The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on October 2, 2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 6-7, 12-13 and 19 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 6-7, 12-13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2015/0098745) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on October 2, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of copending Application No. 18/213,916 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-4, 6-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asirvatham (US 2021/0284936), hereinafter “Asirvatham ‘936.”
Regarding claims 1, 14, 16 and 19, Asirvatham ‘936 teaches compositions for cleaning and or degreasing hard and plastic surfaces such as plates, cups, glasses, cutlery, eating utensils, and devices used in the preparation and/or the packing of food, and may be formulated to include one or more surfactants, from one or more surfactant classes (see ¶ [0007]; see also¶ [0040]), hence, the composition reads on hand dishwashing cleaning composition, and cleaning and degreasing the above surfaces with the composition. In one embodiment, Asirvatham ‘936 teaches a formulation for water based cleaning products, comprising at least one surfactant or co-surfactant of Formula I, (i.e., non-alkoxylated esteramine),
PNG
media_image1.png
144
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 may be the same or different, and may be C1-C6 alkyl, among others (wherein R1 and R2 corresponds to “R2” in formula (I) of instant claim 1); n is an integer from 2 to 5 (which corresponds to “a” in formula (I) of instant claim 1; m is an integer from 9 to 20 (which is a portion of the “R1” in formula (I) of instant claim 1; e.g., if m is 9, total alkyl group is C10 alkyl) (see ¶ [0009]). The other surfactants include anionic surfactants in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition (see ¶ [0059]). The composition may optionally contain additional surfactants such as amphoteric and zwitterionic detergent-active compounds (see ¶ [0073]-[0074]). The surfactant or mixture of surfactants is present in a cleaning effective amount, wherein a cleaning effective amount is the amount needed for the desired cleaning which will, for example, depend on the number of articles, level of soiling and volume of the cleaning composition used; and wherein effective cleaning was observed when the surfactant, i.e., having Formula I, was present from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition (see ¶ [0136]). Asirvatham ‘936, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 5% to about 50% by weight of the total composition of a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant, a co-surfactant selected from the group consisting of an amphoteric surfactant, a zwitterionic surfactant and mixtures thereof, a surfactant having formula (I) in an amount from about 0.1% to about 10% by weight of the composition, the specific structure of Formula I as recited in claim 1, and the specific structure of Formula II as recited in claim 19.
With regards to the respective amounts of the surfactant having formula I and the surfactant system, considering that Asirvatham ‘936 teaches from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition of a surfactant having formula I, from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition of an anionic surfactant, and effective amounts of other surfactants like amphoteric and/or zwitterionic surfactant, 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 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 specific structures of Formula I and II, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected R1 and R2 being the same, i.e., C1-C5, and m is 9 because these are some of the suitable selections taught by Asirvatham ‘936.
Regarding claims 2-3, Asirvatham ‘936, as discussed above, teaches that R1 and R2 may be the same or different, and may be C1-C6 alkyl, among others (wherein R1 and R2 corresponds to “R2” in formula (I) of instant claim 1); n is an integer from 2 to 5 (which corresponds to “a” in formula (I) of instant claim 1) (see ¶ [0009]). Asirvatham ‘936, however, fails to specifically disclose R1 and R2 being C1-C3 alkyl as recited in claim 2, or C1 alkyl as recited in claim 3.
Considering that Asirvatham ‘936 teaches R1 and R2 may be C1-C6 alkyl, 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., C1-C3 alkyl or C1 alkyl) 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).
Regarding claim 4, in Formula I above, when R1 and R2 are C1 alkyl, n is 5 and m is 9 (which is the minimum value), formula I would read as decyl 6-(dimethylamino)hexanoate. Asirvatham ‘936, however, fails to disclose butyl 6-(dimethylamino)hexanoate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the decyl 6-(dimethylamino)hexanoate with its homologues, i.e., butyl 6-(dimethylamino)hexanoate, because characteristics normally possessed by members of homologous series are principally the same, and vary but gradually from member to member; chemists knowing properties of one member of series would in general know what to expect in adjacent member, see In re Henze, 85 USPQ 261. Also, it is well settled that homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Regarding claims 6-7, Asirvatham ‘936, as discussed above, teaches that the surfactant, i.e., non-alkoxylated esteramine having Formula I, was present from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition (see ¶ [0136]). Asirvatham ‘936, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 0.3% to about 5% by weight of the composition of the non-alkoxylated esteramine as recited in claim 6, or from about 0.5% to about 2% by weight of the composition of the non-alkoxylated esteramine as recited in claim 7.
