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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 29th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on July 29th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 15-21 are pending in the application. Claim 13 and claim 14 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2009093150 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Gomez teaches a light duty liquid detergent composition comprising a surfactant system at a level from 1.0% to 50% by weight of the liquid detergent composition (page 8, Surfactants). Gomez further teaches water soluble salts or acids of C10-C14 alkyl or hydroxyalkyl, sulphates or sulphonates (page 8, Anionic Surfactants) and amine oxide surfactants, specifically C10-C18 alkyl dimethyl amine oxides (page 11, Amine Oxide Surfactants). Lastly, Gomez teaches hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymers having a number average molecular weight of less than 45,000 Da (page 3, The hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer), the hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymers present at from 0.01% to 2% by weight of the total composition, and n as 50 to 240 (page 4, The hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer). Gomez further discloses water soluble cellulose ether derivates, such as non-ionic and cationic cellulose derivatives, specifically non-ionic cellulose derivatives being especially preferable (Table A, composition B).
Gomez teaches an identical structure of a hydrophobically modified cellulose polymer in which R1, R2, and R3 represent alkyl, hydroxyalkyl, or mixed alkyl and hydroxyalkyl substituents and a polymerization degree, n, in the range of 50 to 240 (page 4 paragraph 3).
Gomez further teaches hydroxypropyl as a suitable substituent for R1, R2, and R3 (see page 4, paragraph 3). Gomez further discloses a degree of hydroxypropyl substitution of 0-1.0 (see page 5 paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 2, Gomez teaches a light duty liquid detergent composition comprising a surfactant system at a level from 1.0% to 50% by weight of the liquid detergent composition (Table A, composition B).
With regard to claim 3, Gomez teaches C12-C13 alkyl ethoxy sulphonate surfactant at 77% of the surfactant system (Table A, Composition A).
With regard to claim 8, Gomez discloses a light duty liquid detergent composition wherein the total anionic surfactant to total nonionic surfactant weight ratio is 3.42:1 (Table A, Composition A).
With regard to claim 9, Gomez teaches amine oxide surfactants, specifically C10-C18 alkyl dimethyl amine oxides (Table A, C10-14 Amine Oxide).
With regard to claim 11, Gomez teaches a hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer at a level from about 0.01% to 2%, preferably 0.1% to 0.5%, by weight of the total composition (see page 4 paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 12, Gomez teaches a hydrophobically modified cellulose polymer with a number average molecular weight below 45,000 Da, preferably between 10,000 Da and 40,000 Da (see page 3 paragraph 6).
With regard to claim 14, Gomez teaches a hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer with a degree of substitution of hydroxypropyl of from 0 to 1.0 (page 5, paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 15, Gomez teaches nonionic surfactants present in an effective amount, preferably from 0.1% to 20% by weight of the liquid detergent composition (Table A, C10-14 Amine Oxide, C11E9 Nonionic).
With regard to claim 16, Gomez teaches condensation products of having an alkyl group containing from 10 to 20 carbon atoms with from 2 to 18 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol (Table A, C12-13AE0xS).
With regard to claim 17, Gomez teaches an identical structure of a hydrophobically modified cellulose polymer which has a polymerization degree, n, in the range of 50 to 240 (see page 4 paragraph 3).
With regard to claim 18, Gomez discloses a degree of substitution of hydroxypropyl cellulose of 0-1.0 (see page 5 paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 19, Gomez further a light duty liquid detergent composition comprising a surfactant system at a level from 1.0% to 50% by weight of the liquid detergent composition (page 8 paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 21, Gomez teaches the liquid detergent composition may preferably comprise methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, and mixtures thereof (see page 5 paragraph 2). As such, the composition may also be free of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose since it is optional.
Claims 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2009093150 A1), in view of Kulbick (GB 2427614 A).
With regard to claim 4, Gomez teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Gomez further teaches water soluble salts or acids of C10-C14 alkyl or hydroxyalkyl, sulphates or sulphonates (page 8, Anionic Surfactants). Gomez further teaches the purpose of hydrophobically modified cellulose polymers provide improved foam aesthetics, higher initial foam volume, and improved foam density (page 3, paragraph 4).
However, Gomez is silent as to at least 70% of alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant by weight of the anionic surfactant.
Kulbick teaches a light duty dishwashing detergent composition, an analogous art, comprising sodium lauryl ether sulfate and sodium lauryl sulfate as the anionic surfactant (Table 1). Both are sulfates and thus the composition comprises 100% alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant by weight of the anionic surfactant. Kulbick further teaches alkyl sulfates as suitable foaming surfactants (page 6 lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add at least 70% of alkyl sulphate surfactant by weight of the anionic surfactant to the liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition of Gomez, as taught by Kulbick, for the purpose of providing suitable composition foaming. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 5, Gomez and Kulbick teach all limitations of claim 4. Gomez further teaches suitable anionic surfactants as C10-C14 alkyl or hydroxyalkyl, sulphates or sulphonates (Table A, C12-13AE0xS).
