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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 23rd, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on January 8th, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 and claims 17-27 and 29-36 are pending in the application. Claims 2-16 and 28 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1, 17-21, 24, and 27-29 under U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koltzenburg (DE 10115250 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claims 22-23 and claim 30-35 under U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koltzenburg (DE 10115250 A1) and Crossman (WO 2012104156 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 25 under U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koltzenburg (DE 10115250 A1) and Loffler (US 20010005737 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 26 under U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
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, 17-21, 24, 27-29, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koltzenburg (DE 10115250 A1).
With regard to claim 1 and claim 36, Koltzenburg discloses dirt removing polymers (see Abstract). Koltzenburg further discloses a polymer comprising 26.68kg of polyethylene glycol, 10.31kg of terephthalic acid (formula I), 2.85kg of glycerol, 2.27kg of ethylene glycol, 43.42kg of ethoxylated C16-C18 fatty alcohol with 25 ethylene oxide units, and 80g of monobutylin hydroxide (see Example). The ethoxylated C16-C18 fatty alcohol with 25 ethylene oxide units comprises 50.7mol% of the example. Koltzenburg further discloses C8-C24 alcohols as suitable for alkoxylation and 5-80 alkylene oxide units (see [0016]). Therefore any alcohol within this range may be used in the example above. C16-C18 fatty alcohol is merely demonstrative. Further, any number of alkylene oxide units in the range of 5-80 may be used. The 25 ethylene oxide units in the example is likewise merely demonstrative.
While the example of Koltzenburg discloses ethylene glycol and not propylene glycol, Koltzenburg discloses polyesters which may comprise 0.25-1.3mol with at least one dihydric alcohol molecular weight of less than 150, preferably ethylene glycol and/or propylene glycol (see [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute propylene glycol with ethylene glycol as Koltzenburg states that either is suitable (see MPEP 2144.06(II)).
With regard to claim 17, Koltzenburg discloses C8-C24 alcohols as suitable for alkoxylation (see [0016]), which corresponds to R1 of formula III-a.
With regard to claims 18-19, Koltzenburg discloses suitable alcohols which may be alkoxylated as lauryl and mystryl (see [0017]).
With regard to claim 20, Koltzenburg discloses ethylene oxide (see [0016]).
With regard to claim 21, Koltzenburg discloses 5-80 alkylene oxide units (see [0016]).
With regard to claim 24, Koltzenburg discloses dirt removing polymers (see Abstract). Koltzenburg further discloses a polymer comprising 26.68kg of polyethylene glycol, 10.31kg of terephthalic acid (formula I), 2.85kg of glycerol, 2.27kg of ethylene glycol (disclosed in the instant specifications as suitable for formula II), 43.42kg of ethoxylated C16-C18 fatty alcohol with 25 ethylene oxide units, and 80g of monobutylin hydroxide (see Example). Terephthalic acid comprises 50.7mol% of the example. Koltzenburg further discloses C8-C24 alcohols as suitable for alkoxylation (see [0016]).
Based on the mol% values disclosed and molecular weights of the disclosed structures, the disclosed oligoester would have a weight average molecular weight of from 5000 to 20000g/mol. As described above, Koltzenburg teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 24 is dependent. It stands to reason that the disclosed oligoester would meet the requirements of a weight average molecular weight of 5000 to 20000g/mol.
Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 27, Koltzenburg discloses the polymer a prepared by adding all disclosed components, including a catalyst, at a temperature of at least 120oC, preferably 150-300oC at normal pressure, under inert gas. Koltzenburg further discloses the reaction is carried out under reduced pressure (see [0019]).
With regard to claim 28, Koltzenburg discloses the invention as a soil release polymer (see Abstract).
With regard to claim 29, Koltzenburg discloses a liquid detergent composition comprising 0.75wt% of soil release polymer (see [0038]). Koltzenburg further discloses washing or cleaning agents which may contain at least 0.1wt% of a polyester (see [0024]). Koltzenburg further discloses the above-mentioned washing or cleaning agents may further contain surfactants (see [0024]).
Claims 22-23 and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koltzenburg (DE 10115250 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Crossman (WO 2012104156 A1).
With regard to claim 22 and claim 23, Koltzenburg teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Koltzenburg fails to disclose the number of structural units of formula 1 as 5-20 based on the molar average.
Crossman discloses a soil release polymer, an analogous art, comprising the following formula (see page 6 line 8-11):
PNG
media_image1.png
20
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein A represents an ester, R1 represents 1,4-phenylene moieties, p is 2-50, q is 6-120, and n is 2-16 (see page 6 line 6-30). Further, R2 is derived from condensation of 1,2-propane diol (see page 9 line 7-10). Crossman further discloses the value of n, representing the number of structural units of formula I, as preferably 4-9 as this results in greater solubility (see page 9 line 15-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the number of structural units of formula I as 4-9, as disclosed by Crossman, in the polymer of Koltzenburg, for the purpose of increasing solubility, as disclosed by Crossman.
With regard to claim 30 and claim 34, Koltzenburg discloses dirt removing polymers (see Abstract). Koltzenburg further discloses a polymer comprising 26.68kg of polyethylene glycol, 10.31kg of terephthalic acid (formula I), 2.85kg of glycerol, 2.27kg of ethylene glycol,43.42kg of ethoxylated C16-C18 fatty alcohol with 25 ethylene oxide units, and 80g of monobutylin hydroxide (see Example). The ethoxylated C16-C18 fatty alcohol with 25 ethylene oxide units comprises 50.7mol% of the example. Koltzenburg further discloses C8-C24 alcohols as suitable for alkoxylation (see [0016]) and therefore any alcohol within this range may be used in the example above. C16-C18 fatty alcohol is merely demonstrative.
While the example of Koltzenburg discloses ethylene glycol and not propylene glycol, Koltzenburg discloses polyesters which may comprise 0.25-1.3mol with at least one dihydric alcohol molecular weight of less than 150, preferably ethylene glycol and/or propylene glycol (see [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute propylene glycol with ethylene glycol as Koltzenburg states that either is suitable.
However, Koltzenburg fails to disclose the number of structural units of formula 1 as 5-20 based on the molar average.
Crossman discloses a soil release polymer, an analogous art, comprising the following formula (see page 6 line 8-11):
PNG
media_image1.png
20
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein A represents an ester, R1 represents 1,4-phenylene moieties, p is 2-50, q is 6-120, and n is 2-16 (see page 6 line 6-30). Further, R2 is derived from condensation of 1,2-propane diol (see page 9 line 7-10). Crossman further discloses the value of n, representing the number of structural units of formula I, as preferably 4-9 as this results in greater solubility (see page 9 line 15-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the number of structural units of formula I as 4-9, as disclosed by Crossman, in the polymer of Koltzenburg, for the purpose of increasing solubility, as disclosed by Crossman.
With regard to claim 31, Koltzenburg discloses suitable alcohols which may be alkoxylated as lauryl (see [0017]).
With regard to claim 32, Koltzenburg discloses 5-80 alkylene oxide units (see [0016]).
With regard to claim 33, Koltzenburg discloses ethylene oxide (see [0016]).
Claim 25 and claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koltzenburg (DE 10115250 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Loffler (US 20010005737 A1).
With regard to claim 25, Koltzenburg discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Koltzenburg fails to disclose one or more polyalkenylenegylcol-derived structural units of formula IV-a.
Loffler discloses an oligoester used as a soil release polymer comprising dicarboxylic acid (see [0006]), corresponding to formula I, ethylene glycol or propylene glycol (see [0007]), corresponding to formula II, and an addition product of alkylene oxide with 1 mol of C1-C24 alcohols, corresponding to formula III-a (see [0009]), an analogous art. Loffler further discloses 0-20 mol% of polyethylene glycol (see [0008]), corresponding to formula IV-a.
