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 July 29th, 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 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fossum (WO 2020005476 A1) and in further view of Yu (US 20110319669 A1) and Smith (EP 0439316 A2) is maintained.
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]). Further, Yu teaches the alkoxylates disclosed also contain low levels of residual unreacted alcohols (see [0012]). Yu further teaches the advantages of having low levels of alcohols include enhanced surface activity, low odor, and improved clarity of aqueous formulations (see [0012]).
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. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize the branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate of Yu in the composition of Fossum as Yu discloses the alkoxylates disclosed also contain low levels of residual unreacted alcohols and the advantages of having low levels of alcohols include enhanced surface activity, low odor, and improved clarity of aqueous formulations.
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 filed July 29th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fossum discloses fabric care compositions employing graft copolymers for dye transfer inhibition and Yu discloses branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate surfactants for general use in cleaning products and lists "a wide variety" of disclosed applications, focusing on their synthesis and properties like narrow molecular weight distribution. Applicant further argues that Yu does not teach or suggest the use of such branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate surfactants for dye transfer inhibition. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as stated above, 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. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize the branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate of Yu in the composition of Fossum as Yu discloses the alkoxylates disclosed also contain low levels of residual unreacted alcohols and the advantages of having low levels of alcohols include enhanced surface activity, low odor, and improved clarity of aqueous formulations.
The reasons for combination need not be identical to Applicant’s (see MPEP 2144 (III) “It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “Dye transfer inhibition” is only one possible use of the branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate surfactants of Yu. As stated above, Yu discloses the alkoxylates disclosed also contain low levels of residual unreacted alcohols and the advantages of having low levels of alcohols include enhanced surface activity, low odor, and improved clarity of aqueous formulations. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the branched secondary alcohol alkoxylate surfactants of Yu with the composition of Fossum to enhance surface activity, decrease odor, and improve the clarity of aqueous formulations.
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
Prosecution Insights