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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 18th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on November 18th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 3-15 and 17-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-2 and claim 16 have been canceled.
The rejection of claims 3-8, 10-14, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Holzhauer (EP 2346976 B1), as evidenced by Shiba (US 3963499 A), is maintained.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Holzhauer (EP 2346976 B1), as evidenced by Shiba (US 3963499 A), and Miracle (US 20150203798 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Holzhauer (EP 2346976 B1), as evidenced by Shiba (US 3963499 A), and Park (Tunable Oleo-Furan Surfactants by Acylation of Renewable Films).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites "at least 80wt%". When combined with "less than 30wt% also recited in claim 3, this may result in greater than 100wt%.
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 3-8, 10-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzhauer (EP 2346976 B1), as evidenced by Shiba (US 3963499 A)
With regard to claim 3, Holzhauer discloses a composition comprising 15.5wt% of Hostapur SAS 60 and 31wt% of LAE 24-7 Alcohol Ethoxylate (Genapol LA 070 S), a nonionic surfactant (see Table 4). Holzhauer further discloses 0.4wt% of a perfume (see Table 4).
Shiba discloses Hostapur SAS comprises less than 5% C13 or less, 16% C14, 30% C15, 30% C16, 15% C17, and 4% C18 (see Col 5 line 51-60). This equates to a total of 79% of C15-C18 and 21% of C14 and lower.
While Shiba teaches 79% of C15-C18, A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
With regard to claim 4, Holzhauer and Shiba disclose all of the limitations of claim 3.
Holzhauer further discloses 15.5wt% of Hostapur SAS 60 (see Table 4). Shiba further discloses a surface active agent comprising an alkane sulfonate (Col 5 line 51-60). Shiba further discloses Hostapur SAS comprising less than 5w% C13 or less, 16% C14, 30% C15, 30% C16, 15% C17, and 4% C18 (Col 5 line 51-60). This corresponds to a C15-C18 percentage of 79% and a C14 percentage of 21%. This further corresponds to a weight ratio of C15:C17 of 2:1 (30:15).
With regard to claim 5, Holzhauer and Shiba disclose all of the limitations of claim 3.
The instant claims disclose “if wt% of C15 + C17 alkyl chains is >50wt% then the total wt% of C16 + C18 alkyl chains is less than 40 wt%”.
Shiba further discloses a surface active agent comprising an alkane sulfonate (Col 5 line 51-60). Shiba further discloses Hostapur SAS comprising less than 5w% C13 or less, 16% C14, 30% C15, 30% C16, 15% C17, and 4% C18 (Col 5 line 51-60). This corresponds to C15 + C17 as 45wt%. As this is less than 50wt%, the total weight percent of C16 and C18 need not be less than 40wt%. However, as stated above, the total of C16 + 18 is 34wt%.
With regard to claim 6, secondary alkane sulfonates, as disclosed by Shiba 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 7, Holzhauer and Shiba disclose all of the limitations of claim 3.
Shiba further discloses a surface active agent comprising an alkane sulfonate (Col 5 line 51-60). Shiba further discloses Hostapur SAS comprising less than 5w% C13 or less, 16% C14, 30% C15, 30% C16, 15% C17, and 4% C18 (Col 5 line 51-60). This corresponds to a C15-C17 weight percentage of 75wt%.
With regard to claim 8, Holzhauer discloses 31wt% of LAE 24-7 Alcohol Ethoxylate (Genapol LA 070 S) (see Table 4).
With regard to claim 10 and claim 11, Holzhauer discloses 0.5-1wt% of an antiredeposition polymer (see Table 1).
With regard to claim 12, Holzhauer discloses a cleaning composition and method for pretreating and cleaning laundry (see [0009]). It stands to reason that the composition disclosed by Holzhauer is a laundry detergent composition.
With regard to claim 13, Holzhauer discloses 3wt% of protease enzyme (see Table 4).
With regard to claim 14, Holzhauer discloses31wt% of Genapol LA 070S and 1.6wt% of Genapol LA 030, nonionic surfactants, and 17.5wt% AlphaStep MC-48 and 15.5wt% of Hostapur SAS 60 LS, anionic surfactants (see Table 4). This corresponds to a total of 32.6wt% of nonionic surfactant and 33wt% of an anionic surfactant and further corresponds to a ratio of anionic to nonionic surfactant of 1:1.01.
With regard to claim 17, Holzhauer, Shiba, and WeylChem disclose all of the limitations of claim 3.
Shiba further discloses a surface active agent comprising an alkane sulfonate (Col 5 line 51-60). Shiba further discloses Hostapur SAS comprising less than 5w% C13 or less, 16% C14, 30% C15, 30% C16, 15% C17, and 4% C18 (Col 5 line 51-60). This corresponds to a C16:C18 ratio of 16:4 or 4:1.
With regard to claim 19, Holzhauer and Shiba disclose all of the limitations of claim 3.
Holzhauer further discloses 31wt% of LAE 24-7 Alcohol Ethoxylate (Genapol LA 070 S), a nonionic surfactant (see Table 4). Genapol LA 070 S is a lauryl alcohol ethoxylate with 7 moles of ethoxylate (Clariant).
With regard to claim 20, Holzhauer discloses less than 15wt% of enzymes (see [0023]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzhauer (EP 2346976 B1), as evidenced by Shiba (US 3963499 A), and in further view of Miracle (US 20150203798 A1).
With regard to claim 15, Holzhauer and Shiba disclose all of the limitations of claim 3.
However, Holzhauer and Shiba fail to disclose a method of treating a textile.
Miracle discloses a detergent composition and a method for treating textiles, an analogous art (see Abstract). Miracle further discloses a detergent composition comprising anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants (see [0127]), and which may comprise perfumes (see [0061]). Miracle further discloses an aqueous washing/treatment solution typically under agitation with the fabric to be treated (see [0250]), the wash liquor comprising 1g/L to 4.5g/L of detergent (see [0251]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the method of Miracle, with the detergent composition of Holzhauer and Shiba as the detergent composition of Miracle comprises anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, and perfume, and thus the method disclosed by Miracle should work similarly with the detergent composition disclosed Holzhauer and Shiba.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzhauer (EP 2346976 B1), as evidenced by Shiba (US 3963499 A), and in further view of Park (Tunable Oleo-Furan Surfactants by Acylation of Renewable Films).
With regard to claim 18, Holzhauer and Shiba disclose all of the limitations of claim 3.
However, Holzhauer and Shiba 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 (see Abstract and Figure 1). Park further discloses such new oleo-furansulfonate (OFS) surfactants retain the detergency needed (see page 821, Col 2, paragraph 2) with regard to commonly used linear alkylbenzene sulfonate surfactants (see page 820, Col 2, paragraph 2) and further teaches OFS surfactants exhibit superior detergency (see page 823, Col 1, paragraph 2). Park further discloses OFS surfactants as having sufficiently fast wetting kinetics and foaming behavior (see page 823, Col 2, paragraph 2).
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 Holzhauer and Shiba for the purpose of suppressing the effects of hard water and increasing detergency, as disclosed by Park.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 18th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 3 excludes non-ionic surfactants. However, claim 8 states “The detergent composition according to claim 3, wherein the nonionic surfactant is selected from saturated and mono-unsaturated aliphatic alcohol ethoxylate.” This indicates that claim 3 includes non-ionic surfactants. Further, the instant specifications state the further surfactants may be anionic surfactants (other than the SAS) and nonionic surfactants (page 10 line 1-5). This, along with claim 8, have guided the interpretation of claim 3 as meaning "excluding the SAS" rather than "excluding nonionic surfactants". The specifications further give a ratio of nonionic surfactants to total anionic surfactants.
Applicant further argues that Shiba discloses Hostapur SAS while Holzhauer discloses Hostapur SAS 60. Therefore, Applicant argues, Shiba does not read on claim 3. Shiba discloses Hostapur SAS 60 (see Table 1-Table 3). Applicant claims that the formulation of Hostapur SAS 60 would have changed since the publication of Shiba. Applicant must submit evidence. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to determine that the formulation of Hostapur SAS 60 had changed since the publication of Shiba.
Applicant further argues that neither Holzhauer nor Shiba disclose a secondary alkane sulfonate surfactant that has at least 80 wt.% linear alkyl chains of from 15 to 18 carbon atoms. As stated above, Shiba discloses Hostapur SAS comprises less than 5% C13 or less, 16% C14, 30% C15, 30% C16, 15% C17, and 4% C18 (see Col 5 line 51-60). This equates to a total of 79% of C15-C18 and 21% of C14 and lower.
While Shiba teaches 79% of C15-C18, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Conclusion
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