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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 20193390, filed on 28 August, 2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been overcome by amendment and are withdrawn.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 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 5, 7-10, 14-16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennemann et al. (US 4,153,570).
Hennemann teaches a washing agent (i.e., detergent) composition (see col. 1, lines 60-65 and col. 3, lines 1-3), comprising:
a) 5-12% of a secondary alkane sulfonate surfactant having 14-18 carbon atoms (col. 3, lines 4-10); and
b1) 2-6% of alkyl ether sulfates (which are anionic surfactants) (col. 3, lines 10-13); and
b2) 15-28 % of ethoxylated alcohols (which are nonionic surfactants) (col. 4, lines 18-32).
Hennemann does not expressly teach that greater than 95% of the alkyl chains are C17 or C18. However, Hennemann teaches the small range of 14-18 carbon atoms. It would have been obvious to have chosen 17 or 18 carbon atoms because these values are within the small overlapping range taught by Hennemann.
Claim 7: The alkyl chain is linear (col. 3, line 7).
Claim 8: “The phrase “obtained from renewable sources” is a product by process limitation. The limitation does not require a particular structure. Please note that the patentability of a product does not depend upon the method of production. “If the product in a product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process” (see, e.g. MPEP § 2113).
Claim 9: The nonionic surfactant may be a saturated or mono-unsaturated aliphatic (such as those derived from cetyl or stearyl alcohol, col. 4, lines 27-31) alcohol ethoxylate (col. 4, lines 19-42).
Claim 10: Preferred alkyl ether sulfates have 12 to 14 carbon atoms (col. 3, line 61-col. 4, line 3).
Claim 14: The total amount of anionic surfactants (components a, b, c, and f) may be 13-34%, and the total amount of nonionic surfactants (components d, e, and g) may be 19-42% (col. 3, lines 4-42). The ratio of anionic to nonionic is therefore about 0.31-1.79.
Claim 15: The composition is used to treat textiles using water where the composition is at a concentration of 10 g/L (col. 6, lines 23-41).
Claim 16: The claim has been amended to become a product by process claim and is limited to the structure implied by the process. Alkyl chains are alkyl chains regardless of their source.
Claim 21: The detergent is a liquid (col. 3, lines 1-3).
Claim 22: The concentration of the washing agent can be 2-10 g/L (col. 7, lines 1-5). The total amount of surfactant may be 32-76% (col. 3, lines 4-42). Therefore, Hennemann suggests that the aqueous solution may contain 0.64-7.6 g/L of the surfactants.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennemann et al. (US 4,153,570), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Scheibel (US 2012/0214724 A1, hereafter “Scheibel”).
With regard to Claims 11 and 12, Hennemann does not teach that the composition comprises from 0.5 to 15 wt.% of cleaning boosters selected from antiredeposition polymers that are alkoxylated polyamines.
Scheibel discloses a cleaning composition for consumer products such as laundry (Abstract).
Scheibel teaches that the composition can comprise of polymer soil release agents from about 0.01% to about 10.0% and antiredeposition agents from about 0.01% to about 10.0% ([[0245], [0249]). Scheibel also teaches that water-soluble ethoxylated amines are useful for removing clay soil and have antiredeposition properties ([0254]).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have added 0.01% to about 10.0% of an antiredeposition polymer such as water-soluble ethoxylated amines to the composition of Hennemann, in order to have clay soil removal properties.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennemann et al. (US 4,153,570), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Batchelor (WO 2016/206837 A1, hereafter “Batchelor”).
With regard to Claims 13 and 20, Hennemann is silent to wherein the composition comprises one or more enzymes as listed and the enzyme is from 0.0001 wt. % to 0.1 wt. %.
Batchelor discloses a laundry detergent composition comprising of anionic charged surfactant, an alkoxylated polyarylphenol, a lipase enzyme, and a protease enzyme (Abstract).
Batchelor teaches that composition comprises lipase enzyme from 0.0005 to 0.5 wt% and 0.0005 of a lipase enzyme to 0.2 wt% of a protease enzyme (Page 2, Lines 15-17). Batchelor further teaches that lipases are used to remove fat based stains, protease enzymes are used to remove protein contains stains from fabrics, and compositions comprising protease and lipases are used in laundry detergent formulations (Page 1, Lines 12-20).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add from 0.0005 to 0.5 wt% of a lipase enzyme or from 0.0005 to 0.5 wt% of a protease enzyme to the detergent composition in order to remove fat based stains or remove protein contains stains from fabrics. Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention taught by modified Hennemann to include in the composition to include from 0.0005 to 0.5 wt% of a lipase enzyme or from 0.0005 to 0.5 wt% of a protease enzyme to the detergent composition in order to remove fat based stains or remove protein contains stains from fabrics.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennemann et al. (US 4,153,570), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Borrello (US 4,206,069).
With regard to Claim 16, Hennemann does not teach that the alkyl chains of the secondary alkane sulfonates are triglycerides. Hennemann further teaches difficulties caused by laundering in hard water (col. 1, lines 6-12). Borrello teaches a desire to overcome difficulties of using hard water in laundry detergents (col. 1, lines 23-30). Borrello teaches that use of surfactants (B) in order to overcome the problems (col. 2, lines 35-46). The surfactants specifically include C8-C20 triglyceride sulfonates (col. 19, lines 33-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have chosen triglyceride sulfonates as the particular secondary alkane sulfonates of Hennemann in order to have overcome difficulties in laundering in hard water.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennemann et al. (US 4,153,570), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Lang (US 2009/0048137 A1, hereafter “Lang”).
With regard to Claims 17-18, Hennemann teaches the use of C16-C18 primary linear alcohol ethoxylates (col. 4, lines 23-26), but do not specifically teach that there are 5-25 ethoxylates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have looked to related art to determine an operative number of ethoxylates to use.
Lang discloses a liquid washing and cleaning composition that comprises a surfactant, a secondary alkanesulfonate, betaine, a nonionic surfactant, and a dye fixative (Abstract). Lang teaches that nonionic surfactant is generally from 5 to 35% by weight ([0028]). Lang further teaches that in modern washing compositions (such as textiles), compositions comprise of several surfactants simultaneously including combinations of anionic surfactants and nonionic surfactants is useful ([0002]-[0004]). Lang discloses wherein the nonionic surfactant include ethoxylates of long-chain, aliphatic, synthetic or native alcohols having a C8 to C22 alkyl radical and may contain from approx. 1 to approx. 25 mol of ethylene oxide ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to have chosen 5-25 ethoxylates as an overlapping part of the Lang’s recognized range of operative amounts of ethoxylates for ethoxylated alcohols used for nonionic surfactants in detergents.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennemann et al. (US 4,153,570), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Himmrich (US 2016/0208202).
With regard to Claims 11 and 19, Hennemann does not teach that the composition comprises from 0.5 to 15 wt.% of polyester soil release polymers. Himmrich teaches laundry detergents [0003], including those containing secondary alkane sulfonates [0292]. Himmrich teaches that detergents may contain additives such as soil release polymers [0166], such as polyesters [0214] in an amount of 0.1-10% [0216].
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have added 0.1% to about 10.0% of a polyester soil release polymer as taught by Himmrich in order to increase the soil release properties of the detergent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Office acknowledges that the claims have been amended such that they no longer permit just one C17 or C18 to be present.
Applicant argues that Henneman does not teach that 95% of the secondary are C17 or C18. The argument is unconvincing because Henneman teaches a small range of C14-C18. It would have been obvious to have chosen all C17 or all C18, particularly given that there are only 5 values within the disclosed range.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached on 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights