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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 August 18, 2025. Claim 19 is currently amended.
The rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braeckman et al. (US 2020/0377826) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biiliauw et al. (US 2021/0395643) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biiliauw et al. (US 2021/0380901) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2017/0137748), hereinafter “Tang.”
Regarding claims 19-20, Tang teaches a cleaning composition having a surfactant system comprising one or more branched, unalkoxylated C6-C14 alkyl sulfate (BAS) surfactants, while such one or more BAS surfactants account for more than 50% by total weight of the surfactant system, and are present in an amount ranging from 10% to 50% by total weight of the cleaning composition, which is substantially free of any alkoxylated alkyl sulfate (AxS) (see [0017]), and with a variety of degrees of branching, and one example is Neodol® 123 AS from Shell with C12-13 chain length distribution and about 20% branching (see [0054]). Tang also teaches additional surfactants like amphoteric surfactants, and such additional surfactants may be present in the surfactant system in a total amount ranging from 0% to about 45% by total weight of the composition, preferably from about 1% to about 30%, more preferably from about 2% to about 25% (see [0071]). An example of the amphoteric surfactant is C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide (see [0145]). Tang also teaches that the liquid detergent composition contains one or more carriers, such as water and it can contain either water alone as the sole carrier, or mixtures of organic solvent(s) with water as carriers, and the carriers are typically present in the liquid detergent composition at levels in the range of from about 10% to about 95%, preferably from about 25% to about 75%, by total weight of the liquid detergent composition (see [0081]). In Example 7E, Tang teaches a concentrated liquid dish wash detergent composition which comprises 45 wt% BAS (i.e., branched, unalkoxylated C6-C14 alkyl sulfate, see [0046]) and 0-5 wt% C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide, among others, and balance water and minors like perfume, dyes and preservatives (see Table in [0145]). Tang, however, fails to specifically disclose the alkyl sulfate having a weight average degree of branching of from about 15% to about 50%; from about 10% to about 25% by weight of C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide amphoteric surfactant; from 30% to 40% by weight water; a pH from about 7.1 to about 10; reserve alkalinity of greater than about 0.02; the weight ratio of BAS to amine oxide from 6:1 to 3:1, say as in Example 7E, as recited in claim 19; and from about 10% to about 20% by weight of C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide amphoteric surfactant as recited in claim 20.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight percentage of the C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide and the weight percentage of the water, say in Example 7E, because Tang teaches that the amphoteric surfactants like C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide may be present from 0% to about 45% by total weight of the composition; and the carrier, like water, is in the range of from about 10% to about 95%, preferably from about 25% to about 75%, by total weight of the liquid detergent composition. Hence, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 10-25 wt% or 10-20 wt% C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide; and 30-40 wt% water) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the weight ratio of the alkyl sulfated anionic surfactant to the amine oxide surfactant, considering that Tang teaches BAS surfactants in an amount ranging from 10% to 50% by total weight of the cleaning composition, and C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide amphoteric surfactant in a total amount ranging from 0% to about 45% by total weight of the composition, as discussed above, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., weight ratio of BAS:amine oxide is 45:15 or 3:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the degree of branching of the BAS, please note that Tang teaches that the BAS can have a variety of degrees of branching, and one example is Neodol® 123 AS from Shell with C12-13 chain length distribution and about 20% branching (see [0054]), hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Neodol® 123 AS as the specific BAS in Example 7E.
With respect to the reserve alkalinity, considering that Tang teaches that the cleaning composition comprises C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide in a total amount ranging from 0% to about 45% by total weight of the composition, preferably from about 1% to about 30%, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the cleaning composition of Tang to exhibit a reserve alkalinity within those recited because overlapping ranges of the C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide amphoteric surfactant have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
With respect to the pH of the composition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the cleaning composition of Tang to exhibit a pH within those recited because Tang teaches BAS, C12-14 dimethyl amine oxide and water, each having overlapping proportions as those of the present claims, as discussed above, hence, would behave similarly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remaining rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang, Applicant argues that this reference fails to disclose the water level and the ratios now recited.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because of the same reasons as discussed in paragraph 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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, 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761