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 January 14th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specifications have overcome all objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action entered October 14th, 2025.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-14, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), Yu (CN 108576035 A), and Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), Yu (CN 108576035 A), Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding), and Price (US 20140080748 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), Yu (CN 108576035 A), Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding), and Coope-Epstein (WO 2017030996 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 15 and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), Yu (CN 108576035 A), Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding), and Miracle (US 20150203798 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), Yu (CN 108576035 A), Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding), and Park (Tunable Oleo-Furan Surfactants by Acylation of Renewable Films) is maintained.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-7, 9-10, 12-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), and further in view of Yu (CN 108576035 A) and Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding).
With regard to claims 1-2, 4-5, 6-7, 12, and 17-18, Lant discloses a detergent composition (see Abstract), which may be a liquid (see [0007]), including a laundry detergent composition (see [0017]). Lant further discloses 0.05-30wt% of nonionic surfactants including the condensation product of aliphatic alcohols and ethylene oxide with 8-22 carbons and an EO of 1-25 (see [0053]). The condensation product is alcohol ethoxylate. Lant further teaches 0.01-20wt% of a surfactant system (see [0069]) and lauryl hydroxysultaine as suitable (see [0068]). Lauryl hydroxysultaine is falls within the instantly claimed Formula. Lant discloses the broad formula (see [0067]). Lant further discloses anionic surfactants comprising 8-22 carbons in their molecular structure and at least one water-solubilizing group, which may be a sulfonate (see [0037]).
However, Lant fails to disclose lauryl hydroxysultaine comprising a sodium ion.
Yu discloses a preparation for removing mildew, an analogous art (see Abstract). Yu further discloses sodium dodecyl sulphonate betaine as having a certain bactericidal ability (see [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the sodium dodecyl sulphonate betaine of Yu in the composition of Lant as lauryl hydroxysultaine is the same formula as sodium dodecyl sulphonate betaine without sodium and further due to the bactericidal abilities of sodium dodecyl sulphonate betaine, as disclosed by Yu.
Lant also fails to disclose a specific anionic surfactant as a secondary alkane sulfonate surfactant.
Jonas teaches a neutral detergent composition, an analogous art (see Example 1). Jonas further teaches Hostapur SAS 60 at 6wt%, which is a secondary sodium alkanesulfonate (see Example 1). Hostapur SAS 60 is the same as WeylClean SAS 60 disclosed in the instant specifications (see WeylChem).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the Hostapur SAS 60 of Jonas in the detergent composition of Lant as Lant discloses anionic surfactants (see [0090]) and Hostapur SAS 60 is an anionic surfactant.
With respect to the ratio of anionic to nonionic surfactants of 30:1 to 1:2 considering that Lant teaches the condensation product of aliphatic alcohols and ethylene oxide with 8-22 carbons and an EO of 1-25 (alcohol ethoxylate) in the range of 0.05-30wt% as disclosed in [0053] and Jonas teaches Hostapur SAS 60 in the range of 6wt% as disclosed in [Example 1], 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. 6wt% Hostapur SAS 60: 6wt% of alcohol ethoxylate 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 respect to the ratio of anionic and nonionic surfactants to alkyl hydroxysultaine of 2:1 to 100:1 considering that Lant teaches the condensation product of aliphatic alcohols and ethylene oxide with 8-22 carbons and an EO of 1-25 (alcohol ethoxylate) in the range of 0.05-30wt% as disclosed in [0053] and 0.01-20wt% of lauryl hydroxysultaine, as disclosed in [0068]-[0069], and Jonas teaches Hostapur SAS 60 in the range of 6wt% as disclosed in [Example 1], 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. 6wt% Hostapur SAS 60 and 6wt% of alcohol ethoxylate: 0.6wt% of lauryl hydroxysultaine or 20:1) 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, a secondary alkane sulfonate, as disclosed by Jonas above, may be prepared from natural or chemical sources. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2113.II: “Once the examiner provides a rationale showing that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With regard to claim 9, Lant teaches 5wt%-70wt% of adjunct ingredients, including antiredeposition polymers and soil release polymers (see [0091]), specifically clay soil removal and antiredeposition agents (see [0092]).
With regard to claim 10, Lant teaches polyethyleneimine glycol as a suitable antiredeposition polymer (see [0100]).
With regard to claim 13 and claim 19, Lant teaches the composition may comprise 0.002wt% of cellulase (see Example 5).
