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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Claims 2-14 are amended.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 from of PCT/CN2021/124370 which claims priority from PCT/2020/122138 filed on 10/20/2020. Thus, the effective filing date of the instant application is 10/20/2020.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 04/20/2023 were considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected 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. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “determining a third performance of the first detergent composition and outputting a third performance representation of the third performance.” However, there is no second performance. Examiner believes that applicant may have mistakenly made claim 3 depend from claim 1 instead of claim 2 which recites a “second performance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106:
Eligibility Step 1: Claims 1-14 are directed to a method and an electronic device for evaluation of detergents.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if
so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception,
examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a
law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
determining a first detergent composition based on the ingredient data; determining a first performance of the first detergent composition (mental process)
and outputting a first performance representation of the first performance (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 2 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the method comprises determining a second performance of the first detergent composition and outputting a second performance representation of the second performance (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 3 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
herein the method comprises determining a third performance of the first detergent composition and outputting a third performance representation of the third performance (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 4 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein determining a first performance of the first detergent composition is based on the first wash condition and/or the second wash condition (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 9 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
determining a second detergent composition based on the first wash condition, the ingredient data and the object parameter; and outputting the second detergent composition (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 10 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
determining an ingredient representation based on the first detergent composition (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 11 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
determining secondary ingredient data based on the user input indicative of a change in the first detergent composition (mathematical concept, mental process)
determining a second detergent composition based on the secondary ingredient data; determining a first performance of the second detergent composition; and outputting a first performance representation of the first performance of the second detergent composition (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 12 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the method comprises determining a second performance and a third performance of the second detergent composition and outputting a second performance representation of the second performance of the second detergent composition and a third performance representation of the third performance of the second detergent composition (mathematical concept, mental process)
Dependent claim 13 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the method comprises determining a fourth performance of the second detergent composition and outputting a fourth performance representation of the third performance of the second detergent composition. (mathematical concept, mental process)
Independent claim 14 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
determine a first performance of the first detergent composition; (mathematical concept, mental process)
and output a first performance representation of the first performance. (mathematical concept, mental process)
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pencil and paper, and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 1-14 recite an abstract idea as the dependent claims will inherit the abstract ideas from the independent claims.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further
examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a
whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that
integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception
in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements
are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP
2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract
idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
The additional element in independent claim 1 includes:
A computer-implemented method for performance evaluation of a detergent composition, the method comprising:
obtaining one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition;
obtaining ingredient data comprising first ingredient data and second ingredient data, the first ingredient data associated with one or more first ingredients including a first primary ingredient and the second ingredient data associated with one or more second ingredients including a second primary ingredient;
The additional element in dependent claim 4 includes:
wherein the first wash condition is indicative of a geographical location, and the one or more wash conditions comprises a second wash condition indicative of a wash temperature
The additional element in dependent claim 5 includes:
wherein the first primary ingredient is a surfactant, and the first ingredient data comprises first primary ingredient data of the first primary ingredient, the first primary ingredient data including one or more of identifiers, an amount, a cost, a purity parameter, an impurity parameter, a form parameter, a size parameter, a lower limit, and an upper limit.
The additional element in dependent claim 6 includes:
wherein the second primary ingredient is an enzyme, and the second ingredient data comprises second primary ingredient data of the second primary ingredient, the second primary ingredient data including one or more of identifiers, an amount, a cost, a purity parameter, an impurity parameter, a form parameter, a size parameter, a lower limit, and an upper limit.
The additional element in dependent claim 7 includes:
wherein obtaining ingredient data comprises obtaining third ingredient data associated with one or more third ingredients including a third primary ingredient, and wherein determining a first performance is based on the third ingredient data.
The additional element in dependent claim 8 includes:
wherein the method comprises obtaining a primary reference detergent, obtaining a primary first reference performance associated with the primary reference detergent and including a primary first reference performance representation of the primary reference detergent in the first performance representation.
The additional element in dependent claim 9 includes:
wherein the method comprises: obtaining an object parameter;
The additional element in dependent claim 10 includes:
and displaying the ingredient representation, wherein displaying the ingredient representation comprises displaying, in accordance with a user activation of a first ingredient user interface element, a first ingredient representation indicative of the first ingredients of the first detergent composition, and displaying, in accordance with a user activation of a second ingredient user interface element, a second ingredient representation indicative of the second ingredients of the first detergent composition.
The additional element in dependent claim 11 includes:
receiving a user input indicative of a change in one or more of the first detergent composition and the first wash condition
The additional element in independent claim 14 includes:
An electronic device comprising a processor, a memory, and an interface, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition;
obtain ingredient data comprising first ingredient data and second ingredient data, the first ingredient data associated with one or more first ingredients including a first primary ingredient and the second ingredient data associated with one or more second ingredients including a second primary ingredient;
The additional elements of obtaining one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition (Claim 1), obtaining ingredient data comprising first ingredient data and second ingredient data, the first ingredient data associated with one or more first ingredients including a first primary ingredient and the second ingredient data associated with one or more second ingredients including a second primary ingredient (Claim 1), wherein the first wash condition is indicative of a geographical location, and the one or more wash conditions comprises a second wash condition indicative of a wash temperature (Claim 4), wherein the first primary ingredient is a surfactant, and the first ingredient data comprises first primary ingredient data of the first primary ingredient, the first primary ingredient data including one or more of identifiers, an amount, a cost, a purity parameter, an impurity parameter, a form parameter, a size parameter, a lower limit, and an upper limit (claim 5), wherein the second primary ingredient is an enzyme, and the second ingredient data comprises second primary ingredient data of the second primary ingredient, the second primary ingredient data including one or more of identifiers, an amount, a cost, a purity parameter, an impurity parameter, a form parameter, a size parameter, a lower limit, and an upper limit (Claim 6), wherein obtaining ingredient data comprises obtaining third ingredient data associated with one or more third ingredients including a third primary ingredient, and wherein determining a first performance is based on the third ingredient data. (Claim 7), wherein the method comprises obtaining a primary reference detergent, obtaining a primary first reference performance associated with the primary reference detergent and including a primary first reference performance representation of the primary reference detergent in the first performance representation (Claim 8), wherein the method comprises: obtaining an object parameter (Claim 9), receiving a user input indicative of a change in one or more of the first detergent composition and the first wash condition (Claim 11), obtain one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition (Claim 14), obtain ingredient data comprising first ingredient data and second ingredient data, the first ingredient data associated with one or more first ingredients including a first primary ingredient and the second ingredient data associated with one or more second ingredients including a second primary ingredient (Claim 14) are insignificant extra-solution activity that are part of the data gathering process used in the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of a computer-implemented method for performance evaluation of a detergent composition, the method comprising (Claim 1), An electronic device comprising a processor, a memory, and an interface, wherein the processor is configured to (Claim 14), and displaying the ingredient representation, wherein displaying the ingredient representation comprises displaying, in accordance with a user activation of a first ingredient user interface element, a first ingredient representation indicative of the first ingredients of the first detergent composition, and displaying, in accordance with a user activation of a second ingredient user interface element, a second ingredient representation indicative of the second ingredients of the first detergent composition (Claim 10) fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer as a tool, and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, and as such, when all limitations in claims 1-14 have been considered as a whole, the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 1-14 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
The additional elements recited in claims 1-14 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A: Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A: Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of obtaining one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition (Claim 1), obtaining ingredient data comprising first ingredient data and second ingredient data, the first ingredient data associated with one or more first ingredients including a first primary ingredient and the second ingredient data associated with one or more second ingredients including a second primary ingredient (Claim 1), wherein the first wash condition is indicative of a geographical location, and the one or more wash conditions comprises a second wash condition indicative of a wash temperature (Claim 4), wherein the first primary ingredient is a surfactant, and the first ingredient data comprises first primary ingredient data of the first primary ingredient, the first primary ingredient data including one or more of identifiers, an amount, a cost, a purity parameter, an impurity parameter, a form parameter, a size parameter, a lower limit, and an upper limit (claim 5), wherein the second primary ingredient is an enzyme, and the second ingredient data comprises second primary ingredient data of the second primary ingredient, the second primary ingredient data including one or more of identifiers, an amount, a cost, a purity parameter, an impurity parameter, a form parameter, a size parameter, a lower limit, and an upper limit (Claim 6), wherein obtaining ingredient data comprises obtaining third