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 1-20 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been entered.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 July 18, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 13, 2026, has been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed April 22, 2025, have been withdrawn:
None.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “and” and insert “or”.
With respect to instant claim 10, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “and” and insert “or”.
With respect to instant claim 16, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “and” and insert “or”.
With respect to instant claim 18, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “and” and insert “or”.
Appropriate correction is required. Note that, instant claims 2-9, 11-15, 17, and 19 have also been objected to 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 1-4, 8-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 3,100,469.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘469 teaches a liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition according to the invention which comprises between 0ppm and 20ppm, preferably between 0ppm and 15ppm, more preferably between 0ppm and 10ppm, even more preferably between 0ppm and 5ppm, even more preferably between 0ppm and 1ppm, even more preferably between 0ppm and 100ppb, dioxane. Preferably the pH of the composition is from 6 to 14, preferably from 7 to 12. See page 3. The cleaning composition contains from 8% to 45% by weight of a surfactant system, wherein the surfactant system can comprise non-soap anionic surfactant and alkyl sulphated anionic surfactants are preferred such as alkyl sulphate, alkyl alkoxy sulphate, mixtures thereof. See page 5. Preferably the liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition comprises between 5% and 35%, preferably between 10% and 32%, more preferably between 15% and 30% by weight of the liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition of the alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant. See page 6, lines 5-40. When formulated as a spray product, the liquid hand dishwashing detergent. For further improvements in sudsing, the surfactant system can comprise less than 30%, preferably less than 15%, more preferably less than 10% of further non-soap anionic surfactant. The alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant preferably has an average alkyl chain length of from 8 to 18, preferably from 10 to 14, more preferably from 12 to 14, most preferably from 12 to 13 carbon atoms. The alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant has an average degree of alkoxylation, of less than 5, preferably less than 3, more preferably from 0.5 to 2.0, most preferably from 0.5 to 0.9. Preferably, the alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant is ethoxylated. That is, the alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant has an average degree of ethoxylation, of less than 5, preferably less than 3, more preferably from 0.5 to 2.0, most preferably from 0.5 to 0.9. See page 6. Alternatively, the alkyl sulphate surfactant has an average degree of alkoxylation preferably ethoxylation, of less than 0.5, preferably less than 0.3. See page 7, lines 20-30. Cosurfactants may be used in the compositions and include amphoteric surfactant such as an amine oxide, a zwitterionic surfactant, and mixtures thereof, in amounts from 0.1% to 20% by weight. Suitable amine oxides include C8-C18 alkyldimethyl amine oxides, alkyl amidopropyldimethyl amine oxide, etc. See page 11, lines 15-25. Suitable zwitterionic surfactants include lauryl amidopropyl betaine, etc. See page 14. Solvents such as ethanol, etc., may be used in the composition in amounts from about 0.1% to about 10% by weight. See page 22. Adjunct ingredients may be used such as emollients, humectants, etc. See page 25, lines 15-30.
Specifically, ‘469 teaches a liquid hand dishwashing composition containing 24% C12-C13AE0.6S, 8% C12-C14 dimethyl amine oxide, 1.3%ethanol, water, etc., having a pH of 9.2. Additionally, ’469 teaches a liquid hand dishwashing composition containing 6.5% of a C12-C14 AE3S, 2.5% of C12-C14 dimethylamine oxide, 0.3% of ethanol, water, etc., having a pH of 11.2.
’469 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing sodium laureth sulfate, an amphoteric surfactant, an additive such as ethanol, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts 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 sodium laureth sulfate, an amphoteric surfactant, an additive such as ethanol, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by 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 ‘469 suggest a composition containing sodium laureth sulfate, an amphoteric surfactant, an additive such as ethanol, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 5-7 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 3,100,469 as applied to claims 1-4, 8-13, 15, and 17-19 above, and further in view of Murphy et al (US 8,309,504).
‘469 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘469 does not teach the use of sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Murphy et al teach liquid cleaning compositions designed for cleaning surfaces including hard surfaces, which deliver acceptable cleaning and foaming performance and exhibit ease of rinsing while leaving low amounts residue. See column 1, lines 1-30. Anionic surfactants may be used and include sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate which may be used in amounts up to 10% by weight. See columns 5 and 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate in the composition taught by ‘469, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Murphy et al teach the use of sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate as an anionic surfactant in a similar composition and further, ‘469 teaches the use of additional anionic surfactants in general.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 3,100,469 as applied to claims 1-4, 8-13, 15, and 17-19 above, and further in view of Lin et al (US 11,660,261).
‘469 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘469 does not teach the use of caprylyl glycol in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Lin et al teach a cleansing composition includes at least one polymeric thickener having a high electrolyte property and at least one anionic surfactant. The cleansing composition is a gel having a viscosity greater than 25,000 cps. In some embodiments, the cleansing composition is essentially free of sulfates and is essentially free of emulsifiers. In some embodiments, the at least one anionic surfactant includes at least one anionic sulfate surfactant, and the cleansing composition is essentially free of salt. See Abstract. One or more humectants may be present in the composition. In some embodiments, the humectant may comprise one or more of polyols, including, for example, caprylyl glycol, etc., and may be present in amounts from about 1% to about 10% by weight. See column 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use caprylyl glycol in the composition taught by ‘469, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Lin et al teach the use of caprylyl glycol as a humectant in a similar composition and further, ’469 teaches the use of humectants in general.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using CA 3,100,469, Applicant states that ‘469 fails to teach or fairly suggest claim 1 as a whole, particularly "wherein the SLES has an average degree of ethoxylation of from 0.2 to 0.5”. Additionally, ‘469 fails to teach or fairly suggest "wherein the cleaning composition is free of dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether (DPnB), Phenoxyethanol, Propanediol and polyethylene glycol (PEG)" in claim 1 as amended.
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 ‘469 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). 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, ‘469 clearly teaches that the cleaning composition contains from 8% to 45% by weight of a surfactant system, wherein the surfactant system can comprise non-soap anionic surfactant and alkyl sulphated anionic surfactants are preferred such as alkyl sulphate, alkyl alkoxy sulphate, mixtures thereof (See page 5 or ‘469). Additionally, ‘469 clearly teaches that the liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition comprises between 5% and 35%, preferably between 10% and 32%, more preferably between 15% and 30% by weight of the liquid hand dishwashing detergent composition of the alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant (See page 6, lines 5-40), wherein these amounts would fall within the scope of the instant claims. Also, ‘469 clearly teaches that the alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant preferably has an average alkyl chain length of from 8 to 18, preferably from 10 to 14, more preferably from 12 to 14, most preferably from 12 to 13 carbon atoms, wherein the alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant has an average degree of alkoxylation, of less than 5, preferably less than 3, more preferably from 0.5 to 2.0, most preferably from 0.5 to 0.9, and alternatively, the alkyl sulphate surfactant has an average degree of alkoxylation preferably ethoxylation, of less than 0.5, preferably less than 0.3 (See pages 6 and 7, lines 20-30 of ‘469), wherein such alkyl ethoxylated sulfate surfactants would clearly fall within the scope of the instant claims. Also, ‘469 does not require the use of dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether (DPnB), Phenoxyethanol, Propanediol and polyethylene glycol (PEG), and would clearly suggest embodiments which are free of dipropylene glycol n-butyl ether (DPnB), Phenoxyethanol, Propanediol and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as recited by the instant claims. Note that, ‘469 clearly teaches compositions containing from 0ppm to 20ppm of dioxane, preferably 0 ppm of dioxane, which would clearly fall within the scope of the instant claims (See page 5 of ‘469 and claim 1 of ‘469). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘469 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of instant claims 5-7 and 16 under 35 USC 103 using CA 3,100,469, further in view of Murphy et al, Applicant states that the teachings of ‘469 are not sufficient to suggest the claimed invention and that the teachings of Murphy et al are not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies of ‘469. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘469 are sufficient to suggest the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that Murphy et al is analogous prior art relative to ‘469 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of Murphy et al to cure the deficiencies of ‘469 with respect to instant claims 5-7 and 16. Murphy et al is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate in the composition taught by ‘469, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Murphy et al teach the use of sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate as an anionic surfactant in a similar composition and further, ‘469 teaches the use of additional anionic surfactants in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘469, further in view of Murphy et al, are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of instant claim 14 under 35 USC 103 using CA 3,100,469, further in view of Lin et al, Applicant states that the teachings of ‘469 are not sufficient to suggest the claimed invention and that the teachings of Lin et al are not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies of ‘469. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘469 are sufficient to suggest the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that Lin et al is analogous prior art relative to ‘469 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of Lin et al to cure the deficiencies of ‘469 with respect to instant claim 14. Lin et al is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of caprylyl glycol. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use caprylyl glycol in the composition taught by ‘469, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Lin et al teach the use of caprylyl glycol as a humectant in a similar composition and further, ’469 teaches the use of humectants in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘469, further in view of Lin 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 unexpectedly, it has been found by Applicant that the addition of an additive such as caprylyl glycol and ethanol to SLES raw materials having low degrees of ethoxylation improves the flowability of the raw materials.
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 sodium laureth sulfate in broad amounts, an amphoteric surfactant in any amount and carpyl glycol and/or ethanol in any amount, while the instant specification provides data with respect to only 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 appealed 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).
As stated above, ‘469 clearly teaches that the composition preferably has a dioxane concentration of 0ppm which is the same as recited by the instant claims. While ‘469 does not specifically mention or discuss the dioxane-reducing properties of caprylyl glycol or ethanol, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. Note that, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention. In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP 2144. To render an invention obvious, the prior art does not have to address the same problem addressed by a patent applicant. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550, U.S. 398, 420 (2007); see also, In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”).
Also, the Examiner would like to point out that, at a minimum, instant claim 1 requires the specific SLES surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant and caprylyl glycol and/or ethanol, while Table 2 provides data with respect to compositions containing only SLES and caprylyl glycol and/or ethanol and no amphoteric surfactant; therefore, it appears that the data provided in the instant specification is not representative of the claimed invention and the Examiner asserts that no objective determination as to the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention can be made. Thus, 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.
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 on (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/January 28, 2026