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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07-APR-2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinscherf (US 2005/0020467 A1) in view of Del Duca et al. (US 6,235,699 B1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 12-13, 15-17, 19: Kinscherf teaches basic claimed liquid cleaning composition (para. 14), comprising: water at 40-83%, suggesting a surfactant system of about 20-60% (para. 26, 47, example 1); an anionic surfactant, 6-15% (para. 15, 16, 31, example 1); amine oxide (ie. a co-surfactant) (para. 17, 34-36, example 1); and an alkyl polyglycoside (para. 41-46, example 1). Nonionic surfactants are taught to be under about 18% (example 1, various formulas). The ratio of nonionic surfactants to an anionic surfactant is taught within the range of about 1:1 to 3:1 (example 1, various formulas). The ratio of an anionic surfactants to a co-surfactant is taught within the range of about 1:2 to 2:1 (example 1, various formulas).
Kinscherf does not teach a hydrophilic alkyl ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant, but does teach a hydrophobic alkyl ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactant (para. 25, 33, abstract). However, Del Duca et al. teaches various hydrophilic alkyl ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactants with C9-C15 alkyl chains and about 6-10 mole of ethylene oxide per mole, such as Dobanol products with an HLB above 10 (4:30-67, 5:1-22). Del Duca et al. also teaches to use about equal range amounts of 0.5-10% (ie. ratios of about 1:10 to 10:1) of hydrophobic and hydrophilic alkyl ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactants (5:12-18). Kinscherf and Del Duca et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, liquid aqueous cleaning compositions. At the time of invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added hydrophilic alkyl ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactants having an HLB above 10 as taught by Del Duca et al. to Kinscherf, and in a similar range of amounts disclosed for alkyl ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactants in Kinscherf, because Del Duca et al. suggests that mixtures of ethoxylated nonionic surfactants with different HBLs allow optimum grease cleaning removal over a broad range of greasy soils (5:15-22).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 17: Kinscherf further teaches alkyl polyglycosides having C10-C18 alkyl groups and a degree of polymerization of 1.6 (para. 41-46, example 1).
Regarding claims 7-9: Kinscherf further teaches C8-C18 alkyl ethoxy sulfates with an ethoxylation of 2-6 (para. 27-31).
Regarding claim 11: Kinscherf further teaches that the amine oxide surfactant contains long chain alkyl groups and as such they would be amphoteric (para. 34-36).
Regarding claims 10: Kinscherf further teaches C8-C18 alkyl sulfates with branched chain (para. 31). Kincherf does not teach branching of 5-60%. However, Del Duca et al. teaches various primary and secondary alkanesulfonates and branched primary alkyl sulfates with similar chain lengths as Kinscherf (12:10-35). Since chain length is substantially that which is instantly claimed, it is submitted that the degree of branching would naturally arise. At the time of invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added or substituted a portion of branched alkyl sulfates taught by Del Duca et al. to Kinscherf, since Del Duca et al. teaches that such branched alkyl sulfates are functional equivalents as an anionic surfanctant.
Regarding claim 17-18: Kinscherf further teaches C8-C18 alkyl sulfates with branched chain (para. 31). Kincherf does not teach branching of 20-60% of an alkyl ethoxy sulfate having a degree of ethoxylation of 0.5-0.9. However, Del Duca et al. teaches various branched alkyl ethoxy sulfates with an ethyoxylation of 0.5-3 (11:54-12:9). Since chain length is substantially that which is instantly claimed, it is submitted that the degree of branching would naturally arise. At the time of invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added or substituted a portion of branched alkyl ethoxy sulfates taught by Del Duca et al. to Kinscherf, since Del Duca et al. teaches that such branched alkyl ethoxy sulfates are functional equivalents as an anionic surfanctant.
Regarding claim 20: Kinscherf further teaches other solubilizing agents or hydrotropes such as sodium cumene or sodium xylene sulfonate (para. 49). Kinscherf further teaches making a dishwashing liquid composition by simple mixing (para. 49). Although “premixing” is not specifically stated by Kinscherf, Kinscherf teaches “simple mixing methods”. As such, it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found premixes and masterbatches simple and obvious variants in a mixing process (See MPEP 2144.04, IV, C).
Double Patenting
The text referring to nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not included in this action, but can be found in the Office action of 19-MAR-2025. The following provisional rejections, set forth 19-MAR-2025, are maintained:
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/861,286.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/861,287.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20-JUN-2025 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are directed to a newly added limitations and have been substantially responded to in the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
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.
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, Yvonne Eyler 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