Considering that Asirvatham ‘936 teaches from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition of a surfactant having Formula I, i.e., non-alkoxylated esteramine, 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., about 0.3% to about 5% by weight or from about 0.5% to about 2% by weight) 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).
Regarding claim 8, Asirvatham ‘936 teaches the features as recited in claim 1 above. Asirvatham ‘936, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 8% to about 45% by weight of the total composition of a surfactant system.
Considering that Asirvatham ‘936 teaches from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition of a surfactant having formula I, from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition of an anionic surfactant, and effective amounts of other surfactants like amphoteric and/or zwitterionic surfactant, 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 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).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Asirvatham ‘936, as discussed above, teaches compositions for cleaning and or degreasing hard and plastic surfaces and may be formulated to include one or more surfactants, from one or more surfactant classes (see ¶ [0007]; see also¶ [0040]) and wherein one surfactant includes anionic surfactant, for example, primary alkyl sulfate (see paragraph [0059]), and when the composition comprises alkyl sulfate as the only anionic surfactant, then the alkyl sulfate is present as 100% by weight of the anionic surfactant.
Regarding claim 10, Asirvatham ‘936, as discussed above, teaches that the anionic surfactants is present in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition (see ¶ [0059]), and the additional surfactants such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compounds (see ¶ [0073]-[0074]), are present in a cleaning effective amount (see ¶ [0136]). Asirvatham ‘936, however, fails to specifically disclose the anionic surfactant to the additional surfactant weight ratio from about 1:1 to about 8:1.
Considering that Asirvatham ‘936 teaches anionic surfactants in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition and the additional surfactant such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compound in a cleaning effective amount, 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., 1:1) 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).
Regarding claim 13, Asirvatham ‘936 further teaches that the anionic surfactant includes a secondary alkylsulfate (see ¶ [0059]), which has at least 10% degree of branching.
Regarding claim 15, Asirvatham ‘936 further teaches that the amphoteric surfactant includes amine oxides (see ¶ [0076]), like the known alkyl dimethyl amine oxide.
Regarding claim 17, Asirvatham ‘936 further teaches that the zwitterionic surfactant includes betaines such as amidobetaines (see ¶ [0077]), like the known alkylamidoalkylbetaine.
Regarding claim 18, Asirvatham ‘936, as discussed above, teaches that the anionic surfactants is present in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition (see ¶ [0059]), and the additional surfactants such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compounds (see ¶ [0073]-[0074]), are present in a cleaning effective amount (see ¶ [0136]). Asirvatham ‘936, however, fails to specifically disclose at least 40% by weight of the surfactant system of the anionic surfactant and up to 50% by weight of the surfactant system of the additional surfactants such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compounds Considering that Asirvatham ‘936 teaches anionic surfactants in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition and the additional surfactants such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compounds (see ¶ [0073]-[0074]) are present in a cleaning effective amount (see ¶ [0136]), 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 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asirvatham ‘936 as applied to claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13-19 above, and further in view of Braeckman et al. (US 2020/0339913), hereinafter “Braeckman.”
Regarding claim 12, Asirvatham ‘936 teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Asirvatham ‘936 teaches that the anionic surfactant includes alkyl ether sulfate (see ¶ [0059]), also known as alkyl alkoxy sulfate. Asirvatham ‘936, however, fails to specifically disclose the alkyl alkoxy sulfate having an average degree of alkoxylation of less than about 3.5.
Braeckman, an analogous art in liquid hand-dishwashing composition (see abstract), teaches that the alkyl alkoxy sulphate has an average degree of ethoxylation of less than 3 (see (¶ [0025]-[0026]).
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 alkyl ether sulfate of Asirvatham ‘936 to have an average degree of ethoxylation within those recited because it is known from Braeckman that an alkyl ether sulfate or alkyl alkoxy sulfate in a similar composition has an average degree of ethoxylation of less than 3.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asirvatham (US 2022/0010243), hereinafter “Asirvatham ‘243.”