With regard to claim 6, Gomez and Kulbick teach all limitations of claim 4. Gomez further teaches C0-C8 alkyl alkoxy sulphates having a degree of ethoxylation of from 1-30 (page 8, Anionic Surfactants).
With regard to claim 10, Gomez teaches all limitations of claim 1. Gomez further teaches zwitterionic surfactants (page 8, Surfactants).
However, Gomez is silent as to a zwitterionic surfactant comprising alkyl betaines, alkylamidoalkylbetaine, amidazoliniumbetaine, sulphobetaine (INCI Sultaines), phosphobetaine, or mixtures thereof.
Kulbick teaches cocoamidopropyl dimethyl betaine (Table 1, page 32). Kulbick further teaches betaines as providing both good foaming benefit and a useful pH buffering effect (page 15 line 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add the cocoamidopropyl dimethyl betaine as taught by Kulbick to the liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition as taught by Gomez for the purpose of good foaming benefit and pH buffering.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2009093150 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Billiauw (US 20200109351 A1).
With regard to claim 7, Gomez and Kulbick teach all limitations of claim 4. Gomez further teaches water soluble salts or acids of C10-C14 alkyl or hydroxyalkyl, sulphates or sulphonates (page 8, Anionic Surfactants).
However, Gomez and Kulbick are silent to an alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant with a weight average degree of branching of at least 10%
Billiauw teaches a liquid hand dishwashing cleaning composition comprising an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having a weight average degree of branching of more than 10% (0030). Billiauw further teaches this weight average degree of branching has been found to provide improved low temperature stability, initial foam generation, and suds longevity (0030).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add an alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant with a degree of branching of more than 10%, as taught by Billiauw, to the liquid hand dishwashing detergent disclosed by Gomez, modified by Kulbick, for the purposes of improved low temperature stability, initial foam generation, and suds longevity.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2009093150 A1), in view of Tanaka (JP 2006206882 A)
With regard to claim 18, Gomez teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Gomez further teaches a hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer with a degree of molar substitution of hydroxypropyl groups from 0 to 1.0 (page 5, The hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer).
However, Gomez is silent to the hydroxypropylcellulose polymer having a degree of molar substitution of hydroxypropyl of from 1.0 to 4.5.
Tanaka teaches hydroxypropyl cellulose having a degree of molar substitution of hydroxypropyl of 3.0-4.0 (0016). Tanaka further teaches hydroxypropyl cellulose as a water dissolution delaying component for delaying dissolution for cleaning the object to be cleaned (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use a hydroxypropylcellulose polymer, as taught by Gomez, with a degree of molar substitution of 3.0-4.0 as taught by Tanaka for the purpose of delaying dissolution of the composition on the surface to be cleaned.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2009093150 A1), in view of Billiauw (US 20200109351 A1) and Tanaka (JP 2006206882 A).
With regard to claim 20, Gomez teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Gomez further teaches a light duty liquid detergent composition comprising a surfactant system at a level from 1.0% to 50% by weight of the liquid detergent composition (page 8, Surfactants).
Gomez further teaches water soluble salts or acids of C10-C14 alkyl or hydroxyalkyl, sulphates or sulphonates (page 8, Anionic Surfactants).
However, Gomez is silent as to 65% to 85% of alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant by weight of the anionic surfactant.
Billiauw teaches a liquid hand dishwashing cleaning composition wherein the surfactant system comprises from 60% to 90% by weight of the surfactant system of alkyl sulphate surfactant (0006). Billiauw further teaches an alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant and co-surfactant as this surfactant system for the purpose of improving suds milage, improved surfactant packing after dilution, and suds longevity (0021, 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the by weight percentage taught by Billiauw in the liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition taught by Gomez for the purpose of improving suds milage, packing after dilution, and suds longevity.
Gomez teaches water soluble salts or acids of C10-C14 alkyl or hydroxyalkyl, sulphates or sulphonates (page 8, Anionic Surfactants).
However, Gomez is silent as to an average degree of alkoxylation of from 0.5 to 0.9.
Billiauw teaches a liquid hand dishwashing cleaning composition wherein the alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant has an average degree of alkoxylation of less than 5, preferably less than 3, more preferably less than 2 and more than 0.5, most preferably from 0.5 to 0.9 (0027). Billiauw further teaches this degree of alkoxylation for the purpose of improving low temperature physical stability and suds milage of the composition (0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the water soluble salts or acids of C10-C14 alkyl or hydroxyalkyl, sulphates or sulphonates taught by Gomez, having a degree of alkoxylation of less than 5, as taught by Billiauw, for the purpose of improving low temperature stability and suds milage of the composition.
