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 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-15, 17-19, and 21 are pending in the application. Claims 2-3 and claim 16 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Detering (US 20100004154 A1), Dixon (WO 03014283 A1), and BASF (“Lutensol XP types”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Detering (US 20100004154 A1), Dixon (WO 03014283 A1), BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), and Stenger (EP 3740552 B1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Detering (US 20100004154 A1), Dixon (WO 03014283 A1), BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), and Hartshorn (WO 0018873 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Detering (US 20100004154 A1), Dixon (WO 03014283 A1), BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), Stenger (EP 3740552 B1), Hartshorn (WO 0018873 A1), and Smith (EP 0439316 A2) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Detering (US 20100004154 A1), Dixon (WO 03014283 A1), BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), and Singh (“Amine Oxides: A Review”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Detering (US 20100004154 A1), Dixon (WO 03014283 A1), BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), and Fossum (US 20190390142 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Detering (US 20100004154 A1), Dixon (WO 03014283 A1), BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), Scheper (US 20030119709 A1), and Tantawy (US 20150038396 A1) is withdrawn.
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, 4-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detering (US 20100004154 A1) in view of Man (US 20210047588 A1) and Warr (CA 2233212 C).
With regard to claim 1 and claim 21, Detering teaches a liquid washing composition (0167) comprising a surfactant system comprising at least one nonionic, anionic, and/or cationic surfactant (0169). Detering further teaches C8-C22 non-ionic Guerbet alcohol ethoxylates as branched non-ionic surfactants (0181). Detering further discloses, per mol of alcohol, the polymers comprise from preferably from 3 to 20mol of alkylene oxide, preferably ethylene oxide, and the alcohols are preferably from 10-18 carbon atoms (0180). Detering discloses the use of PVP and PVI separately as at least one ethylenically unsaturated monomer with a dye-affinitive group of a copolymer suitable as dye transfer inhibitor (0041, 0054-0061).
The claimed formula of claim 1 is limited to C10 branched nonionic surfactant with EO as 7. This is within the range disclosed by Detering. Further, Detering discloses C8-C22 non-ionic Guerbet alcohol ethoxylates as branched non-ionic surfactants.
However, Detering fails to disclose the branched nonionic surfactant corresponding to the formula given in the instant claims.
Man discloses detergent compositions containing extended chain surfactants, an analogous art (see Abstract). Man further discloses the laundry detergents as employing optimized Guerbet C10 to C12 extended nonionic surfactants (0002). Man further teaches these optimized extended surfactants have many benefits including the ease of formation of microemulsions, the formation of microemulsions that are non-gelling, have low viscosity and superwetting properties (0002). Man further discloses preferred branched alcohol alkoxylates include Guerbet ethoxylates having the following formula (0066).
PNG
media_image1.png
40
153
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Man discloses the Guerbet ethoxylate is further defined wherein R1 is C2-C20 alkyl, R2 is H or C1-C4 alkyl, n is between 2 and 20, and m is between 1 and 40 (0067). This corresponds to the formula disclosed in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the Guerbet ethoxylates disclosed by Man in the composition disclosed by Detering for the purpose of easing the formation of microemulsions and the formation of microemulsions that are non-gelling, have low viscosity, and have superwetting properties, as disclosed by Man. Further, Detering discloses C8-C22 non-ionic Guerbet alcohol ethoxylates as branched non-ionic surfactants. The Guerbet ethoxylates of Man fall within this range and would, therefore, be suitable.
Detering further fails to disclose the use of PVP/PVI together in a single copolymer.
Warr discloses a detergent composition suitable for washing colored fabrics, which comprises an N-vinylimidazole-N-vinylpyrrolidone copolymer (PVP/PVI) in an amount effective to inhibit dye transfer between fabrics during the wash, an analogous art (see Abstract). Warr further discloses the copolymer as having an average molecular weight of from 5,000-1,000,000 (see page 6 line 1-3). Warr further teaches such copolymers provide excellent dye transfer inhibiting properties while not adversely affecting the cleaning performance of detergent compositions (see page 6 line 18-22). Warr further discloses the molar ratio of N-vinylimidazole to N-vinylpyrrolidone from 5 to 0.2 (see page 6 line 24-26) and the composition comprising 0.01-10% of said copolymer (see page 6 line 28-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the N-vinylimidazole-N-vinylpyrrolidone copolymer at 0.01-10% of Warr in the composition of Detering for the purpose of providing excellent dye transfer inhibiting properties while not adversely affecting the cleaning performance of detergent compositions, as disclosed by Warr.
While Detering discloses bleach, Detering teaches bleach as one of several customary ingredients of a liquid detergent composition, including standardizers, enzymes, perfumes, complexing agents, and dye transfer inhibitors at 0.1-60wt% (see [0167]). Bleach is simply one option among many and not a requirement.
