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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 29, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-14 and 18-20 are pending. Claims 15-17 were previously cancelled. Claims 6, 14 and 20 are currently amended.
The objection to claims 6, 14 and 20 for minor informalities is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 2017/0015948), hereinafter “Johnson” for the reasons set forth in the previous office action which is repeated below for Applicant’s convenience.
Regarding claims 1-14 and 18, Johnson teaches a cleaning composition comprising from about 1% to about 70%, by weight of the composition, of a surfactant; from about 0.1% to about 30%, by weight of the composition, of a fabric-softening silicone; and a cyclic amine (see claim 1), wherein the surfactant may be a mixture of anionic surfactant and nonionic surfactant (see paragraph [0019]). In one example, Johnson teaches Liquid Detergent Composition C which comprises 7.4 wt% AES C12-15 alkyl ethoxy (1.8) sulfate; 4.2 wt% alkyl benzene sulfonate (i.e., linear alkylbenzene sulfonate having an average aliphatic carbon chain length C11-12); 7.42 wt% NI 24-9 (i.e., C12-13 alcohol ethoxylate with an average degree of ethoxylation of 9, which meets instant claims 1b and claims 2-7, 9-11; and which is inherently derived from a synthetic alcohol, hence, meets instant claim 8); 1.0 wt% cyclic amine; 2.7 wt% citric acid; 0.20 wt% hydrogenated castor oil (which meets instant claims 12-14); 2.0 wt% fabric-softening silicone (i.e., PDMS, polydimethylsiloxane, which meets instant claim 1a), among others and balance water (see Table on page 21, and paragraph [0258] and the 4 lines above the paragraph). In the above example, the 7.4 wt% AES + 4.2 wt% C11-12 alkyl benzene sulfonate, whose total amount is 11.6 wt%, meets instant claim 18. Johnson teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Johnson anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson as applied to claims 1-14 and 18 above, and further in view of view of Ohtani et al. (US 2015/0322386, already of record), hereinafter “Ohtani” for the reasons set forth in the previous office action which is repeated below for Applicant’s convenience.
Regarding claims 19-20, Johnson teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Johnson teaches a cleaning composition comprising from about 1% to about 70%, by weight of the composition, of a surfactant; (see claim 1), wherein the surfactant may be a mixture of anionic surfactant and nonionic surfactant (see paragraph [0019]) and an example of the anionic surfactant is linear alkylbenzene sulfonate having an average aliphatic carbon chain length C11-12 as disclosed in Liquid Detergent Composition C, which also comprises 0.20 wt% hydrogenated castor oil (see Table on page 21). In addition, Johnson teaches that the cleaning composition may comprise from about 0.1% to about 50%, preferably from about 0.1% to about 25%, by weight of the cleaning composition, of a nonionic surfactant (see paragraph [0031]), which include C8-C18 alkyl ethoxylates (see paragraph [0033]) like the NI 24-9 in the Liquid Detergent Composition C above. The liquid detergent compositions may also comprise up to about 10% builder, based on the total weight of the composition, which includes citric acid (see paragraphs [0131]-0132]). The detergent compositions may also contain antimicrobial agents. Johnson, however, fails to disclose from about 10 wt% to about 15 wt% of the alcohol ethoxylate, from about 0.03 wt% to about 0.3 wt% of 4,4’-dichloro-2-hydroxy diphenyl ether, and from about 6.5 wt% to about 18 wt% of citric acid as recited in claim 19; and from about 5% to about 20%, by weight of the composition, of a C6 to C20 linear alkylbenzene sulfonate as recited in claim 20.
