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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on August 27th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending in the application. Claims 2 and 16-18 have been canceled.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and claim 12 under U.S.C 103 as obvious over Malten (US 20160076012 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 4-5 and claims 7-8 under U.S.C 103 as obvious over Malten (US 20160076012 A1) and Chen (WO 2019112869 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 6 and claim 9 under U.S.C 103 as obvious over Malten (US 20160076012 A1) and Beier (US 20190127665 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 10 and claim 11 under U.S.C 103 as obvious over Malten (US 20160076012 A1) and Morgan (WO 2017003844 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 13-18 under U.S.C 103 as obvious over Malten (US 20160076012 A1) and Lopesio (WO 2012112337 A1) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malten (US 20160076012 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Malten teaches a cleaning composition, which may be in the form of cosmetic applications such as denture cleaning (see [0402]). Malten further teaches the composition may comprise 0-20wt% of soap and discloses oleic acid as a suitable soap (see [0225-226]). Oleic acid corresponds to Component A. Malten further discloses alpha-olefinsulfonate, corresponding to Component B as an anionic surfactant (see [0212]) and a from 0.1-60wt% of a surfactant (see [0205]). Malten further discloses the composition having a pH of 4-11.5 (see [0400]) over a cleaning activity range of 10oC to 90oC (see [0401]).
With respect to the ratio of Component B to Component A of 0.05 to 5, considering that Malten teaches oleic acid in the range of 0-20wt% as disclosed in [0025] and alpha-olefinsulfonate in the range of 0.1-60wt% as disclosed in [0205], 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 (e.g. 1wt% oleic acid: 1 wt% alpha-olefinsulfonate or 1:1) 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).
With regard to claim 3, Malten teaches oleic acid (see [0025]), disclosed in the specifications as a suitable derivative of coconut oil.
With regard to claim 12, Malten discloses the composition may be in the form of a liquid, gel, paste, soap bar, regular or compacted powder, granulated solid, or a homogenous or a multilayer tablet with two or more layers (see [0402]).
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malten (US 20160076012 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (WO 2019112869 A1).
With regard to claims 4-5 and claim 7-8, Malten teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Malten fails to disclose an anionic homopolymer or copolymer.
Chen discloses a cleaning composition selected from a group consisting of a denture care product, an analogous art (see Claim 13). Chen further discloses anionic copolymers (see Page 4 line 18-20) having an average molecular weight of 10,000 to 100,000 (see Page 5 line 10-12). Further, Chen teaches the composition may comprise 0.01-5 mass% of an anionic copolymer (see Page 6 line 10-11).
Malten and Chen disclose a cleansing composition. 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 of ordinary kill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because Malten and Chen disclose a cleaning composition. As stated above, Malten and Chen disclose a cleansing composition. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the anionic copolymers, as disclosed by Chen, in the cleansing composition, as disclosed by Malten, to produce a cleansing composition.
With respect to the ratio of Component C to component A of 0.05 to 8 considering that Malten teaches Component A, fatty acid, specifically oleic acid, in the range of 0-20wt%% as disclosed in [0025] and Chen teaches an anionic copolymer in the range of 0.01-5 mass% as disclosed in Page 6 lines 10-11, 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 (e.g. 2.5 wt% anionic copolymer: 2.5 wt% oleic acid or 1:1) 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).
Claim 6 and claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malten (US 20160076012 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beier (US 20190127665 A1).
With regard to claim 6, Malten discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Malten further discloses 49wt% of water (see [0468], Table 1A and Table 1B).
However, Malten fails to disclose water at 50-99mass%.
Beier discloses a detergent composition, which may include denture cleaners (see [0051]). Beier further discloses from 20-70wt% water (see [0448]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the concentration of water from 49wt% as disclosed by Malten to greater than 50% by mass, as disclosed in Beier. Both Malten and Beier disclose enzyme containing detergents. Beier discloses a higher concentration of water in liquid detergents containing enzymes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the concentration of water in Malten to create an aqueous laundry detergent.
With respect to the ratio of Component D to component A from 50 to 99, considering that Malten teaches Component A, fatty acid, specifically oleic acid, in the range of 0-20wt%% as disclosed in [0025] and Beier teaches water in the range of 20-70wt% as disclosed in [0448], 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 (e.g. 50wt% of water: 1 wt% of oleic acid or 50:1) 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).
Claim 10 and claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malten (US 20160076012 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morgan (WO 2017003844 A1).
With regard to claim 10 and claim 11, Malten discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Malten fails to disclose a pH adjustor in an amount from 0.1-60 mass% and a ratio of pH adjustor to fatty acid of 0.1-60.
Morgan discloses an oral care composition (see Abstract) which may be a denture cleaner (see Claim 14), an analogous art. Morgan further discloses pH adjustors in the range of about 5% to about 35% (see [00047]). Morgan further discloses these ranges are typical for such compositions (see [00047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the pH adjustors of Morgan in the cleaning composition of Malten, as pH adjustors at the disclosed ranges are known in the art, as disclosed by Morgan.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malten (US 20160076012 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lopesio (WO 2012112337 A1).
With regard to claims 13-15, Malten discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Malten fails to disclose a method of cleaning for an oral appliance.
Lopesio discloses a composition for daily cleansing, specifically an antimicrobial cleansing composition for conveniently cleaning dental appliances, an analogous art (see Abstract). Lopesio further discloses for weekly cleaning, the dental appliance may be soaked in the composition for 10 minutes to 12 hours, preferably 15 to 30 minutes (see page 24 line 4-7). Lopesio further teaches the dental appliance should be rinsed with cold water (see page 24 line 4-7).
Malten discloses a cleaning composition which may be utilized for denture cleaning. Malten further discloses the composition may comprise hydrogen peroxide (see [0202]) and water (see [0468]). Lopesio a composition for conveniently cleaning dental appliances (see Abstract). Lopesio further discloses a composition comprising hydrogen peroxide (see page 12 line 14) and water (see claim 13 and claim 14). Lopesio further teaches a method for cleaning a dental appliance utilizing a dental appliance cleaner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the method disclosed by Lopesio with the cleaning composition, as disclosed by Malten, as the method is for cleaning a dental appliance utilizes a dental appliance cleaning composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant argues that the disclosed composition produces unexpected results. As stated above, Malten teaches the composition may comprise 0-20wt% of soap and discloses oleic acid as a suitable soap. Further, Applicant’s claims are not commensurate in scope with the presented evidence of unexpected results. The instant claims disclose an anionic surfactant, specifically an N-acyl amino acid, N-acyl taurine, and an α-olefinsulfonic acid, and salts thereof. The presented evidence discloses specifically sodium N-myristoyl-L-glutamate as an anionic surfactant. The instant claims disclose an anionic homopolymer or copolymer, while the evidence discloses an acylic acid/maleic acid copolymer. Further, the disclosed evidence comprises several other ingredients such as sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate. These are disclosed in the instant specification as pH adjustors. The instant claims disclose only the broad category of pH adjustors. Therefore, the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The instant claims would need to read on the specific evidence to support an argument of unexpected results.
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