Regarding claims 1, 14, 16 and 19, Asirvatham ‘243 teaches compositions for cleaning and or degreasing hard and plastic surfaces such as plates, cups, glasses, cutlery, eating utensils, and devices used in the preparation and/or the packing of food, and may be formulated to include one or more surfactants, from one or more surfactant classes (see ¶ [0007]; see also¶ [0036]), hence, the composition reads on hand dishwashing cleaning composition, and cleaning and degreasing the above surfaces with the composition. In one embodiment, Asirvatham ‘243 teaches a formulation for water based cleaning products, comprising at least one surfactant or co-surfactant of Formula I, (i.e., non-alkoxylated esteramine),
PNG
media_image2.png
144
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 may be C1-C6 alkyl, among others (wherein R1 and R2 corresponds to “R2” in formula (I) of instant claim 1); n is an integer from 2 to 5 (which corresponds to “a” in formula (I) of instant claim 1; R3 is C5-C12 alkyl; R4 is C3-C10 alkyl (see ¶ [0009]). The other surfactants include anionic surfactants in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition (see ¶ [0056]). The composition may optionally contain additional surfactants such as amphoteric and zwitterionic detergent-active compounds (see ¶ [0069]-[0070]). The surfactant or mixture of surfactants is present in a cleaning effective amount, wherein a cleaning effective amount is the amount needed for the desired cleaning which will, for example, depend on the number of articles, level of soiling and volume of the cleaning composition used; and wherein effective cleaning was observed when the surfactant, i.e., having Formula I, was present from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition (see ¶ [0134]). Asirvatham ‘243, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 5% to about 50% by weight of the total composition of a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant, a co-surfactant selected from the group consisting of an amphoteric surfactant, a zwitterionic surfactant and mixtures thereof, a surfactant having formula (I) in an amount from about 0.1% to about 10% by weight of the composition, the specific structure of Formula I as recited in claim 1, and the specific structure of Formula II as recited in claim 19.
With regards to the respective amounts of the surfactant having formula I and the surfactant system, considering that Asirvatham ‘243 teaches from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition of a surfactant having formula I, from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition of an anionic surfactant, and effective amounts of other surfactants like amphoteric and/or zwitterionic surfactant, 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 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 specific structures of Formula I and II, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected R1 and R2 being C1-C5, R3 is C5, and R4 is C3 because these are some of the suitable selections taught by Asirvatham ‘243.
Regarding claims 2-3, Asirvatham ‘243, as discussed above, teaches that R1 and R2 may be C1-C6 alkyl, among others (wherein R1 and R2 corresponds to “R2” in formula (I) of instant claim 1); n is an integer from 2 to 5 (which corresponds to “a” in formula (I) of instant claim 1) (see ¶ [0009]). Asirvatham ‘243, however, fails to specifically disclose R1 and R2 being C1-C3 alkyl as recited in claim 2, or C1 alkyl as recited in claim 3.
Considering that Asirvatham ‘243 teaches R1 and R2 may be C1-C6 alkyl, 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., C1-C3 alkyl or C1 alkyl) 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).
Regarding claims 4-5, in Formula I above, when R1 and R2 are C1 alkyl, n is 5, R3 is C5, and R4 is C3, formula I would read as 2-propylheptyl 6-(dimethylamino)hexanoate. Asirvatham ‘243, however, fails to disclose 2-ethylhexyl 6-(dimethylamino)hexanoate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the
2-propylheptyl 6-(dimethylamino)hexanoate with its homologues, i.e., 2-ethylhexyl 6-(dimethylamino)hexanoate, because characteristics normally possessed by members of homologous series are principally the same, and vary but gradually from member to member; chemists knowing properties of one member of series would in general know what to expect in adjacent member, see In re Henze, 85 USPQ 261. Also, it is well settled that homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.09 II.
Regarding claims 6-7, Asirvatham ‘243, as discussed above, teaches that the surfactant, i.e., non-alkoxylated esteramine having Formula I, was present from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition (see ¶ [0134]). Asirvatham ‘243, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 0.3% to about 5% by weight of the composition of the non-alkoxylated esteramine as recited in claim 6, or from about 0.5% to about 2% by weight of the composition of the non-alkoxylated esteramine as recited in claim 7.
