DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani et al. (US 2016/0060582 A1) in view of Borrello (US 4,396,521).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 8-9, Ohtani teaches a liquid detergent composition for textile (abstract, 13, 143) comprising; a)- surfactants such as anionic (a.1) and nonionic (a.2) in the amounts of 3.5-50% and 0.5-50% respectively; [60, 51], wherein (instant claims 2-4) the instantly claimed ratio of (a1)/[(a1+a2)] is rendered obvious by a considerable overlap of values for the above ratio; [62]. c)- Ohtani teaches the instantly claimed (instant 1 & 8-9) antibacterial (a non-quaternary ammonium salt) compound with diphenyl ether backbone; [21-32].
b)- Ohtani does not teach the instantly claimed 1-dodecanol (or lauryl alcohol) but it teaches a low water soluble 1-2 propane diol which has a relative solvent properties, to 1-dodecanol, in amounts such as 1.2, 2.5 or 6%%; [Tables 3-4],. However, the analogous art of Borrello teaches a laundry detergent composition (3: 36, 56, 14: 7-8) comprising water insoluble solvent of lauryl alcohol (1-dodecanol) as cleaning ingredient: [9: 31]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to add lauryl alcohol of Morikawa to Ohtani’s composition to enhance its detersive and stain removing characteristics for lipophilic soils from textiles. This would, also, render (instant claim 5) the instantly claimed ratio of b/a by a considerable overlap with calculation using the corresponding amounts above
Regarding claim 7, Ohtani teaches the instant formula (I) for the nonionic surfactant as alkoxylated ether surfactant with R1 = C6-C22 wherein R2 = R3 of reference= H, CH3 and n=1-20; [52].
Regarding claim 10, Ohtani teaches the same method of washing (i.e. using); [71, 76], and rinsing; [90]. Furthermore Morikawa teaches the instant method similarly; [22: 62-67, 23: 1-10], and thus at the time before the effective filing date of invention it would have been obvious to apply it on textiles with composition of Ohtani as taught above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani et al. (US 2016/0060582 A1) Borrello (US 4,396,521), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Morikawa et al. (US 11,124,743 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Ohtani does not teach the internal olefin sulfonate of claimed carbon numbers. However, analogous art of Morikawa teaches a liquid detergent composition for treating textiles (abstract, column 2, claims 1-2) comprising the nonionic surfactant of alpha olefin sulfonate of C10 to C18 alpha olefin sulfonate; [10: 60-64], which is a safe and a chemical ingredient with excellent foaming ability and hard water compatibility and is obvious to be add to Ohtani’s composition to remove the build ups as taught by Morikawa above.
Relevant art cited
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See all of cited references in PTO-892 which teach Lauryl alcohol (1-dodecanol).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection rely on new combination of references not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2025/09/12
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767