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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on December 18th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 11-15, and 17-20 are pending in the application. Claims 6-10 and claim 16 have been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-5, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum (WO 2020005476 A1) and in further view of Smith (EP 0439316 A2).
With regard to claim 1, Fossum discloses a fabric care composition, which may be a detergent (see page 4 line 15-18), comprising a graft copolymer (a), N-vinylpyrrolidone (b), and a vinyl ester (c) (see Abstract). Fossum further discloses polyalkylene oxide as having a molecular weight of 1,000-20,000Da, the vinyl ester derived from saturated monocarboxylic acids containing 1 to 6 carbon atoms, the ratio of a:b as 1:0.1 to 1:1, and an amount of (a) greater than (c) (see page 2 line 15-24). Fossum further discloses component (c) may be partially hydrolyzed up to 60% (see page 12 line 7-9). Fossum further teaches mid chain branched alkyl alkoxylates (see page 14 line 10-11) and further teaches alcohols having an average of 12-16 carbons and an average of 3-9 ethoxy groups as suitable nonionic surfactants (see page 14 line 16-18). Fossum further teaches C12-C14 alkyl 7 ethoxylate (see Table 2 Example 2A-2C). Fossum further discloses C12-C14 dimethyl amine oxide (see page 14 line 21). Fossum further discloses the composition may comprise anionic surfactants, which may include alkyl sulfates (see page 13 line 24-25).
However, Fossum fails to disclose a branched alkyl sulfate surfactant comprising at least about 20% by weight of the alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains.
Smith teaches a detergent composition comprising an anionic surfactant (see Abstract). Smith teaches alkyl sulfates containing more than 10% by weight of branching based on the total weight of alkyl sulfate (Page 2 line 41-42). Smith further teaches Lial 145 sulphate with 61% branching (Page 5 line 26). Lial 145 is disclosed as a suitable surfactant in the instant specifications. Smith further teaches the use of at least 20% by weight of alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains for the purpose of removing oily stains (Page 2 line 34). Smith further teaches nonionic surfactants, which may be the condensation products of aliphatic (C8-C10) primary or secondary linear or branched alcohols with ethylene oxide (see page 3 line 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to obtain at least 20% by weight of alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains in the composition of Fossum, as taught by Smith, for the purpose of removing oily stains.
Further, both Fossum and Smith disclose detergent compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). ). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because both Fossum and Smith disclose detergent compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants. As stated above, both Fossum and Smith disclose detergent compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the at least 20% by weight of alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains for the purpose of producing a detergent composition.
With regard to claims 3-5, Fossum discloses 5-40wt% of a surfactant system (see page 13 line 18-19), which may include a nonionic surfactant (see page 13 line 23).
With regard to claim 11, Fossum teaches C12-C14 dimethyl amine oxide (see page 14 line 21).
With regard to claim 12 and claim 13, Fossum discloses 0.2-5wt% of a graft copolymer in the composition (see page 6 line 16-17).
With regard to claim 14, Fossum discloses a graft copolymer based on ethylene oxide (see page 5 line 25-26) and the vinyl ester derived from vinyl acetate (see page 8 line 30-31).
With regard to claim 15, Fossum discloses a ratio of a:c of 1.0:0.1 to 1.0:0.8 (see page 9 line 10).
With regard to claim 17 and claim 18, Fossum discloses polyalkylene oxide having a molecular weight of 1,000-20,000Da (see page 2 line 15-24).
With regard to claim 19, Fossum discloses the composition may further comprise dye transfer inhibiting polymers (see page 12 line 28).
With regard to claim 20, Fossum discloses a fabric care composition comprising a graft copolymer (a), N-vinylpyrrolidone (b), and a vinyl ester (c) (see Abstract). Fossum further discloses polyalkylene oxide as having a molecular weight of 1,000-20,000Da, the vinyl ester derived from saturated monocarboxylic acids containing 1 to 6 carbon atoms, the ratio of a:b as 1:0.1 to 1:1, and an amount of (a) greater than (c) (see page 2 line 15-24). Fossum further discloses component (c) may be partially hydrolyzed up to 60% (see page 12 line 7-9). Fossum further teaches mid chain branched alkyl alkoxylates (see page 14 line 10-11) and further teaches alcohols having an average of 12-16 carbons and an average of 3-9 ethoxy groups as suitable nonionic surfactants (see page 14 line 16-18). Fossum teaches C12-C14 alkyl 7 ethoxylate (see Table 2 Example 2A-2C). Fossum discloses 0.2-5wt% of a graft copolymer in the composition (see page 6 line 16-17). Fossum further discloses alkyl benzene sulfonate surfactant and alkyl sulfates (see page 14 line 1-3) and the composition may include amine oxide surfactant (see page 14 line 23). Fossum further discloses the composition may comprise anionic surfactants, which may include alkyl sulfates (see page 13 line 24-25).
