DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
The claim objection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keuleers (US 2017/0226447 A1, hereafter “Keuleers”) and Vinson (US 9,493,725, hereafter “Vinson”) in view of each other.
With regard to Claim 1, Keuleers discloses a water-soluble unit dose article comprising of liquid laundry detergent composition, wherein such water-soluble unit dose article comprises a water-soluble film ([0001]-[0003]).
Keuleers disclose wherein the composition comprises secondary alcohol ethoxylates, especially the C8-C20 aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 50 or even 20 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol, and more especially the C10-C15 primary and secondary aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 10 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol ([0053]). Keuleers discloses wherein the secondary alcohol ethoxylates is aliphatic ([0053]). Keuleers discloses wherein the non-ionic surfactant is selected from a fatty alcohol alkoxylate, an oxo-synthesised fatty alcohol alkoxylate, Guerbet alcohol alkoxylates, alkyl phenol alcohol alkoxylates or a mixture thereof ([0052]).
Keuleers is silent to wherein about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant are isomers having m+n equal to about 9, or wherein about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant are isomers having m+n equal to about 11; or wherein about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant are a mixture of isomers having m+n equal to about 9; and wherein between about 25% and about 50% by weight of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n = 0; and wherein from about 0.001% to about 25%, by weight of the first ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant are surfactant isomers according to Formula II (Claim 1); wherein about 15% to about 40% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n = 1 (Claim 2); wherein about 60% to about 90% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n < 3 (Claim 3); wherein up to about 40% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n > 2 (Claim 4); and wherein the weight ratio of the first ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant to the second ethoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactant is from about 10:1 to about 1:1 (Claim 8).
Vinson teaches surfactants useful for detergent compositions in unit dose form (col. 3, line 56- col. 4, line 9) wherein the surfactant may be a mixture of polyoxyalkylenes (col. 6, lines 38-40) of Formula I and Formula II where 50-100% of the surfactants have m+n = 11 and where from about 0.001-25% by weight of the first surfactant are isomers of Formula II (col. 4, lines 39-65). Vinson teaches that the alkyl chain length distributions and fractions may provide increased grease removal in cold water (col. 2, lines 1-10). While Vinson does not expressly teach that 25-50% of the mixture of Formula 1 has n=0, it does teach that at least 25% may be surfactants where n is 0, 1, or 2 (col. 5, lines 20-25). This includes the possibility of using 33% n=0, 33% n=1 and 33% n=2 or entirely 100% n=0. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used alcohol ethoxylates of the mixture of alcohols of Formulas I and II of Vinson with m+n =11 as the particular C8-C20 aliphatic alcohols of Keuleers with a reasonable expectation of success and with the expectation of obtaining improved grease removal in cold water. Further, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 2: While Vinson does not expressly teach that 15-40% of the mixture of Formula 1 has n=1, it does teach that at least 25% may be surfactants where n is 0, 1, or 2 (col. 5, lines 20-25). This includes the possibility of using 33% n=0, 33% n=1 and 33% n=2.
Claim 3: Vinson teaches that >25% may have n<3 (col. 5, lines 20-25), which overlaps the claimed range of 60-90%.
Claim 4: Vinson teaches that 25-100% have n<3. Thus 0-75% have n>2, which overlaps the claimed range of 0-40%.
Claim 5: Keuleers teaches that the surfactant may also comprise a secondary alcohol ethoxylate of C8-C20 alcohol with 1-10 molecules of ethylene oxide per alcohol [0053].
Claim 6: Any such secondary alcohol ethoxylate must be linear or branched and must be natural or synthetic. Please note that the patentability of a product does not depend upon the method of production. “If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process” (see, e.g. MPEP § 2113). [0052] teaches Guerbet processes.
With regard to Claim 7, while modified Keuleers is silent to the exact wt% of the nonionic surfactant, Keuleers discloses the ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is 5:1 and 15:1, wherein the anionic surfactant is between 30% and 43% by weight ([0037]-[0038]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the wt% of nonionic surfactant to be about 2% and about 9% by weight. Further, as to the relative amounts of first ethoxylated alcohol solvent and total ethoxylated alcohol solvent, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 8: As to the relative amounts of first ethoxylated alcohol solvent and second ethoxylated alcohol solvent, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
With regard to Claim 9, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the composition comprises anionic surfactants selected from linear alkylbenzene sulphonate, alkyl sulphate, alkoxylated alkyl sulphate or a mixture thereof ([0045]).
With regard to Claim 10, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the ratio of anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant is 5:1 and 15:1 ([0038]).
With regard to Claim 11, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the composition may comprises a fatty acid or salt thereof in the amount between 3% and 10 % ([0039]).
With regard to Claim 12, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the composition comprises between 0.5% and 20% of water ([0040]).
With regard to Claim 13, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the composition comprises 1,2-propanediol and dipropylene glycol is between 5% and 25% by weight ([0034]).
With regard to Claim 14, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the film is soluble or dispersible in water and comprises at least one polyvinyl alcohol or a copolymer thereof ([0059]).
With regard to Claim 15, modified Keuleers discloses wherein the water-soluble film is formed into a pouch comprising with at least one internal compartment ([0022]). The compartments may comprise two smaller side-by-side compartments superposed on a larger compartment [0025].
With regard to Claim 16, modified Keuleers a process of washing fabrics comprising the steps of contacting the unit dose article with water such that the liquid laundry detergent composition is diluted in water by at least 400 fold to form a wash liquor, and contacting fabrics with said wash liquor ([0014]).
Double Patenting
The ODP rejections have been overcome by terminal disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments at the top of p. 7, filed 6/20/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly in view of the fact that the citations to Gowland did not meet the limitations of the claims with require a mixture of linear and branched ethoxylated alcohols. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Keuleers in view of Vinson, cited in the IDS of 3/10/25, for which the fee of 37 CFR 1.17(p) was paid.
Applicant’s argument of unexpected results is noted but are unconvincing because they are not supported by a showing commensurate with the claims, which are not limited to the compositions in the specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vinson et al. (US 2021/0380902), which shows surfactants based on the skeletons of Formulas I and II [0014].
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 3/10/25 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
MICHAEL B. CLEVELAND
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712