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, 5-9, and 12-20 are pending. Claims 2, 4, 10, and 11 have been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed April 14, 2026, have been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 1/14/26 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20 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or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, has been withdrawn.
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, 5-9, and 12-20 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.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant clams under 35 USC 103 using WO2010/147916, Applicant states that ‘916 does not disclose using the nonionic surfactant as the primary surfactant and in contrast, the present claims have the nonionic surfactant present at the highest level of surfactant. Also, Applicant states that ‘916 teaches using anionic surfactants as the dominant surfactant and does not disclose the highest level of surfactant being nonionic.
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of ‘916 suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
For example, ‘916 clearly teaches that 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 (See page 6 of ‘916) and that anionic surfactants are present in amounts 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 (See page 10 of ‘916) which would clearly suggest compositions containing, for example, 20% by weight of nonionic and 10% of anionic resulting in a weight ratio of nonionic surfactant to anionic surfactant of 2:1 which would fall within the scope of the instant claims. Note that, with respect to mixtures of nonionic surfactants such as ethoxylated alcohols and alkyl polyglycoside surfactants as recited by the instant claims, ‘916 clearly teaches that mixtures of surfactants may be used which would suggest mixtures of various surfactants including mixtures of various nonionic surfactants (See page 6 of ‘916). Additionally, ‘916 clearly recognizes the equivalence of ethoxylated alcohols and alkyl polyglycoside surfactants as nonionic surfactants, and 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…[T]he 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). See MPEP 2144.06. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘916 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
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.
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/May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights