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 July 30, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 26, 2026, has been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 1/12/26 have been withdrawn:
None.
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.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using WO2019//219531, Applicant states that while ‘531 broadly discloses environmentally friendly cleaning compositions containing various anionic surfactants, rhamnolipids, and optional zwitterionic surfactants, '531 neither measures nor discusses the Krafft Point of any disclosed formulation, nor does it recognize cold-temperature instability of primary alkyl sulfate formulations as a problem to be solved. Additionally, Applicant states that WO '531 does not teach or suggest selecting surfactants to reduce the Krafft Point of a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant or attribute any reduction in Krafft Point to the claimed surfactant combination and instead, WO '531 broadly lists numerous optional surfactants and formulation additives without identifying any relationship between surfactant selection, surfactant ratios, and cold-temperature storage stability.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of ‘531 suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
For example, ‘531 clearly teaches that the composition contains 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 (See page 2, of ‘531); which would clearly suggest, for example, a composition containing 20% by weight of a surfactant system, the system containing, for example, 70% by weight of an anionic surfactant (i.e., primary alkyl sulfate), 20% by weight of a rhamnolipid biosurfactant, and 10% by weight of an amphoteric surfactant. This would result in a composition containing 14% by weight of an anionic surfactant (i.e., primary alkyl sulfate), 4% by weight of a rhamnolipid biosurfactant, and 2% by weight of an amphoteric surfactant, which equates to a weight ratio of primary alkyl sulfate surfactant to rhamnolipid of 3.5:1 and weight ratio of primary alkyl sulfate surfactant to amphoteric surfactant of 7:1, wherein both ratios would clearly fall within the scope of the instant claims. Additionally, the Examiner would like to point out that ‘531 exemplifies compositions containing, for example, 7.05% SLES 3EO (anionic surfactant), 1.27% rhamnolipid surfactant, and 2% of cocoamidopropyl betaine, which would result in a composition having a weight ratio of anionic surfactant to rhamnolipid surfactant of 5.5:1 and weight ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant of 3.5:1 which closely aligns with the instant claims.
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that the broad teachings of ‘531 would suggest compositions in which the Krafft point of the primary alkyl sulfate is reduced as recited by the instant claims because ‘531 teaches compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims and further, such properties would flow naturally from the teachings of ‘531. The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention."). See MPEP 2145(II.).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘531 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of instant claim 17 under 35 USC 103 using WO2019//219531, further in view of Lawshe et al (US2007/0049511), Applicant states that the teachings of ‘531 are not sufficient to suggest the claimed invention and that the teachings of Lawshe et al are not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies of ‘531. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘531 are sufficient to suggest the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that Lawshe et al is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ‘531 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of Lawshe et al to cure the deficiencies of ‘531 with respect to instant claim 17. Lawshe et al is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of lauryl hydroxy sultaine. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated 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. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘531, further in view of Lawshe et al, are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Further, Applicant states that data has been provided in the instant specification which is sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. Specifically, Applicant states that the specification in Examples 1-3 provide objective experimental evidence supporting the claimed reduction in Krafft Point, and the comparative data establish the criticality of the claimed surfactant combination and ratios.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the data provided in the instant specification is not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. The data provided in the instant specification is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. For example, the instant claims are open a broad group of alkyl sulfates in broad amounts, a broad group of amphoteric surfactants in broad amounts, and any rhamnolipid biosurfactant in broad amounts, while the instant specification provides data with respect to several specific embodiments which is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Note that, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980); See MPEP 716.02(d)(I). Applicant has not provided on this record a sufficient basis for concluding that the generic scope of protection sought by claim 1 is reasonably commensurate with the showing of alleged unexpected results. See In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (obviousness rejection affirmed because evidence establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof); In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range. Alternatively, Harris needed to narrow the claims). Note that, the evidence in the Specification is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (concluding that unexpected results “limited to sodium only” were not commensurate in scope with claims to a catalyst having an “alkali metal”. Appellants have not established that the results using the single embodiment in (Example 3) is representative of the results which would be obtained over the broad scope of compositions covered by the claims).
Additionally, as set forth above, the Examiner asserts that ‘531 clearly teach compositions that require a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant such as cocoamidopropyl betaine, and a rhamnolipid biosurfactant as recited by the instant claims. While the data provided in the instant specification appears to show that that a surfactant mixture of a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant such as cocoamidopropyl betaine, and a rhamnolipid biosurfactant in a specific ratio provides a reduced Krafft point of the alkyl sulfate surfactant, the instant specification provides no data showing a comparison of a surfactant mixture of a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant such as cocoamidopropyl betaine, and a rhamnolipid biosurfactant in a specific ratio as recited by the instant claims; to a surfactant mixture of a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant such as cocoamidopropyl betaine, and a rhamnolipid biosurfactant in a specific ratio falling outside the scope of the instant claims, wherein this type of comparison would be considered a more effective showing of the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention. Thus, the Examiner asserts that Applicant’s statements provided in the instant specification are not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims.
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/September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights