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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending. Claim 4 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed December 18, 2025, have been entered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025, has been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 9/25/25 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinscherf (US 2005/0020467 A1, hereafter "Kinscherf"), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 8, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinscherf (US 2005/0020467 A1, hereafter "Kinscherf”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Cripe (US 6,060,443, hereafter "Cripe"), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/861,285 (reference application, hereafter ""285"), has been withdrawn due to the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
The rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/861,286 (reference application, hereafter ""286"), has been withdrawn due to the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to instant claims 1 and 19, the specification, as originally filed, provides no basis for “a hydrophilic”. Thus, this deemed new matter. Note that, instant claims 2, 3, 5-18, and 20 have also been rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2010/147916.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘916 teaches a liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition comprising: (a) from 0.1% to 20% by weight of the total composition of a chelant, (b) from 5% to 80% by weight of the total composition of a surfactant selected from the group consisting of anionic, nonionic, cationic, amphoteric, zwitterionic, semi-polar nonionic surfactants and mixtures thereof; wherein the average alkyl chain branching of the surfactants is at least 10% by weight of the total surfactants. See page 1. The liquid detergent compositions herein generally contain from 30% to 95%, preferably 40% to 80%, more preferably 50% to 75% of an aqueous liquid carrier, preferably water, in which the other essential and optional compositions components are dissolved, dispersed or suspended. See page 3, lines 1-10.
The composition of the present invention will comprise a surfactant selected from anionic, nonionic, cationic, amphoteric, zwitterionic, semi-polar nonionic surfactants, and mixtures thereof. The surfactants of the composition will have an average branching of the alkyl chain(s) of more than 10%, preferably more than 20%, more preferably more than 30% and even more preferably more than 40% by weight of the total surfactants. The surfactants of the present invention will generally be comprised at a level of 5% to 80%, preferably 10% to 60%, more preferably 12% to 45% by weight of the total composition. In a preferred embodiment, the composition of the present invention will further comprise a nonionic surfactant and more preferably at a weight ratio of total surfactant to nonionic surfactant of 2 to 10, preferably of 2 to 7.5, more preferably of 2 to 6. Nonionic surfactant is comprised in a typical amount of from 2% to 40%, preferably 3% to 30% by weight of the liquid detergent composition and preferably from 3 to 20% by weight of the total composition. Suitable nonionic surfactants include the condensation products of aliphatic alcohols with from 1 to 25 moles of ethylene oxide. The alkyl chain of the aliphatic alcohol can either be straight or branched, primary or secondary, and generally contains from 8 to 22 carbon atoms. Particularly preferred are the condensation products of alcohols having an alkyl group containing from 8 to 18 carbon atoms, preferably from 9 to 15 carbon atoms with from 2 to 18 moles, preferably 2 to 15, more preferably 5-12 of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol. Also suitable are alkylpolyglycosides having the formula R2O(CnH2nO)t(glycosyl)x (formula (III)), wherein R2 of formula (III) is selected from the group consisting of alkyl, alkyl-phenyl, hydroxyalkyl, hydroxyalkylphenyl, and mixtures thereof in which the alkyl groups contain from 10 to 18, preferably from 12 to 14, carbon atoms; n of formula (III) is 2 or 3, preferably 2; t of formula (III) is from 0 to 10, preferably 0; and x of formula (III) is from 1.3 to 10, preferably from 1.3 to 3, most preferably from 1.3 to 2.7. See pages 6 and 7. The amphoteric and zwitterionic surfactant can be comprised at a level of from 0.01% to 20%, preferably from 0.2% to 15%, more preferably 0.5% to 10% by weight of the liquid detergent composition. The compositions of the present invention will preferably further comprise an amine oxide and/or a betaine. Preferred amine oxides include linear C10, linear C10-C12, and linear C12-C14 alkyl dimethyl amine oxides. See page 8.
Suitable anionic surfactants to be used in the compositions and methods of the present invention are sulfates, sulfosuccinates, sulfoacetates, and/or sulfonates; preferably alkyl sulfate and/or alkyl ethoxy sulfates; more preferably a combination of alkyl sulfates and/or alkyl ethoxy sulfates with a combined ethoxylation degree less than 5, preferably less than 3, more preferably less than 2. Sulphate or sulphonate surfactant is typically present at a level of at least 5%, preferably from 5% to 40% and more preferably from 15% to 30% and even more preferably at 15% to 25% by weight of the liquid detergent composition. The average percentage branching of the sulphate or sulphonate surfactant is preferably greater than 30%, more preferably from 35% to 80% and most preferably from 40% to 60% of the total hydrocarbyl chains. See page 10, line 20 to page 11, line 10. The liquid detergent compositions of the invention may optionally comprise a hydrotrope in an effective amount so that the liquid detergent compositions are appropriately compatible in water. Suitable hydrotropes for use herein include anionic-type hydrotropes, particularly sodium, potassium, and ammonium xylene sulphonate, sodium, potassium and ammonium toluene sulphonate, sodium potassium and ammonium cumene sulphonate, and mixtures thereof. The liquid detergent compositions of the present invention typically comprise from 0% to 15% by weight of the liquid detergent composition of a hydrotropic, or mixtures thereof, preferably from 1% to 10%, most preferably from 3% to 6% by weight. See page 14, line 25 to page 15, line 5. Note that, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the composition as recited by independent, instant claim 1 by the method as recited by instant claim 20 because ‘916 teaches mixing the same components together as recited by instant claim 1 and further, any order of mixing ingredients is obvious. See Also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performed process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new of unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
‘916 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing an anionic surfactant, a first nonionic surfactant, a second nonionic surfactant, a cosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing an anionic surfactant, a first nonionic surfactant, a second nonionic surfactant, a cosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘916 suggest a composition containing an anionic surfactant, a first nonionic surfactant, a second nonionic surfactant, a cosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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
/G.R.D/January 10, 2026