With regard to claim 4-7, Detering discloses a composition comprising from 0.5% to 70% by weight of at least one non-ionic, anionic, and/or cationic surfactant (0169). Detering teaches C8-C22 Guerbet alcohol ethoxylates as branched non-ionic surfactants (0181).
However, Detering is silent to the exact range of the non-ionic surfactant from about 0.1% by weight to about 12% by weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, that the weight percentage of Detering would be within the range claimed. In the case where claimed ranges “overlapping, approaching, and similar ranges, amounts, and proportions by the prior art” a prima facia case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(1)).
With regard to claim 8-9, Detering discloses a composition comprising from 0.5% to 70% by weight of at least one non-ionic, anionic, and/or cationic surfactant (0169). Detering further teaches suitable anionic surfactants as sulfates of fatty alcohols having 8 to 22, preferably 10 to 18 carbon atoms, C9-C11 alcohol sulfates, C12-C14 alcohol sulfates, C12-C18 alcohol sulfates, lauryl sulfate, cetyl sulfate, myristyl sulfate, palmityl sulfate, stearyl sulfate, tallow fat alcohol sulfate, linear C8-C20 alkylbenzenesulfonates (LAS), alkanesulfonates, olefin sulfonates, fatty acid sulfonates, fatty acid ester sulfonates, and mixtures thereof (0185-0192).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detering (US 20100004154 A1) in view of Man (US 20210047588 A1) and Warr (CA 2233212 C), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Stenger (EP 3740552 B1).
With regard to claim 10, Detering, Man, and Warr teach all of the limitations of claim 8, dependent on claim 1.
However, Detering, Man, and Warr are silent as to the degree of ethoxylation of an alkyl sulfate surfactant from about 0.5 to about 8.0.
Stenger teaches a degree of ethoxylation from about 0.5 to about 5 and further teaches a low degree of ethoxylation may provide grease cleaning benefits (0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add an anionic surfactant comprising an alkyl sulfate surfactant with a degree of ethoxylation of about 0.5 to about 5 to the washing composition of modified Detering, as taught by Stenger, for the purpose of providing grease cleaning benefits.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detering (US 20100004154 A1) in view of Man (US 20210047588 A1) and Warr (CA 2233212 C), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Stenger (EP 3740552 B1) and Hartshorn (WO 0018873 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Detering, Man, and Warr teach all of the limitations of claim 8, dependent on claim 1.
However, Detering, Man, and Warr are silent as to the degree of ethoxylation of an alkyl sulphate surfactant of less than 0.5.
Hartshorn teaches linear and branched primary and secondary sulphates and disulphates, with alkyl ethyoxysulfates having an average ethoxylation number of 3 or below (Page 20 line 29).
Stenger teaches a low degree of ethoxylation may provide grease cleaning benefits (0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to add an anionic surfactant comprising an alkyl sulfate surfactant with a degree of ethoxylation of less than 3 to the washing composition of modified Detering, as taught by Hartshorn, for the purpose of providing grease cleaning benefits, as taught by Stenger.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detering (US 20100004154 A1) in view of Man (US 20210047588 A1), Warr (CA 2233212 C), Stenger (EP 3740552 B1), and Hartshorn (WO 0018873 A1), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Smith (EP 0439316 A2).
With regard to claim 12, Detering, Man, Warr, Stenger, and Hartshorn disclose all of the limitations of claim 11, dependent on claim 8, dependent on claim 1.
However, Detering, Man, Warr, Stenger, and Hartshorn are silent as to a branched alkyl sulphate surfactant comprising at least 20% by weight of the alkyl chains of the branched alkyl sulphate surfactant of 2-branched alkyl chains.
Smith teaches branched primary alkyl sulfates containing more than 10% by weight of branching based on the total weight of the primary alkyl sulphate (Page 2 line 41-42) and the use of branched primary alkyl sulphates to remove oily soil (Page 2 line 34). Smith further teaches Lial 145 as a suitable anionic surfactant (Page 5 line 25). Lial 145 is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable low ethoxylated branched alkyl sulfate surfactant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate branched primary alkyl sulfates containing more than 10% by weight of branching based on the total weight of the primary alkyl sulfate, as taught by Smith, with the washing composition of modified Detering, for the purpose of removing oily soil.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detering (US 20100004154 A1) in view of Man (US 20210047588 A1) and Warr (CA 2233212 C), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Singh (“Amine Oxides: A Review”).
With regard to claim 13, Detering teaches long chain amine oxides as suitable non-ionic surfactants (0184). Fossum further teaches suitable zwitterionic surfactants as C12-C14 dimethylamine oxide (0089). Lauryl dimethylamine oxide is another name for C12 dimethylamine oxide.