Ohtani, an analogous art, teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition which comprises, by weight of the composition, from 0.001% to 3% of a nonionic anti-microbial agent for the known anti-microbial benefit on fabrics and the composition demonstrates a good stability profile as well as comparable cleaning performance (see abstract, paragraph [0002], see also Example 2A in Table 2). Preferably in the liquid laundry detergent composition, the nonionic anti-microbial agent is present from 0.01% to 1%, more preferably from 0.03% to 0.5%, by weight of the composition (see paragraph [0017]), for example, 0.17 wt% (see Table 2). The preferred anti-microbial agent is 4-4′-dichloro-2-hydroxy diphenyl ether (see paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated 4-4′-dichloro-2-hydroxy diphenyl ether anti-microbial agent into the liquid detergent composition of Johnson in an amount from 0.03% to 0.5%, by weight of the composition, preferably, 0.17 wt%, because this will provide anti-microbial benefit on fabric as well as provide good stability profile as well as comparable cleaning performance as taught by Ohtani.
With respect to the amount of the alcohol ethoxylate, citric acid and the amount of the linear alkylbenzene sulfonate, considering that Jonson teaches from about 0.1% to about 50%, preferably from about 0.1% to about 25%, by weight of the cleaning composition, of a nonionic surfactant like the NI 24-9; up to about 10% builder, based on the total weight of the composition, which includes citric acid; and from about 1% to about 70%, by weight of the composition, of a surfactant like linear alkylbenzene sulfonate anionic surfactant having an average aliphatic carbon chain length C11-12, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Stenger et al. (US 2022/0106246), hereinafter “Stenger” in view of Gault et al. (US Patent No. 4,075,118), hereinafter “Gault.”
The applied reference to Stenger has a common Applicant (i.e., The Procter & Gamble Company) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 1-14 and 18, Stenger teaches a detergent composition in a form of a liquid laundry detergent (see claim 11) which comprises an alcohol ethoxylate of formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
62
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R is selected from a saturated or unsaturated, linear or branched, C8-C20 alkyl group, where greater than 90% of n is 0≤n≤15, and where the average value of n is between about 4 and about 14 (see claim 1), or from about 5-10 or from about 8-11 (see paragraph [0018]), wherein less than about 20% by weight of the alcohol ethoxylate are ethoxylates having n<8 (see claim 2), wherein less than about 10% by weight of the alcohol ethoxylate are ethoxylates having n<7 and between 10% and about 20% by weight of the alcohol ethoxylate are ethoxylates having n=8 (see paragraph [0019]). The alcohol ethoxylate of formula (I) also comprises between about 30% by weight and about 55% by weight of the alcohol ethoxylates are ethoxylates having n=9-10 (see claim 7) and greater than 80% by weight of the alcohol ethoxylate of ethoxylates having n>7 (see claim 8). The alcohol ethoxylate is derived from a natural alcohol, a synthetic alcohol, or a mixture thereof (see claim 10). The alcohol ethoxylates of formula (I) may be used in detergents at various concentrations (see paragraph [0036]). The detergent composition may comprise additional surfactants which include anionic surfactants , and the total surfactant level is preferably from 0.1% to 60%, from 1% to 50%, or even from 5% to 40% by weight (see paragraph [0037]). In one example, Stenger teaches Composition E which comprises 10.4 wt% sodium lauryl sulfate, 1.6 wt% linear alkylbenzene sulfonate, 17 wt% C25 ethoxylated alkyl sulphate (a total of 29 wt% anionic surfactants), 2.9 wt% Novel 1214-9, which meets formula (I), 0.082 wt% hydrogenated castor oil (i.e., a crystalline, hydroxyl-containing stabilizing agent), and 0.2 wt% silicone antifoam, among others (see Table on pages 12-13). In other examples, the Novel 1214-9 is used in amounts from 6 wt% to 13.4 wt% (see Compositions A-D and F-H (see Table on page 12). Stenger, however, fails to specifically disclose the silicone antifoam comprising polydimethylsiloxane as recited in claim 1; the amounts of alcohol ethoxylate of formula (I) as recited in claims 1 and 9-11.