Gomez discloses a light duty liquid detergent composition wherein the total anionic surfactant to total nonionic surfactant weight ratio is 3.42:1 (Table A, Composition A).
Gomez teaches a hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer present at from 0.01% to 2% by weight of the total composition (page 4, The hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer). Gomez further teaches a hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer with a degree of molar substitution of hydroxypropyl groups from 0 to 1.0 (page 5, The hydrophobically modified cellulosic polymer).
However, Gomez is silent to the hydroxypropylcellulose polymer having a degree of molar substitution of hydroxypropyl of from 2.0 to 4.0.
Tanaka teaches hydroxypropyl cellulose having a degree of molar substitution of hydroxypropyl of 3.0-4.0 (0016). Tanaka further teaches hydroxypropyl cellulose as a water dissolution delaying component for delaying dissolution for cleaning the object to be cleaned (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use a hydroxypropylcellulose polymer as taught by Gomez, with a degree of molar substitution as taught by Tanaka for the purpose of delaying dissolution of the composition on the surface to be cleaned.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 19th, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regard to claim 1, unexpected results are demonstrated when using hydroxypropylcellulose (HPC) over hydroypropyl methyl cellulose (HPMC) having similar molecular weight and polydispersity. Applicant further argues the previous office action states that HPC and HPMC would be expected to have similar properties.
Gomez discloses hydroxypropyl as a suitable hydroxyalkyl (see page 4 paragraph 3). Gomez further discloses a degree of substitution of 0-1.0 for hydroxypropyl (see page 5 paragraph 1). Further, Gomez specifically lists the degree of substitution for hydroxypropyl, highlighting the substituent from others listed (see page 5 paragraph 1).
While the example formulations of Gomez utilize HPMC, HPC is stated as suitable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute HPC for the HPMC is the example formulations of Table A. The entire reference must be considered, not only one part. Further, Tanaka discloses HPC as a particularly preferred water dissolution delaying component (see Abstract). In order to delay the dissolution of the cleaning composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize HPC instead of HPMC. Further, Tanaka discloses hydroxypropyl cellulose as commercially available as Nisso HPC and KLUCEL (0016). Klucel is stated in the instant specifications as suitable.
While neither Gomez nor Tanaka specifically state superior suds milage nor more skin mildness, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, would find the claimed invention obvious as Gomez discloses hydroxypropyl cellulose as suitable and Tanaka further discloses hydroxypropyl, particularly hydroxypropyl with a molar substitution of 3.0-4.0 as suitable for slowing the solubility of the composition. Further, the differences in the viscosity of HPC and HPMC are expected. HPMC has a higher viscosity than HPC, as evidenced by HPMC Supplier (see Comparing HPMC and HPC: Impact on Product Formulations). Therefore, the decrease in viscosity in compositions utilizing HPC would be expected. Further, the low surface tension of water solutions containing HPC promotes foaming (see “Hydroxypropylcellulose”, page 14 paragraph 3) There would have been suitable motivation to utilize HPC regardless of Applicant’s claimed unexpected results. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues, with regard to claims 4-6 and claim 10, Kulbick fails to cure the deficiencies of Gomez. As stated above, while neither Gomez nor Tanaka specifically state superior suds milage nor more skin mildness, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, would find the claimed invention obvious as Gomez discloses hydroxypropyl cellulose as suitable and Tanaka further discloses hydroxypropyl, particularly hydroxypropyl with a molar substitution of 3.0-4.0 as suitable for slowing the solubility of the composition. There would have been suitable motivation to utilize HPC regardless of Applicant’s claimed unexpected results. Kulbick is unnecessary to cure the deficiencies of Gomez. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues, with regard to claim 17, that Billiauw fails to cure the deficiencies of Gomez. As stated above, while neither Gomez nor Tanaka specifically state superior suds milage nor more skin mildness, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, would find the claimed invention obvious as Gomez discloses hydroxypropyl cellulose as suitable and Tanaka further discloses hydroxypropyl, particularly hydroxypropyl with a molar substitution of 3.0-4.0 as suitable for slowing the solubility of the composition. There would have been suitable motivation to utilize HPC regardless of Applicant’s claimed unexpected results. Billiauw is unnecessary to cure the deficiencies of Gomez. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with regard to claim 18 and claim 20, Tanaka fails to cure the deficiencies of Gomez. As stated above, while neither Gomez nor Tanaka specifically state superior suds milage nor more skin mildness, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, would find the claimed invention obvious as Gomez discloses hydroxypropyl cellulose as suitable and Tanaka further discloses hydroxypropyl, particularly hydroxypropyl with a molar substitution of 3.0-4.0 as suitable for slowing the solubility of the composition. There would have been suitable motivation to utilize HPC regardless of Applicant’s claimed unexpected results. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761