However, Fossum fails to disclose a branched alkyl sulfate surfactant comprising at least about 20% by weight of the alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains.
Smith teaches a detergent composition comprising an anionic surfactant (see Abstract). Smith teaches alkyl sulfates containing more than 10% by weight of branching based on the total weight of alkyl sulfate (Page 2 line 41-42). Smith further teaches Lial 145 sulphate with 61% branching (Page 5 line 26). Lial 145 is disclosed as a suitable surfactant in the instant specifications. Smith further teaches the use of at least 20% by weight of alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains for the purpose of removing oily stains (Page 2 line 34). Smith further teaches nonionic surfactants, which may be the condensation products of aliphatic (C8-C10) primary or secondary linear or branched alcohols with ethylene oxide (see page 3 line 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to obtain at least 20% by weight of alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains in the composition of Fossum, as taught by Smith, for the purpose of removing oily stains.
Further, both Fossum and Smith disclose detergent compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). ). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because both Fossum and Smith disclose detergent compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants. As stated above, both Fossum and Smith disclose detergent compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the at least 20% by weight of alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains for the purpose of producing a detergent composition.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum (WO 2020005476 A1) and Smith (EP 0439316 A2), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fossum, referred to herein as Fossum 2 (JP 6430532 B2), as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich (“Tergitol 15-S-5”).
With regard to claim 2, Fossum and Smith disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Fossum fails to disclose R1 as a C6 alkyl chain, R2 as a C3 alkyl chain, x from 0 to 3, y from about 6 to about 15, and z from 0 to 3.
Fossum 2 discloses a fabric care composition (see [0001]), which may be a liquid laundry detergent (see [0036]). Fossum 2 further discloses nonionic surfactants which may include conventional nonionic surfactants such as Tergitol 15-S-5 (see [0166]). The instant specifications disclose the Tergitol 15-S series as satisfying Formula I.
Sigma-Aldrich discloses Tergitol 15-S-5 as a C6-C17 secondary poly (3-6) ethoxylate (see Tergitol 15-S-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the Tergitol 15-S-5 of Fossum 2, in the composition of Fossum as Tergitol 15-S-5 is a conventional nonionic surfactant in detergents, as disclosed by Fossum 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fossum is directed toward dye transfer inhibition graft copolymers while Smith is directed toward branched alkyl sulfates. Applicant further argues that Fossum does not teach or suggest that introducing highly 2-branched alkyl sulfate into formulations containing DTI copolymers would be desirable. Smith does not teach or suggest the use of any DTI polymers nor does Smith address dye fading or redeposition at all. Applicant further argues that neither Fossum nor Smith, alone or together, teaches or suggests that this particular composition of structural features should be assembled for the purpose of reducing dye fading and redeposition while cleaning. Therefore, Applicant argues, one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to combine Fossum and Smith.
As stated above, both Fossum and Smith disclose detergent compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). ). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because both Fossum and Smith disclose detergent compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants. As stated above, both Fossum and Smith disclose detergent compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the at least 20% by weight of alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains for the purpose of producing a detergent composition.
Further, the motivation to combine need not be the same as that disclosed by the Applicant.
Applicant further argues unexpected results based on Tables 2-6. However, this is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Claim 1 does not disclose a concentration or concentration range with regard to the grafted copolymer and branched nonionic surfactant. Further, claim 3 and claim 4 disclose an upper limit of 12wt% and 10wt% of a branched nonionic surfactant system, which is much higher than the 0.4wt% disclosed in Table 4. Claim 12 and claim 13 disclose a maximum of 15w% and 3.0wt% respectively of graft copolymer. This is also a far higher concentration than that disclosed in the instant specification. Further, the molecular weights of the polymers, as described in Table 1, are all less than 10,000 Daltons. Claim 1 discloses 1,000 to 20,000 Daltons. This is a far wider range than that disclosed in the instant specifications.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761