length of 13-15 and an ethoxylation level of 6.8-8.25, as required by applicant in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Delaney et al clearly disclose that their detergent composition contains nonionic alcohol ethoxylate surfactants that have a carbon chain length of 12-16 and an ethoxylation level of 7 (see paragraph 38), as required in the instant claims.
Applicant argues that Brennan et al, WO 2013/160022, does not teach or suggest in general a detergent composition that contains a nonionic alcohol ethoxylate surfactant that has a carbon chain length of 13-15 and an ethoxylation level of 6.8-8.25, as required by applicant in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Brennan et al clearly discloses that their detergent composition contains nonionic alcohol ethoxylate surfactants that have a carbon chain length of 12-15 and an ethoxylation level of 7 (see page 7, lines 19-23), as required in the instant claims.
Applicant further argues that Bastigkeit et al, CA 2,599,224, requires an alkyl ether 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, 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. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, as addressed above, the examiner respectfully maintains that the detergent compositions disclosed in Bastigkeit et al are completely free of an alkyl sulphate surfactant, and thus meets the newly added limitation “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.
Applicant further argues that Bastigkeit et al, CA 2,599,224, does not teach or suggest in general a detergent composition comprising 0.5-15% by weight of a surfactant that meets the required ratio amount of surfactants required by applicant in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Bastigkeit et al clearly discloses that their detergent composition contains 1.5-14% by weight of anionic surfactants and 0.5-5% by weight of the nonionic surfactant (see paragraph 13), wherein preferred nonionic surfactants include C14-15 alcohols with 7 moles of ethylene oxide (see paragraph 17), which meets the surfactant ratio requirements of the instant claims.
Applicant continues to argue that Blum et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,854,187, does not teach or suggest in general a detergent composition comprising 0.5-15% by weight of a surfactant, as required by applicant in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner respectfully maintains that Blum et al clearly discloses that their detergent composition contains 0.01-5% by weight of an anionic surfactant and 0.05-10% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, wherein the ratio of nonionic surfactant to anionic surfactant is greater than 1:1, more preferably 15:1 to 1:1 (see col. 5, lines 33-40), per the requirements of the instant invention.
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
April 8, 2026