Considering that Asirvatham ‘243 teaches from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition of a surfactant having Formula I, i.e., non-alkoxylated esteramine, 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., about 0.3% to about 5% by weight or from about 0.5% to about 2% by weight) 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).
Regarding claim 8, Asirvatham ‘243 teaches the features as recited in claim 1 above. Asirvatham ‘243, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 8% to about 45% by weight of the total composition of a surfactant system.
Considering that Asirvatham ‘243 teaches from at least 0.001 wt. % to 10 wt. % by weight of the cleaning composition of a surfactant having formula I, from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition of an anionic surfactant, and effective amounts of other surfactants like amphoteric and/or zwitterionic surfactant, 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 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).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Asirvatham ‘243, as discussed above, teaches compositions for cleaning and or degreasing hard and plastic surfaces and may be formulated to include one or more surfactants, from one or more surfactant classes (see ¶ [0007]; see also¶ [0036]) and wherein one surfactant includes anionic surfactant, for example, primary alkyl sulfate (see paragraph [0056]), and when the composition comprises alkyl sulfate as the only anionic surfactant, then the alkyl sulfate is present as 100% by weight of the anionic surfactant.
Regarding claim 10, Asirvatham ‘243, as discussed above, teaches that the anionic surfactants is present in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition (see ¶ [0056]), and the additional surfactants such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compounds (see ¶ [0069]-[0070]), are present in a cleaning effective amount (see ¶ [0134]). Asirvatham ‘9243, however, fails to specifically disclose the anionic surfactant to the additional surfactant weight ratio from about 1:1 to about 8:1.
Considering that Asirvatham ‘936 teaches anionic surfactants in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition and the additional surfactant such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compound in a cleaning effective amount, 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., 1:1) 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).
Regarding claim 13, Asirvatham ‘243 further teaches that the anionic surfactant includes a secondary alkylsulfate (see ¶ [0056]), which has at least 10% degree of branching.
Regarding claim 15, Asirvatham ‘243 further teaches that the amphoteric surfactant includes amine oxides (see ¶ [0072]), like the known alkyl dimethyl amine oxide.
Regarding claim 17, Asirvatham ‘243 further teaches that the zwitterionic surfactant includes betaines such as amidobetaines (see ¶ [0073]), like the known alkylamidoalkylbetaine.
Regarding claim 18, Asirvatham ‘243, as discussed above, teaches that the anionic surfactants is present in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition (see ¶ [0056]), and the additional surfactants such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compounds (see ¶ [0069]-[0070]), are present in a cleaning effective amount (see ¶ [0134]). Asirvatham ‘243, however, fails to specifically disclose at least 40% by weight of the surfactant system of the anionic surfactant and up to 50% by weight of the surfactant system of the additional surfactants such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compounds.
Considering that Asirvatham ‘243 teaches anionic surfactants in an amount of from 15 to 50 wt% by weight of the composition and the additional surfactants such as amphoteric and/or zwitterionic detergent-active compounds (see ¶ [0069]-[0070]) are present in a cleaning effective amount (see ¶ [0134]), 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 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asirvatham ‘243 as applied to claims 1-11 and 13-19 above, and further in view of Braeckman.
Regarding claim 12, Asirvatham ‘243 teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Asirvatham ‘243 teaches that the anionic surfactant includes alkyl ether sulfate (see ¶ [0056]), also known as alkyl alkoxy sulfate. Asirvatham ‘243, however, fails to specifically disclose the alkyl alkoxy sulfate having an average degree of alkoxylation of less than about 3.5.
Braeckman, an analogous art in liquid hand-dishwashing composition (see abstract), teaches that the alkyl alkoxy sulphate has an average degree of ethoxylation of less than 3 (see (¶ [0025]-[0026]).
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 alkyl ether sulfate of Asirvatham ‘243 to have an average degree of ethoxylation within those recited because it is known from Braeckman that an alkyl ether sulfate or alkyl alkoxy sulfate in a similar composition has an average degree of ethoxylation of less than 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights