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 September 3rd, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 and claims 4-22 are pending in the application. Claim 2 and claim 3 have been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 3rd, 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on June 13th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The rejection of claims 1-8 and claim 10 under U.S.C 103 as obvious over Ammeux (EP 2886634 A1) and Keenan (EP 0770673 A2) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 9 under U.S.C 103 as obvious over Ammeux (EP 2886634 A1), Keenan (EP 0770673 A2), Goedegebuur (US 20200024552 A1), and Andersen (US 20190169543 A1) is withdrawn.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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 4, 6-8, and 10-19 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammeux (EP 2886634 A1) and further in view of Shulman (US 5409629 A).
With regard to claim 1 and claims 11-15, Ammeux discloses a dishwashing detergent composition comprising a builder, surfactant, first polymer, and second polymer (see Abstract). Ammeux further discloses nonionic surfactants at 0.1-15wt% (see [0014]). Ammeux further discloses a polymer comprised of 55-80wt% of methacrylic acid, corresponding to Formula I of the instant claims, and 14-25wt% of ethyl acrylate, corresponding to Formula II of the instant claims (see [0017]). Ammeux further discloses the copolymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 to 130,000Da (see [0020]).
However, Ammeux fails to disclose a second dispersant polymer comprising 85-97.5wt% based on Formula I and 2.5-15wt% based on Formula II.
Shulman discloses an acrylic acid/ethyl acrylate copolymer for use in liquid detergent, an analogous art (see Abstract). Shulman further discloses a copolymer comprising 70-98wt% of acrylic acid, corresponding to Formula I, and 2-30wt% of ethyl acrylate, corresponding to Formula II (see Col 2 line 69-Col 3 line 1-3). Shulman further discloses the copolymer as having a molecular weight of 2,000-7,000Da (see Col 3 line 48-49).
Both Ammeux and Shulman disclose detergent compositions. Specifically, Applicant is directed to the dispersant polymer of Keenan. 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 find the claimed invention obvious as both Ammeux and Shulman disclose dishwashing detergent compositions. As stated above, both Ammeux and Shulman disclose a dishwashing detergent composition. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the polymer of Shulman with the detergent composition, as disclosed by Ammeux, to produce a detergent composition.
With regard to claim 4 and claim 16, Ammeux and Shulman disclose all of the limitations of claim 3 and claim 15.
Ammeux further discloses a builder, which may be sodium carbonate, sodium citrate, and combinations thereof (see [0028]).
With regard to claim 6 and claim 17, Ammeux and Shulman disclose all of the limitations of claim 4 and claim 16.
Ammeux further discloses a composition comprising less than 0.5wt% of phosphate (see [0026]). Ammeux further discloses a detergent which avoids the use of phosphates (see [0003]).
With regard to claim 7 and claim 18, Ammeux and Shulman disclose all of the limitations of claim 6 and claim 17.
Ammeux further discloses the composition may comprise nitrilotriacetic acid. As disclosed by Ammeux, the composition may comprise nitrilotriacetic acid, meaning the composition may comprise 0wt% of nitrilotriacetic acid.
With regard to claim 8 and claim 19, Ammeux and Keenan disclose all of the limitations of claim 7 and claim 18.
Ammeux further discloses the composition, in some embodiments, may further comprise a bleaching agent, preferably sodium percarbonate (see [0031]).
With regard to claim 10, Ammeux discloses a method of dishwashing involving contacting a surface to be washed with the dishwashing composition (see Claim 14).
Claim 9 and claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammeux (EP 2886634 A1) and Shulman (US 5409629 A), as applied to claim 8 and claim 19 above, and in further view of Goedegebuur (US 20200024552 A1) and Andersen (US 20190169546 A1).
With regard to claim 9 and claim 20, Ammeux and Keenan disclose all of the limitations of claim 8.
Ammeux discloses a nonionic surfactant at 0.1-15wt% (see [0014]) and alcohol ethoxylate as a nonionic surfactant (see Table 1). Ammeux further discloses 3wt% of tetraacetylethylenediamine (see Table 1), 0.05-5wt% of a first polymer (see [0023]), and 0.05-10wt% of a second polymer (see [0024]). Ammeux further discloses 5-99wt% of a builder (see [0004]) and a bleaching agent, which may be sodium percarbonate at 5-25wt% (see [0031]).
However, Ammeux fails to disclose 2-7.5wt% of phosphonate, 3-6wt% of protease, and 2.5-4.5wt% of amylase.
Goedegebuur discloses an automatic dishwashing composition (see Abstract), an analogous art. Goedegebuur further discloses crystal growth inhibitors, specifically phosphonate (see [0124]), at a concentration of 0.01-10wt% (see [0130]). Goedegebuur further teaches crystal growth inhibitors as materials that can prevent the growth of species such as aragonite and calcite (see [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize phosphonate at a concentration of 0.01-10wt% as disclosed by Goedegebuur, in the dishwashing detergent composition of Ammeux for the purpose of preventing the growth of species such as aragonite and calcite, as disclosed by Goedegebuur.
Andersen discloses detergent composition, including automatic detergent dishwashing compositions (see [0002]). Andersen further discloses enzymes which aid in the removal of stains from a fabric or hard surface, particularly protease for the removal of proteins and amylase for the removal of starch (see [0034]). Andersen further discloses 0.1-100mg per gram of detergent, corresponding to 0.01-10wt%, of alpha-amylase and protease (see [0285]).
It would have been obvious to utilize the alpha amylase and protease of Anderson in the dishwashing detergent composition of Ammeux for the purpose of adding protein stain removal and starch stain removal properties, as disclosed by Anderson. Therefore, the invention as a whole is obvious.
With regard to claim 21 and claim 22, Ammeux, Shulman, Goedegebuur, and Andersen disclose all of the limitations of claim 20. Ammeux further discloses the copolymer having a molecular weight of 10,000 to 130,000Da (see [0020]).
However, Ammeux fails to disclose the second copolymer having a molecular weight of 1,500-3,500Da or 1,750-3,250Da.
Shulman further discloses the copolymer as having a molecular weight of 2,000-7,000Da (see Col 3 line 48-49).
Both Ammeux and Shulman disclose detergent compositions. Specifically, Applicant is directed to the dispersant polymer of Keenan. 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 find the claimed invention obvious as both Ammeux and Shulman disclose dishwashing detergent compositions. As stated above, both Ammeux and Shulman disclose a detergent composition. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the polymer of Shulman with the detergent composition, as disclosed by Ammeux, to produce a detergent composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and claims 4-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues with regard to claim 1-8 and claim 10, the amended claims more clearly define the invention. Applicant is directed to the rejections above with regard to Ammeux and Shulman.
Applicant argues with regard to claim 9, the amended claims more clearly define the invention. Applicant is directed to the rejections above with regard to Ammeux, Shulman, Goedegebuur, and Andersen.
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 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