DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-7, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paullin et al. (US 2015/0232785 Al) in view Wieland et al. (US 2020/0283702 Al) and Renmans et al. (US 2020/0181532).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, and 16-17: Paullin et al. teaches a variety of detergent compositions [215, 252, 263, 264], comprising: a detergent having one or more surfactants at a level of about 1% to 50% [217]; alkyl sulfate [217] being a C12-C18 alkyl sulfate [266] ; alkyldimethylamineoxide [217]; betaine surfactants [244, 280]; a nonionic surfactant such as alcohol ethoxylate (e.g., C12-15 alcohol, 7 EO; or C12-15 alcohol, 5 EO) [217,258,259,263,264] and carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates [217], and a cationic poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan ether [478, 52-58]; wherein the poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan has a molecular weight of about 4,000-40,000 or larger [94, 29, 135].
Paullin et al. does not specifically teach a dishwashing detergent composition comprising a alkylbetaine surfactant. However, Wieland et al. teaches a dishwashing detergent composition comprising an alkyl betaine surfactant [156]. Paullin et al. and Wieland et al. are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, cleaning compositions. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a betaine surfactant, as taught by Wieland et al., to the liquid dishwashing composition of Paullin et al. since Weiland et al. suggests that betaine surfactants are suitable for use as a surfactant in liquid dishwashing compositions (see MPEP 2144.07).
Paullin et al. does not directly teach a single embodiment comprising all the specific surfactants and poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan as set forth above. However, Paullin et al. does broadly suggests that various detergent compositions may be in any form, including liquid, and may comprises various surfactants [216-218], as such, the inclusion of a poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan [263, 264]. As such, at
the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a cationic poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan in any of the disclosed detergent compositions in order to modify the viscosity to a desired level [2].
Paullin et al. does not directly teach a single embodiment comprising a specific anionic to co-surfactant surfactant ratio. However, Paullin et al. does teach that various detergent compositions usually contain about 0-50 wt.% of anionic surfactants and about 0-40 wt.% of nonionic surfactants [217]. Accordingly, Paullin et al. anionic and nonionic surfactant ranges encompass the instantly claimed ratio. Renmans et al. teaches a detergent composition comprising an anionic surfactant and amine oxide surfactant ratio of from about 4:1 to about 1:1 [6]. Paullin et al. and Renmans et al. are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, cleaning compositions. As such, at the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the anionic/co-surfactant ratio of Paullin et al. to the about 4:1 to about 1:1 as taught by Renmans et al. in order to form a cleaning composition with a known and desired cleaning and sudsing profile.
Paullin et al. further teaches: the cationic poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan ether has at least one positively charged organic group [53-55, 58]; at least 60% of the glycosidic linkages of the poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan are alpha-1,6 linkages [7, 11]; a degree of substitution of 0.05-3.0 [46, 156]; and a degree of polymerization of at least 1,000 [abstract, 10, 16].
Paullin et al. further teaches: 1%-30% branching in the poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan [90].
Paullin et al. further teaches: a positively charged group may be a substituted ammonium group [168] wherein the ammonium group comprises alkyl groups including a decyl (Cl0) alkyl group [168]; and wherein the substituted ammonium group is a trimethylammonium group [57, 55] or ammonium hydroxypropyl group (ie. hydroxyalkyl group) [58].
Paullin et al. further teaches: a liquid detergent comprising 15-21% or 15-23% linear alkylbenzenesulfonate [258, 259,263,264] and poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan ether up to about 2 wt% [258, 259, 263, 264] (ie. 0 to about 2%). It is noted that the linear alkylbenzenesulfonate is the only anionic surfactant recited in the example.
Paullin et al. further teaches that teach an alkyl sulphate and alkylbenzenesulfonate are functional equivalent anionic surfactants [217]. As such, at the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted the alkylbenzenesulfonate surfactant with the alkyl sulphate surfactant (see MPEP 2144.06).
Paullin et al. further teaches: a surfactant system (ie. alkylbenzenesulfonate and alcohol ethoxylate) comprising about 73-77% of anionic surfactants [264].
Regarding claim 20: Paullin et al. further teaches detergent compositions comprising one or more surfactants including having alkyldimethylamineoxide [217] and alcohol ethoxylate [217].
Paullin et al. does not specifically teach a dishwashing detergent composition comprising a cocamidoethyl betaine surfactant. However, Wieland et al. teaches a dishwashing detergent composition comprising a cocamidoethyl betaine surfactant [156]. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added a betaine surfactant, as taught by Wieland et al., to the liquid dishwashing composition of Paullin et al. since Weiland et al. suggests a that cocamidoethyl betaine surfactant is a suitable for use as a surfactant in liquid dishwashing compositions (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paullin et al. (US2015/0232785 Al) in view Wieland et al. (US 2020/0283702 Al) and Renmans et al. (US2020/0181532) as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 16-17 and 20 above, and further in view of Vandenberghe et al. (US 2018/0023036 Al).
Regarding claims 13 and 14: Paullin et al. teaches basic claimed detergent composition as set forth above regarding claim 1.
Paullin et al. does not teach detergent composition comprising an alkyl alkoxy sulfate surfactant having a degree of alkoxylation of 0.3-2.0 or a degree of branching from 20-60%. However, Vandenberghe et al. teaches a dishwashing detergent composition comprising an alkyl alkoxy sulfate surfactant having a degree of alkoxylation of 1-3 [56,57] and a degree of branching less than 100% or 5- 30% [56, 57]. Paullin et al. and Vandenberghe et al. are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, detergent compositions. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added or substituted an alkyl alkoxy sulfate surfactant having a degree of alkoxylation of 1-3 and a degree of branching less than 100% or 5-30%, as taught by Vandenberghe et al., to the liquid dishwashing composition of Paullin et al. since Vandenberghe et al. suggests that such an alkyl alkoxy sulfate surfactant is suitable for use as a surfactant in liquid dishwashing compositions comprising a mixture of surfactants [63, 64, abstract] (see MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-FEB-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the previous rejection under 35 USC 103 is acknowledged. 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, the rejection above clearly sets forth a reason or rationale for instances where a combination of teachings is needed to explain the Offices’ position of obviousness.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EASHOO whose telephone number is (571)272-1197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am - 4pm.
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, Director Patricia Mallari, can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
MARK EASHOO, Ph.D.
Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767