Both Koltzenburg and Loffler disclose polyesters for use as soil release polymers. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "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....the 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). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed invention obvious as both Koltzenburg and Loffler disclose a polyester soil release polymer. As stated above, both Koltzenburg and Loffler disclose a polyester soil release polymer. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the polyethylene glycol of Loffler with the terephthalic acid, ethylene glycol, ethoxylated C16-C18 fatty alcohol with 25 ethylene oxide units of Koltzenburg to produce a polyester soil release polymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, filed January 8th, 2025, with respect to claim 26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed January 8th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Koltzenburg fails to render claim 1 obvious merely because individual parameters are disclosed. As stated previously, the whole reference must be considered. Koltzenburg discloses both ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are preferred. It would stand to reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would find a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing one or the other based on the teachings of Koltzenburg. Applicant further argues that Koltzenburg fails to disclose shorter-chain C10-C15 fatty alcohols. Koltzenburg discloses the broad range of C8-C24 fatty alcohols (see [0016]). This overlaps with the claimed range. While the claimed range is not specifically taught by Koltzenburg, routine experimentation would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the range of C10-C15 fatty alcohols. As stated above, Koltzenburg further discloses C8-C24 alcohols as suitable for alkoxylation and 5-80 alkylene oxide units (see [0016]). Therefore, any alcohol within this range may be used in the disclosed example. C16-C18 fatty alcohol is merely demonstrative. Further, any number of alkylene oxide units in the range of 5-80 may be used. The 25 ethylene oxide units in the example is likewise merely demonstrative.
Applicant further argues that Koltzenburg fails to disclose 60-150 EO units. Koltzenburg discloses 5-80 alkylene oxide units. The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (Koltzenburg) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Applicant further argues unexpected results from the combination of fatty alcohol chain length, degree of ethoxylation, and terminal group content. As stated above, Koltzenburg further discloses C8-C24 alcohols as suitable for alkoxylation and 5-80 alkylene oxide units (see [0016]). Therefore, any alcohol within this range may be used in the disclosed example. C16-C18 fatty alcohol is merely demonstrative. Further, any number of alkylene oxide units in the range of 5-80 may be used. The 25 ethylene oxide units in the example is likewise merely demonstrative. Further, the ethoxylated C16-C18 fatty alcohol with 25 ethylene oxide units comprises 50.7mol% of the example. This corresponds to the limitation of claim 1 regarding the terminal group content. Polymers of example 1 were shown to have good washing effect (see ____). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the 50.7mol% of terminal groups as disclosed in example 1.
Applicant further argues that Koltzenburg provides no motivation to combine the individual disclosed parameters. Koltzenburg discloses that the polymers taught in the prior art are highly suitable as emulsifiers. Koltzenburg further discloses ethylene glycol and propylene glycol as preferred embodiments. Routine experimentation relying on the teachings of Koltzenburg would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention.
Applicant further argues that Koltzenburg fails to provide a reasonable expectation of success. Koltzenburg teaches the disclosed polymers are known in the art as soil release polymers. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the disclosed polymers would be suitable as soil release polymers. There would be a reasonable expectation of success. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., viscosity enhancement and soil release performance) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues unexpected results with regard to detergent viscosity and soil-release performance. First, Applicant argues that increasing ethoxylation alone does not achieve the claimed performance profile. Applicant discloses a gradual increase in viscosity and soil-release performance. However, Applicant argues this does not demonstrate the superior balance of properties demonstrated by the claimed polymers, particularly with regard to soil-release properties. To demonstrate this, Applicant show no soil release greater than 15 (see page 10). Applicant argues that varying single parameters is not sufficient to achieve the disclosed results. Second, Applicant argues that high endcap incorporation is necessary, but not sufficient. Third, Applicant argues that fatty alcohol chain length produces a dominant and unexpected effect. Lastly, Applicant argues that the unexpected results arise from the coordinated selection of all three claimed parameters.
