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 .
The previous prior art rejection under Ebert et al (US 20160222160) in view of Boeckh et al (US 6156720) and Bodet et al (US 6710023) maintained and therefore it is proper to make this rejection FINAL.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebert et al (US
20160222160) in view of Boeckh et al (US 6156720).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodet et al (US
6710023).
The rejection can be found in the NON-FINAL office action mailed 9/15/2025 and is herein incorporated by reference
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ebert's alkylenoxy units are being predominantly ethylene oxide units , while Boeckh discloses a different pattern of EO and propoxylation ("PO") incorporation.
Examiner addressed this issue in previous Office Action. In particular, Examiner acknowledged that Ebert (US 20160222160) does not teach that R1 represents predominantly C3-C4 alkylene units and it was the sole reason for modification of the primary reference above with Boeckh et al (US 6156720).
Boeckh discloses that his composition has an excellent resistance to an oxidative bleaching agent due to
its higher hydrophobicity (see 1:30). In other word, the reference favors the replacement of polyethylene oxide units with more hydrophobic polypropylene oxide ones.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skills in the art to use more hydrophobic
dispersant with higher ratio of propylene oxide units in laundry process in order to increase its
resistance to oxidative bleaching. (see Non-Final Office Action issued on 9/15/2025).
Applicant argues that Bodet et al (US 6710023) disclosure is not specific enough.
Examiner disagrees. The reference discloses all the elements of the claimed structure.
A genus does not always anticipate a claim to a species within the genus. However, when the species is
clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally
named. Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) See also MPEP 2131.02
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skills in the art to use cycloalkylenes in
Bodet's formula, since they clearly named in the reference (see Non-Final Office Action issued on 9/15/2025).
.
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 LISTVOYB whose telephone number is (571)272-6105. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at (571) 270-1831. 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.
GL
/GREGORY LISTVOYB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights