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 December 8, 2025, has been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on December 8, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 8, 2025.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 12/8/25 has been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 1-19 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn.
The objection to claim 18 under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9-19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim of copending Application No. 18/213918 (reference application), has been withdrawn due to the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
The rejection of claim 3 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/213918 in view of JP2013/010902, has been withdrawn due to the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 2, 4, 7, 9-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/066190.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘190 teaches cleaning composition for household care comprising 1-70% by wt. surfactant system and 0.1-10% esteramine and/or salt thereof and use of the esteramine and/or salt thereof in cleaning compositions. See Abstract. A household care composition may include fabric care compositions, dishwashing compositions, hard surface cleaner compositions, or mixtures thereof. See page 3, lines 25-35. Suitable esteramine compounds include those which are the same as recited by Formula (I) as recited by the instant claims. The substituent “R3” in formula (I) may be a C1-C30-alkyl, wherein the alkyl radical can be either linear or branched or optionally cyclic. See pages 6 and 7. The cleaning composition may be a liquid composition. See page 6. The surfactant system may comprise a detersive surfactant selected from anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, ampholytic surfactants, and mixtures thereof. The compositions of the present disclosure may comprise at least about 10%, or at least about 20%, or at least about 30%, or at least about 50%, or at least about 60%, or at least about 20 70% by weight of an anionic surfactant. Non-limiting examples of suitable anionic surfactants include any conventional anionic surfactant. This may include a sulfate detersive surfactant, for e.g., alkoxylated and/or nonalkoxylated alkyl sulfate materials, and/or sulfonic detersive surfactants, e.g., alkyl benzene sulfonates. Suitable anionic surfactants may be derived from renewable resources, waste, petroleum, or mixtures thereof. Suitable anionic surfactants may be linear, partially branched, 10 branched, or mixtures thereof. See pages 16 and 17.
Alkoxylated alkyl sulfate materials comprise ethoxylated alkyl sulfate surfactants, also known as alkyl ether sulfates or alkyl polyethoxylate sulfates. Examples of ethoxylated alkyl sulfates include water-soluble salts, particularly the alkali metal, ammonium and alkylolammonium salts, of organic sulfuric reaction products having in their molecular structure an alkyl group containing from about 8 to about 30 carbon atoms and a sulfonic acid and its salts. (Included in the term "alkyl" is the alkyl portion of acyl groups. In some examples, the alkyl group contains from about 15 carbon atoms to about 30 carbon atoms. In other examples, the alkyl ether sulfate surfactant may be a mixture of alkyl ether sulfates, said mixture having an average (arithmetic mean) carbon chain length within the range of about 12 to 30 carbon atoms, and in 20 some examples an average carbon chain length of about 12 to 15 carbon atoms, and an average (arithmetic mean) degree of ethoxylation of from about 1 mol to 4 mols of ethylene oxide, and in some examples an average (arithmetic mean) degree of ethoxylation of 1.8 mols of ethylene oxide. Non-alkoxylated alkyl sulfates may also be added to the disclosed detergent compositions and used as an anionic surfactant component. Examples of non-alkoxylated, e.g., non-ethoxylated, alkyl sulfate surfactants include those produced by the sulfation of higher C8-C20 fatty alcohols. In some examples, primary alkyl sulfate surfactants have the general formula: ROSO3 M+, wherein R is typically a linear C8-C20 hydrocarbyl group, which may be straight chain or branched chain, and M is a water-solubilizing cation. In some examples, R is a C10-C18 alkyl, and M is an alkali. See page 17. Examples of zwitterionic surfactants include: derivatives of secondary and tertiary amines, derivatives of heterocyclic secondary and tertiary amines, or derivatives of quaternary ammonium, quaternary phosphonium or tertiary sulfonium compounds. Suitable examples of zwitterionic surfactants include betaines, including alkyl dimethyl betaine and cocodimethyl amidopropyl betaine, C8 to C18 (for example from C12 to C18) amine oxides, and sulfo and hydroxy betaines, such as N-alkylN,N-dimethylammino-1-propane sulfonate where the alkyl group can be C8 to C18. See page 20.
‘190 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing an anionic surfactant, a cosurfactant, an esteramine of Formula (I), 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 an anionic surfactant, a cosurfactant, an esteramine of Formula (I), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts 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 ‘190 suggest a composition containing an anionic surfactant, a cosurfactant, an esteramine of Formula (I), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/066190 as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9-13, and 15-19 above, and further in view of JP2013/010902.
‘190 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘190 does not teach the specific esteramine of Formula (1) as recited by instant claim 3 in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘902 teaches a foam increasing agent comprising a tertiary amine compound having a structure of the general formula (1), wherein Formula (1) falls with the scope of instant claim 3. ‘902 teaches that it is an object to provide a foam-increasing agent that imparts high foaming properties and quick foaming properties. The foam increasing agent may be used in cleaning compositions such as a dish detergent, laundry detergent, etc. See page 1. The foaming agent of the present invention can be combined with a foaming surfactant to obtain a high foaming detergent having unprecedented fast foaming properties. Examples of the foaming surfactant include an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant (excluding the compound of Formula 1), an amphoteric surfactant, a zwitterionic surfactant, and a cationic surfactant. See page 3. The total compounding quantity of the foam increasing agent and foaming surfactant is 0.1 to 50% by weight of the whole liquid cleaning composition. See page 4, lines 20-35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a foam increasing agent comprising a tertiary amine compound having a structure of the general formula (1), with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘902 teaches that the use of a foam increasing agent comprising a tertiary amine compound having a structure of the general formula (1) as recited by instant claim 3 in a similar composition provides high foaming and quick foaming properties and further, such foaming properties would be desirable to provide enhanced cleaning in the composition taught by ‘190.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/066190 as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9-13, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Bettiol et al (US 2021/0130745) or Braeckman et al (US2021/0108158).
‘190 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘190 does not teach the specific degree of branching of the alkyl sulfate surfactant in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Bettiol et al teach a hand-dishwashing composition which provides good sudsing and a good suds profile even in the presence of greasy stains comprising higher chain-length saturated and/or unsaturated fatty acid chains, as well as improved removal of such stains, is met by formulating the composition with a P450 fatty acid decarboxylase and a surfactant system. See Abstract. The cleaning composition comprises from 5% to 50%, preferably 8% to 45%, more preferably from 15% to 40%, by weight of the total composition of a surfactant system. For improved sudsing, the surfactant system comprises anionic surfactant. The surfactant system preferably comprises from 60% to 90%, more preferably from 70% to 80% by weight of the surfactant system of the anionic surfactant. Alkyl sulphated anionic surfactants are preferred, particularly those selected from the group consisting of: alkyl sulphate, alkyl alkoxy sulphate, and mixtures thereof. More preferably, the anionic surfactant consists of alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant selected from the group consisting of: alkyl sulphate, alkyl alkoxy sulphate, and mixtures thereof. See paras. 54-55. The alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant can have a weight average degree of branching of more than 10%, preferably more than 20%, more preferably more than 30%, even more preferably between 30% and 60%, most preferably between 30% and 50%. See para. 59.
Braeckman et al teach a liquid hand-dishwashing composition which provides further improved sudsing volume and longevity when washing dishware, especially at elevated temperatures, using diluted liquid hand dishwashing compositions, and especially in the presence of greasy soil and particulate soil, while avoiding unsightly residues on dishware, is met by combining a sudsing surfactant system with an EO-PO-EO triblock copolymer and a highly ethoxylated nonionic surfactant. See Abstract. The cleaning composition comprises from 5% to 50%, preferably 8% to 45%, more preferably from 15% to 40%, by weight of the total composition of a surfactant system. See para. 24. For improved sudsing, the surfactant system comprises anionic surfactant. The surfactant system preferably comprises from 60% to 90% by weight of the surfactant system of the anionic surfactant. Alkyl sulphated anionic surfactants are preferred, particularly those selected from the group consisting of: alkyl sulphate, alkyl alkoxy sulphate, and mixtures thereof. More preferably, the anionic surfactant consists of alkyl sulphated anionic surfactant selected from the group consisting of: alkyl sulphate, alkyl alkoxy sulphate, and mixtures thereof. See para. 52. The alkyl sulphate anionic surfactant can have a weight average degree of branching of more than 10%, preferably more than 20%, more preferably more than 30%, even more preferably between 30% and 60%, most preferably between 30% and 50%. See para. 56.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an alkyl sulfate with the specific degree of branching of the alkyl sulfate surfactant as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Bettiol et al or Braeckman et al teach the use an alkyl sulfate with the specific degree of branching of the alkyl sulfate surfactant as recited by the instant claims in a similar composition and further, ‘190 teaches the use of branched alkyl sulphate surfactants in general.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using WO2020/066190, Applicant states that ‘190 does not teach that its compositions are free of fatty acid and in contrast, it discloses the use of fatty acids numerous times and in multiple examples, and does not propose a reason that one would modify its compositions to be free of fatty acid.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and the broad teachings of ‘190 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, ‘190 does not require the use of fatty acids and clearly suggests embodiments which are free of fatty acid as recited by the instant claims (See Abstract and claim 1of ‘190). Additionally, ‘190 clearly teaches that the composition may be used for cleaning dishware, including hand dishwashing soiled dishes (See page 37 of ‘190). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘190 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of instant claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/066190, further in view of JP2013/010902, Applicant states that the teachings of ‘190 are not sufficient to suggest the claimed invention and that the teachings of ‘902 are not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies of ‘190. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘190 are sufficient to suggest the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that ‘902 is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ‘190 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings ‘902 to cure the deficiencies of ‘190 with respect to instant claim 3. ’902 is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of the specific esteramine of Formula (1) as recited by instant claim 3. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a foam increasing agent comprising a tertiary amine compound having a structure of the general formula (1), with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘902 teaches that the use of a foam increasing agent comprising a tertiary amine compound having a structure of the general formula (1) as recited by instant claim 3 in a similar composition provides high foaming and quick foaming properties and further, such foaming properties would be desirable to provide enhanced cleaning in the composition taught by ‘190. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘190, further in view of ‘902, are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of instant claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/066190, further in view of Bettiol et al (US 2021/0130745) or Braeckman et al (US2021/0108158), Applicant states that the teachings of ‘190 are not sufficient to suggest the claimed invention and that the teachings of Bettiol et al or Braeckman et al are not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies of ‘190. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘190 are sufficient to suggest the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that Bettiol et al and Braeckman et al are analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ‘190 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings Bettiol et al or Braeckman et al to cure the deficiencies of ‘190 with respect to instant claim 14. Bettiol et al and Braeckman et al are secondary references relied upon for their teaching of the specific degree of branching of the alkyl sulfate surfactant. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use an alkyl sulfate with the specific degree of branching of the alkyl sulfate surfactant as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Bettiol et al or Braeckman et al teach the use an alkyl sulfate with the specific degree of branching of the alkyl sulfate surfactant as recited by the instant claims in a similar composition and further, ‘190 teaches the use of branched alkyl sulphate surfactants in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘190, further in view of Bettiol et al or Braeckman et al, are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
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/January 21, 2026