Kotlzenburg discloses dirt removing polymers (see Abstract). Koltzenburg further discloses a polymer comprising 26.68kg of polyethylene glycol, 10.31kg of terephthalic acid (formula I), 2.85kg of glycerol, 2.27kg of ethylene glycol, 43.42kg of ethoxylated C16-C18 fatty alcohol with 25 ethylene oxide units, and 80g of monobutylin hydroxide (see Example). The ethoxylated C16-C18 fatty alcohol with 25 ethylene oxide units comprises 50.7mol% of the example. Koltzenburg further discloses C8-C24 alcohols as suitable for alkoxylation and 5-80 alkylene oxide units (see [0016]). Therefore, any alcohol within this range may be used in the example above. C16-C18 fatty alcohol is merely demonstrative. Further, any number of alkylene oxide units in the range of 5-80 may be used. The 25 ethylene oxide units in the example is likewise merely demonstrative. Further, the examples given in the instant specifications are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Inventive polymer examples 11-13 are within the disclosed parameters. However, Lauryl-80EO discloses C12/C14 alcohol ethoxylate, not C10-C15. Further, Lauryl-80EO discloses 80EO specifically, not an entire range over EO 60-150. Further, example 14 discloses C11-C14 and EO 100. While this is also within the range, the EO range would then be 80-100, not 60-150. Other disclosed endcaps fall outside of the claimed range. For example, Tallow alcohol C16/C18 is outside of C10-C15.
While the example of Koltzenburg discloses ethylene glycol and not propylene glycol, Koltzenburg discloses polyesters which may comprise 0.25-1.3mol with at least one dihydric alcohol molecular weight of less than 150, preferably ethylene glycol and/or propylene glycol (see [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute propylene glycol with ethylene glycol as Koltzenburg states that either is suitable (see MPEP 2144.06(II)).
Koltzenburg further teaches the disclosed polymers are suitable for improving the anti-static and slip properties of textiles. While this is not the same motivation as the Applicant, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed unexpected results from routine experimentation with the parameters disclosed by Koltzenburg. Further, Koltzenburg teaches the disclosed polymers provide favorable dirt-removing properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, that routine experimentation via the parameters of Koltzenburg would result in the claimed polymers.
Applicant further argues that Crossman fails to disclose the deficiencies of Koltzenburg. Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Koltzenburg and Crossman. Applicant further argues that Crossman discloses linear, block-structured polymers. Applicant further argues that Koltzenburg discloses branched soil-release polymers.
With regard to motivation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the number of structural units of formula I as 4-9, as disclosed by Crossman, in the polymer of Koltzenburg, for the purpose of increasing solubility, as disclosed by Crossman.
Both Crossman and Koltzenburg disclose soil-release polymers. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when combining the teachings of Crossman and Koltzenburg. The prior art need not have the same motivation as the instant claims or instant specification. As both Crossman and Koltzenburg disclose soil-release polymers, it stands to reason that the solubility enhancing number of structural units of Crossman would not affect the soil-release properties of Koltzenburg.
Applicant further argues that Crossman is directed toward linear, block-structured polymers that are characterized as oligomers or low-molecular weight polymers. Applicant further argues that Koltzenburg is directed toward branched soil-release polyesters. However, Koltzenburg discloses suitable alcohols that are alkoxylated are preferably linear (see [0017]). Further, the polyalkylene glycols used preferably have an average molecular weight of 150 to 12,000 (see Claim 12). Crossman further discloses the capping moiety may be branched (see Abstract). As such, Crossman discloses polymers which contain branching moieties and thus are not purely linear. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Koltzenburg and Crossman.
Further, as stated above, viscosity is not a claimed property. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is not necessary that Koltzenburg or Crossman directly address viscosity enhancement.
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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761