Gault, an analogous art, teaches a liquid detergent composition which comprises silicone suds controlling agent which comprises polydimethylsiloxanes (see abstract and col. 9, lines 20-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the silicone antifoam of Stenger with silicone suds controlling agent which comprises polydimethylsiloxanes because the substitution of one silicone antifoam for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
With regards to the specific amount of the alcohol ethoxylate of formula (I), considering that Stenger teaches that the alcohol ethoxylate of formula (I) are used at various concentrations as disclosed in [0036]), like from 2.9 wt% to 13.4 wt% as seen in Examples Comp. A-H, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, Stenger in view of Gault teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, the detergent composition also comprises organic acids like citric acid (see paragraph [0085], in an amount, for example, 4.7 wt% (see Comp. F in Table on page 12), and hygiene agent or antimicrobial agent like 4-4’-dichloro-2-hydroxydiphenyl ether (i.e., Tinosan®HP100) (see paragraphs [0107]-[0108]), in an amount, for example 0.05 wt% (see Comp. C in Table on page 13). Stenger in view of Gault, however, fails to specifically disclose the alcohol ethoxylate of formula (I) in amounts from about 10wt% to about 15wt%, the incorporation of the 4-4’-dichloro-2-hydroxydiphenyl ether and citric acid into the composition, say in Composition E which already contain 0.082 wt% hydrogenated castor oil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated 0.05 wt% 4-4’-dichloro-2-hydroxydiphenyl ether, and citric acid, say in Composition E, because Stenger teaches that the composition contains other ingredients like a hygiene agent or antimicrobial agent and an organic acid.
With regards to the amounts of the alcohol ethoxylate of formula (I), considering that Stenger teaches that the alcohol ethoxylate of formula (I) are used at various concentrations as disclosed in [0036]), like from 2.9 wt% to 13.4 wt% as seen in Examples Comp. A-H, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to the amount of the citric acid, considering the Stenger teaches 4.7 wt% citric acid, as the word “about” permits some tolerance (see In re Ayers, 69 USPQ 109, and In re Erickson, 145 USPQ 207), the 4.7 wt% citric acid of Stenger may be considered to read on the lower limit of about 6.5 wt% citric acid in instant claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Stenger in view of Gault teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Stenger teaches C10-13 alkylbenzene sulfonate (see paragraph [0040]) in amounts like 5 wt% or 18 wt% (see Comp. A-B in Table on page 12).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson, and the rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson as applied to claims 1-14 and 18 above, and further in view of view of Ohtani, Applicant argues that the definition of “R” in the alcohol ethoxylate of formula (I) is exclusive to “narrow range ethoxylates” which is not taught or suggested by the prior art references.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because, as stated in paragraph 6 above, in the Table on page 21, Johnson teaches Liquid Detergent Composition C which comprises 7.42 wt% NI 24-9 (i.e., C12-13 alcohol ethoxylate with an average degree of ethoxylation of 9), which meets instant claims 1b and claims 2-7, 9-11.
Applicant also argues that Table 3, page 18 of the specification, shows the comparative HS Viscosity results of sample detergent compositions 7-10 each comprising a different nonionic surfactant profile (Sample 10 comprising the claimed “narrow range” surfactant and Samples 7-9 each comprising normal/natural range surfactants only. Applicant then argues that Table 3 shows Sample 10 comprising the claimed nonionic surfactant exhibited a more desirable viscosity profile compared to the other samples lacking the claimed nonionic surfactant.
Evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973). See MPEP 2131.04.
Even presuming the rejection of independent claim 1 were an obviousness rejection, the showing in Table 3 is not commensurate in scope with the claim. The showing is only limited to the ingredients shown with their respective proportions. Also, the showing is only limited to the nonionic surfactant shown, that is, Ziegler NI EO9, a narrow range C12-C15 alcohol ethoxylated with an average of 9 moles of ethylene oxide as a nonionic surfactant, whereas the present claim 1 recites R in the formula being C8-C20 alkyl group and the ethoxy group is between 8-14. It is also noted that Comparative Sample 9 which comprises Neodol®25-9 which is C12-C15 alcohol ethoxylated with an average of 9 moles of ethylene oxide as a nonionic surfactant also provides a lower HS viscosity (175.5 cps) when compared to Comparative Example 7 (246.5 cps) and Comparative Example 8 (202.0 cps), and while higher when compared to Inventive Sample 10 (148.5 cps), it is not clear what value of viscosity is considered unexpected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761