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 April 9th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 11-15, and 17-21 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 6-10, and 16 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fossum (WO 2020005476 A1) and Smith (EP 0439316 A2) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fossum (WO 2020005476 A1), Smith (EP 0439316 A2), and Fossum 2 (JP 6430532 B2), as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich (“Tergitol 15-S-5”) is withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 9th, 2026 has been entered.
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 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fossum (WO 2020005476 A1) and in further view of Yu (US 20110319669 A1) and Smith (EP 0439316 A2).
With regard to claim 1 and claims 20-21, 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 discloses 0.2-5wt% of a graft copolymer in the composition (see page 6 line 16-17). Fossum further teaches mid chain branched alkyl alkoxylates (see page 14 line 10-11). Fossum further discloses the composition may comprise anionic surfactants, which may include alkyl sulfates (see page 13 line 24-25). Fossum discloses C12-C14 dimethyl amine oxide (see page 14 line 21).
However, Fossum fails to disclose a branched nonionic surfactant of formula I, wherein RI is a C6 alkyl chain; R2 is a C3 alkyl chain; x is from about 0 to about; y is from about 6 to about 15; and z is from about 0 to about 3.
Yu discloses a process for producing branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate surfactants (see Abstract) for use in cleaning products, an analogous art (see Claim 9). Yu further discloses the alkoxylate as comprising formula I below (see Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
64
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yu further discloses AO is an alkyleneoxy containing at least 3 carbon atoms; EO is ethyleneoxy; m is 1-6; n is 1-40; R and R1 are independently C1-C14 alkyl; and R2 is H or C1-C13 alkyl, wherein the group formed by R, R1, R2 and the carbon to which they are attached contains 7 to 16 carbon atoms and has a branching degree of at least 3, provided that when R1 is CH3(CH2) 2CH(C2H5)(CH2) 2CH(CH3)-- and R2 is H, then R is not CH3 (see [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate of Yu in the composition of Fossum as Fossum discloses mid chain branched alkyl alkoxylates and Yu discloses branched secondary alcohol alkoxylates for use in cleaning products.
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.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 11-15, and 17-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 and claim 20 now recite a specific surfactant structure, not merely a generic "branched nonionic surfactant”. As stated above, Yu discloses a process for producing branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate surfactants (see Abstract) for use in cleaning products, an analogous art (see Claim 9). Yu further discloses the alkoxylate as comprising formula I below (see Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
64
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yu further discloses AO is an alkyleneoxy containing at least 3 carbon atoms; EO is ethyleneoxy; m is 1-6; n is 1-40; R and R1 are independently C1-C14 alkyl; and R2 is H or C1-C13 alkyl, wherein the group formed by R, R1, R2 and the carbon to which they are attached contains 7 to 16 carbon atoms and has a branching degree of at least 3, provided that when R1 is CH3(CH2) 2CH(C2H5)(CH2) 2CH(CH3)-- and R2 is H, then R is not CH3 (see [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate of Yu in the composition of Fossum as Fossum discloses mid chain branched alkyl alkoxylates and Yu discloses branched secondary alcohol alkoxylates for use in cleaning products.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights