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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending. Claim 15 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s response filed October 22, 2025, has been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 16-21, in the reply filed on October 22, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 22, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 16-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claims 1, 9, and 10, it is suggested that Applicant insert “the group consisting of” after “selected from” to present these claims in proper format. Note that, claims 2-8, 11, and 16-21 have also been objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 16-21 are 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.
With respect to instant claims 1 and 18-21, these claims are vague and indefinite in that it is unclear what is meant by “ratio”. For instance, is the “ratio” by weight, volume, molar, etc.? Clarification is required. Note that, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the recited ratio(s) to be by weight, which is consistent with Examples 1-3 of the instant specification. Note that, instant claims 2-11, 16, and 17 have also been rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-11, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019//219531.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘531 teaches a fluid cleaning composition comprising: a) from 5 to 70 wt.% of a surfactant system comprising: i) at least one anionic and/or nonionic surfactant; and ii) a rhamnolipid biosurfactant which is present at a level in the range of from 1 to 95 wt.%, preferably from 1 to 50 wt.%, more preferably from 2.5 to 50 wt.%, most preferably from 5 to 25 wt.% of the total surfactant in said surfactant system; and iii) from 0.5 to 10 wt.% of a zwitterionic surfactant; and b) water; and c) from 0.1 to 15 wt.%, preferably from 0.1 to 10 wt.% of a polymer selected from the group consisting of: an alkoxylated polyamine, a polyester soil release polymer and mixtures thereof: wherein the composition has a pH of from 3 to 6. See page 2, lines 10-25. More preferred anionic surfactants are selected from alkyl sulphates, etc. Preferably the alkyl sulphates is a linear or branched sodium C12 to C18 alkyl sulphates. Sodium dodecyl sulphate is particularly preferred, (SDS, also known as primary alkyl sulphate). See pages 5 and 6. The zwitterionic surfactant is preferably a betaine surfactant. A preferred betaine surfactant is cocoamidopropyl betaine, which is the same surfactant as recited by instant claim 9. Suitable rhamnolipids are mono- and di- rhamnolipids, wherein suitable di-rhamnolipids have the formula Rha2C8-12C8-12, wherein the preferred alkyl chain length is from C8 to C12, and the alkyl chain may be saturated or unsaturated. See pages 3 and 4.
Fluid cleaning compositions may, depending on their end use further comprise any of the following as a single ingredient, or a mixture thereof: polymers, sequestrants, hydrotropes (such as glycerol or monoproylene glycol), opacifiers, preservatives, colorants (e.g. dyes and pigments), enzymes (for example proteases, alpha-amylases, cellulases, lipases, further surfactants, etc. See page 10.
‘531 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant such as a betaine, a rhamnolipid biosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant such as a betaine, a rhamnolipid biosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘531 suggest a composition containing a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant such as a betaine, a rhamnolipid biosurfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019//219531 as applied to claims 1-11, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Lawshe et al (US2007/0049511).
‘531 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘531 does not teach the use of lauryl hydroxy sultaine in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Lawshe et al teach a liquid detergent a non-ionic surfactant from about 1% to about 10% by weight of the composition, an an-ionic surfactant from about 1% to about 15% by weight of the composition, a metallic salt comprising zinc ricinoleate from about 0.01% to about 3% by weight of the composition, and the composition having a pH level from about 6.5 to about 9. See Abstract. Optionally, the detergent composition of the present invention may additionally comprise amphoteric surfactants. Amphoteric surfactants may be present in an amount of from about 0.5% to about 5% by weight of the composition. Examples of suitable betaines and sulfobetaines are the following compounds named according to INCI: Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Lauryl Hydroxysultaine, etc. See para. 38.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use lauryl hydroxy sultaine in the composition taught by ‘531, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Lawshe et al teach the equivalence of cocoamidopropyl betaine to lauryl hydroxysultaine as amphoteric surfactants (i.e., zwitterionic surfactants) in a similar composition and further, ‘531 teaches the use of cocoamidopropyl betaine and amphoteric surfactants (i.e., zwitterionic surfactants) in general.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/November 24, 2025