However, Detering, Man, and Warr are silent to lauryl dimethylamine specifically.
Singh teaches the coco range alkyldimethyl amine oxides as effective foam boosters in light duty detergents (Page 111). Coco range alkyldimethyl amine oxides are also known as C12-C16 cocoalkyldimethyl amine oxides. Lauryl dimethylamine oxide would fall within this range and thus would share the same foam boosting properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use amine oxides as an amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactant, specifically lauryl dimethylamine oxide in the composition of modified Detering, as taught by Fossum and Singh, for the purpose of boosting foam in light duty detergents.
With regard to claim 14, Detering teaches long chain amine oxides as suitable non-ionic surfactants (0184).
With regard to claim 15, Detering teaches long chain amine oxides as suitable non-ionic surfactants (0184). Fossum further teaches suitable zwitterionic surfactants as C12-C14 dimethylamine oxide (0089). Lauryl dimethylamine oxide is another name for C12 dimethylamine oxide.
However, Detering, Man, and Warr are silent to lauryl dimethylamine specifically.
Singh teaches the coco range alkyldimethyl amine oxides as effective foam boosters in light duty detergents (Page 111). Coco range alkyldimethyl amine oxides are also known as C12-C16 cocoalkyldimethyl amine oxides. Lauryl dimethylamine oxide would fall within this range and thus would share the same foam boosting properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use amine oxides as an amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactant, specifically lauryl dimethylamine oxide in the composition of modified Detering, as taught by Fossum and Singh, for the purpose of boosting foam in light duty detergents.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detering (US 20100004154 A1) in view of Man (US 20210047588 A1) and Warr (CA 2233212 C), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Fossum (US 20190390142 A1).
With regard to claim 17, Detering, Man, and Warr teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Detering, Man, and Warr are silent as to the dye transfer inhibition polymer present at a level of from about 0.1% to about 3.0% by weight of the composition.
Fossum teaches a dye transfer inhibition polymer at 0.7% to 2.9% of the composition. Fossum further teaches increasing the percentage of dye transfer inhibition polymer for the purpose of decreasing color change and dye bleeding (Table 4, 171).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have the dye transfer inhibition polymer at the level taught by Fossum (142) for the purpose of decreasing color change and dye bleeding in the composition of Detering.
With regard to claim 18, Detering, Man, and Warr teach all of the limitations of claim 17, dependent on claim 1.
However, Detering, Man, and Warr are silent as to the dye transfer inhibition polymer present at a level of from about 0.2% to about 2.0% by weight of the composition.
Fossum teaches a dye transfer inhibition polymer at 0.7% to 2.9% of the composition. Fossum further teaches increase the percentage of dye transfer inhibition polymer for the purpose of decreasing color change and dye bleeding (Table 4, 171).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have the dye transfer inhibition polymer at the level taught by Fossum (142) for the purpose of decreasing color change and dye bleeding in the composition of modified Detering.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detering (US 20100004154 A1) in view of Man (US 20210047588 A1) and Warr (CA 2233212 C), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Scheper (US 20030119709 A1) and Tantawy (US 20150038396 A1).
With regard to claim 19, Detering, Man, and Warr teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Detering, Man, and Warr are silent as to a composition further comprising a polymer deposition aid and/or a dye fixative polymer.
Tantawy teaches cellulosic polymers as dye fixative polymers, along with mixtures of carboxylate polymers, polyethylene glycol polymers, polyester detergent polymers, amine polymers, dye polymers, dye lock polymers, and hexamethylenediamine derivative polymers (0063).
Scheper teaches cellulosic polymers as deposition aids (0039). The same compound used will produce the same results regardless of particular functional language disclosed in the prior art specifications.
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to add the polymer deposition aid, dye fixative polymer, and mixtures thereof to the laundry detergent composition of modified Detering, as taught Tantawy, and Scheper, for the purpose of decreasing the dye bleed of laundered clothing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-15, 17-19, and 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 Dixon discloses detergent compositions that can be embodied in a solid form, including "a powder or tablet form of product" and "mixed granules of differing compositions." Applicant further argues that the context of Dixon's disclosure, particularly its focus on "granules," directly teaches away from a liquid composition that is "substantially free of granules." A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to formulate a liquid detergent that is "substantially free of granules," would be actively discouraged from selecting a component (PVP/PVI) whose known or taught form in the cited prior art is granular. Applicant further argues that bleach is a necessary component of the composition of Dixon.
As Dixon is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments with regard to Dixon are moot.
Applicant further argues the Examiner's attempt to bridge the gap of by merely citing the commercial availability of "Lutensol XP70" is an improper application of hindsight.
As “Lutensol XP70” is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments with regard to “Lutensol XP70” are moot.
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