With regard to claim 14, Lant, Yu, and Jonas disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
With respect to the ratio of anionic surfactant to alkyl hydroxysultaine of 10:1 to 1.5:1 considering that Lant teaches 0.01-20wt% of lauryl hydroxysultaine, as disclosed in [0068]-[0069], and Jonas teaches Hostapur SAS 60 in the range of 6wt% as disclosed in [Example 1], 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. 6wt% Hostapur SAS 60: 0.6wt% of lauryl hydroxysultaine or 10:1) 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), Yu (CN 201810427815 A), and Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Price (US 20140080748 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Lant, Yu, and Jonas disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Lant, Yu, and Jones fail to disclose one or more additional anionic cosurfactants.
Price teaches a detergent composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Price further teaches cosurfactants at 0-10wt% as useful in obtaining broad scale cleaning performance over a variety of soils and stains (see [0037]). Price further discloses alpha olefin sulfonates as suitable anionic cosurfactants (see [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the alpha olefin sulfonate cosurfactants, as taught by Price, in the detergent composition, as taught by Lant, Yu, and Jonas, for the purpose of obtaining broad scale cleaning performance over a variety of soils and stains, as disclosed by Price.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), Yu (CN 201810427815 A), and Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding), as applied to claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Coope-Epstein (WO 2017030996 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Lant teaches the Repel-O-Tex series as suitable soil release polymers (see [0099]). Repel-O-Tex polymers include Repel-O-Tex SRP, a polyethylene glycol polyester, as evidenced by Coope-Epstein.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Repel-O-Tex SRP, as disclosed by Coope-Epstein, in the detergent composition disclosed by Lant and Jonas, as Repel-O-Tex SRP is a Repel-O-Tex polymer.
Claim 15 and claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), Yu (CN 201810427815 A), and Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Miracle (US 20150203798 A1).
With regard to claim 15 and claim 20, Lant, Yu, and Jonas disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Lant, Yu, and Jones fail to disclose a method of treating a textile with an aqueous solution of 0.5g/L to 20g/L of the detergent composition and optionally drying the textile.
Miracle discloses a detergent composition and method for treating textiles, an analogous art (see Abstract). Miracle further discloses the detergent composition comprises an anionic surfactant, preferably in combination with an anionic surfactant with a ratio of anionic to nonionic of 90:1 to 2:3 (see [0127]). Miracle further discloses an aqueous washing/ treatment solution (see [0250]), which is contacted, typically under agitation with the fabric to be treated (see [0250]), and further the wash liquor comprising 1g/l to 4.5g/l of the detergent composition (see [0251]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the detergent composition as disclosed by Lant, Yu, and Jones in the method of treating a textile as disclosed by Miracle as the method disclosed by Miracle may be utilized with a cleaning composition analogous to that taught by Lant, Yu, and Jones, specifically in regard to the anionic and nonionic surfactants and the ratio of anionic to nonionic surfactant.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant (US 20170321160 A1), Yu (CN 201810427815 A), and Jonas (US 20050096249 A1), as evidenced by WeylChem (Customer Information note: Product Rebranding), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Park (Tunable Oleo-Furan Surfactants by Acylation of Renewable Films).
With regard to claim 16, Lant, Yu, and Jonas disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Lant, Yu, and Jones fail to disclose secondary alkane sulfonates derived from triglycerides.
Park discloses alkylfuran surfactants as useful in suppressing the effects of hard water (see Abstract). Park further discloses triglyceride based fatty acid chains connected via a furan to a hydrophobic head, specifically sulfonate (sea Abstract and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize triglyceride modified secondary alkane sulfonates, as disclosed by Park, in the detergent composition disclosed by Lant, Yu, and Jones for the purpose of suppressing the effects of hard water, as disclosed by Park.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yu fails to disclose sodium dodecyl sulphonate betaine as a mildew-proof agent and oxidant compound having a sterilizing performance, which helps improve mildew and mold removing properties. As stated above, Yu discloses a preparation for removing mildew, an analogous art (see Abstract). Yu further discloses sodium dodecyl sulphonate betaine as having a certain bactericidal ability (see [0040]). Yu further discloses “the surfactant dodecyl sulfopropyl betaine itself also has a certain bactericidal ability, and when combined with the mold inhibitor and the oxidant, it helps to improve the mold removal and mold prevention effects of the mold remover” (see [0040]).
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