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 April 7, 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Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 1/12/26 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claims 1-11 and 16-21 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-11 and 16-21 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn.
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 discloses a broad a composition that can include a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant, and a rhamnolipid biosurfactant, '531 does not teach, suggest, or recognize a composition in which a ratio of the primary alkyl sulfate surfactant to the rhamnolipid biosurfactant is from 8:1 to 1:10 by weight, and a ratio of the primary alkyl sulfate surfactant to the amphoteric surfactant is from 8:1 to 1:10 by weight. Additionally, Applicant states that the claim recitations are not merely the selection of a composition percentage within a disclosed range, but rather requires a specific distributional relationships between the weights of selected components within the composition; requiring a ratio of the weight of the primary alkyl sulfate surfactant to the rhamnolipid biosurfactant and a ratio of the weight of the primary alkyl sulfate surfactant to the amphoteric surfactant is a quantitative recitation which is not disclosed by '531 teaching a composition which may include each component without any disclosure to a weight ratio between the components. Also, Applicant states that the Examiner has relied upon impermissible hindsight reasoning in rendering the claimed invention obvious.
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.
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.
Further, Applicant states that the instant specification states that "[w]e have found that cleaning compositions containing a primary alkyl sulfate surfactant have improved stability at cold temperatures by inclusion of a combination of an amphoteric surfactant and a rhamnolipid surfactant." See Instant Specification, paragraph 4.
In response, note that, while the properties of the claimed composition are described in the instant specification, the Examiner asserts that these statements are not supported by any factual or numeric data and 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. Note that, it is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does not suffice. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See also In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 5642 (CCPA 1978) (“Mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements in the specification, unsupported by objective evidence, are insufficient to establish unexpected results.”). See MPEP 716.01(c)(I). 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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/June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights