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 11th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1,4-15,17-19 and 21 are pending in the application. Claims 2-3, 16, and 20 have been cancelled.
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, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detering (US 20100004154 A1) in view of Dixon (WO 03014283 A1) and BASF (“Lutensol XP types”).
With regard to claim 1 and claim 16, 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, this formula corresponds to Lutensol XP70. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize Lutensol XP70 as this compound is well known in the art of household cleaners (see BASF page 10 “Applications” and page 11 “Household Cleaners”).
However, Detering is silent as to the use of PVP/PVI together in a single copolymer.
Dixon discloses a detergent composition comprising a surfactant, a builder, and a dye binding polymer (see Abstract). Dixon further discloses PVP/PVI as a suitable dye binding polymer (see page 15 line 27-31). Dixon further discloses PVP/PVI as having a molecular weight of 5,000-1,000,000 (see page 15-27-31). Dixon further teaches a molar ratio of N-vinylimidazole to N-vinylpyrrolidone of from 1:1 to 0.2:1 (see page 16 line 5-8).
Both Detering and Dixon disclose a detergent composition comprising surfactants and a builder. Further, Detering discloses the use of a copolymer suitable as dye transfer inhibitor (0041, 0054-0061). Dixon discloses PVP/PVI, a copolymer, as a suitable dye binding polymer (see page 15 line 27-31). 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 Detering and Dixon disclose a detergent composition comprising surfactants and a builder. As stated above, both Detering and Dixon disclose a detergent composition comprising surfactants and a builder. Further, Detering discloses the use of a copolymer suitable as dye transfer inhibitor (0041, 0054-0061) and Dixon further discloses PVP/PVI as a suitable dye binding polymer (see page 15 line 27-31). It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the PVP/PVI as taught by Dixon with the detergent composition as taught by Detering to produce a detergent composition.
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).
With regard to claim 21, 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 C8-C22 non-ionic Guerbet alcohol ethoxylates as branched non-ionic surfactants (0181). The instant specifications disclose Guerbet C10 alcohol ethoxylates as suitable branched nonionic surfactants according to Formula II. Detering further discloses 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). Lastly, Detering teaches long chain amine oxides as suitable nonionic surfactants (0182).
However, Detering is silent with regard to the dye transfer inhibition polymer.
Both Detering and Dixon disclose a detergent composition comprising surfactants and a builder. Further, Detering discloses the use of a copolymer suitable as dye transfer inhibitor (0041, 0054-0061). Dixon discloses PVP/PVI, a copolymer, as a suitable dye binding polymer (see page 15 line 27-31). 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 Detering and Dixon disclose a detergent composition comprising surfactants and a builder. As stated above, both Detering and Dixon disclose a detergent composition comprising surfactants and a builder. Further, Detering discloses the use of a copolymer suitable as dye transfer inhibitor (0041, 0054-0061) and Dixon further discloses PVP/PVI as a suitable dye binding polymer (see page 15 line 27-31). It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the PVP/PVI as taught by Dixon with the detergent composition as taught by Detering to produce a detergent composition.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detering (US 20100004154 A1) in view of Dixon (WO 03014283 A1) and BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Stenger (EP 3740552 B1).
With regard to claim 10, Detering, Dixon, and BASF teach all of the limitations of claim 8, dependent on claim 1.
However, Detering, Dixon, and BASF 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 Dixon (WO 03014283 A1) and BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), 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, Dixon, and BASF teach all of the limitations of claim 8, dependent on claim 1.
However, Detering, Dixon, and BASF 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 Dixon (WO 03014283 A1), BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), 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, Dixon, BASF, Stenger, and Hartshorn disclose all of the limitations of claim 11, dependent on claim 8, dependent on claim 1.
However, Detering, Dixon, BASF, 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 Dixon (WO 03014283 A1) and BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), 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, Dixon, and BASF 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 and Dixon 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 Dixon (WO 03014283 A1) and BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Fossum (US 20190390142 A1).
With regard to claim 17, Detering, Dixon, and BASF teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Detering, Dixon, and BASF 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, Dixon, BASF teach all of the limitations of claim 17, dependent on claim 1.
However, Detering, Dixon, BASF 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 Dixon (WO 03014283 A1) and BASF (“Lutensol XP types”), 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, Dixon, and BASF teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Detering, Dixon, and BASF 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 claim 1 and claim 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 Detering, Fossum, and BASF fail to disclose the newly amended limitations to the claimed PVP/PVI copolymer. Specifically, Applicant argues that, while Fossum discloses a PVP/PVI copolymer, Fossum fails to disclose the newly amended limitations to the claimed PVP/PVI copolymer. As Fossum is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Fossum are moot.
Further, as stated above, Dixon discloses a detergent composition comprising a surfactant, a builder, and a dye binding polymer (see Abstract). Dixon further discloses PVP/PVI as a suitable dye binding polymer (see page 15 line 27-31). Dixon further discloses PVP/PVI as having a molecular weight of 5,000-1,000,000 (see page 15-27-31). Dixon further teaches a molar ratio of N-vinylimidazole to N-vinylpyrrolidone of from 1:1 to 0.2:1 (see page 16 line 5-8).
Both Detering and Dixon disclose a detergent composition comprising surfactants and a builder. 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 Detering and Dixon disclose a detergent composition comprising surfactants and a builder. As stated above, both Detering and Dixon disclose a detergent composition comprising surfactants and a builder. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the PVP/PVI as taught by Dixon with the detergent composition as taught by Detering to produce a detergent composition.
Applicant further argues unexpected results. Specifically, Applicant indicates Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 and Table 2 disclose Legs D and I, showing 2-propyl-heptyl EO7. This is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 1 and claim 21 disclose a branched non-ionic surfactant having the formula: R1-CH(R2)CH2-0-(PO)x(EO)y(PO)z-H, wherein R1 is a C5 alkyl chain; R2 is a C3 alkyl chain; x is from about 0; y is from about 5 to about 20; z is from about 0; wherein EO stands for ethoxylation and PO stands for propoxylation. This is a far broader range than the 2-propyl-heptyl EO7 disclosed in Table 1 and Table 2. Therefore, the results are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
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.
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