ingredient data associated with one or more third ingredients including a third primary ingredient, and wherein determining a first performance is based on the third ingredient data. (Claim 7), wherein the method comprises obtaining a primary reference detergent, obtaining a primary first reference performance associated with the primary reference detergent and including a primary first reference performance representation of the primary reference detergent in the first performance representation (Claim 8), wherein the method comprises: obtaining an object parameter (Claim 9), receiving a user input indicative of a change in one or more of the first detergent composition and the first wash condition (Claim 11), obtain one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition (Claim 14), obtain ingredient data comprising first ingredient data and second ingredient data, the first ingredient data associated with one or more first ingredients including a first primary ingredient and the second ingredient data associated with one or more second ingredients including a second primary ingredient (Claim 14) are conventional and part of the data gathering process used in the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Evidence for conventionality is that there are no limitations and how the data is received and can simply be downloaded from a database which the MPEP says is conventional. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)
The additional elements of a computer-implemented method for performance evaluation of a detergent composition, the method comprising (Claim 1), An electronic device comprising a processor, a memory, and an interface, wherein the processor is configured to (Claim 14), and displaying the ingredient representation, wherein displaying the ingredient representation comprises displaying, in accordance with a user activation of a first ingredient user interface element, a first ingredient representation indicative of the first ingredients of the first detergent composition, and displaying, in accordance with a user activation of a second ingredient user interface element, a second ingredient representation indicative of the second ingredients of the first detergent composition (Claim 10) are conventional fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
When taken alone, all additional elements in claims 1-14 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 1-14 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
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 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 1-3, 5-10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1. The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, EP1869151A2 teaches also relates to liquid detergent compositions having desired formulation tolerance and consisting of surfactants, polymers, alkoxylated polyethyleneimines, enzymes, hydrotropes, solvents, stabilizers, perfumes, colorants, builders, electrolytes, and other adjunct ingredients (Description, pg. 1, paragraph 1) and liquid detergent composition consisting essentially of: (a) from about 8% to about 18% by weight of a surfactant system comprising from 0.01 wt % to about 9 wt % by weight of the composition of C8-15 alkyl benzene sulfonate and from 0 wt % to about 5 wt % by weight of the composition of a nonionic surfactant; (b); from about 0.01 wt % to about 5 wt % by weight of the composition of a formulation salt modifier; and (c) from about 20 wt % to about 85 wt % by weight of the composition of an aqueous liquid carrier being essentially free of cumene sulfonate; wherein the liquid detergent compositions gives a Formulation Tolerance greater than 33, and has a viscosity of from about 100 to about 800 centipose. (Description, Summary of Invention, paragraph 1) and enzymes can be included in effective amounts in the formulations herein for a wide variety of fabric laundering purposes, including removal of protein-based, carbohydrate-based, or triglyceride-based stains, for example, and/or for fabric restoration. Examples of suitable enzymes include, but are not limited to, hemicellulases, peroxidases, proteases, cellulases, xylanases, lipases, phospholipases, esterases, cutinases, pectinases, keratanases, reductases, oxidases, phenoloxidases, lipoxygenases, ligninases, pullulanases, tannases, pentosanases, malanases, β-glucanases, arabinosidases, hyaluronidase, chondroitinase, laccase, amylases, or combinations thereof. Other types of enzymes may also be included. They may be of any suitable origin, such as vegetable, animal, bacterial, fungal and yeast origin. However, their choice is governed by several factors such as pH-activity and/or stability optima, thermostability, stability versus active detergents, builders and so on. (description, Enzymes, paragraph 1- paragraph 2) Knowing these ingredients will also provide you the detergent composition. An ingredient list can be determined by looking at the composition of detergent provided. It is an obvious variation to display this data. (obtaining ingredient data comprising first ingredient data and second ingredient data, the first ingredient data associated with one or more first ingredients including a first primary ingredient and the second ingredient data associated with one or more second ingredients including a second primary ingredient; determining a first detergent composition based on the ingredient data; (Claim 1), wherein the first primary ingredient is a surfactant, and the first ingredient data comprises first primary ingredient data of the first primary ingredient, the first primary ingredient data including one or more of identifiers, an amount, a cost, a purity parameter, an impurity parameter, a form parameter, a size parameter, a lower limit, and an upper limit (Claim 5), wherein the second primary ingredient is an enzyme, and the second ingredient data comprises second primary ingredient data of the second primary ingredient, the second primary ingredient data including one or more of identifiers, an amount, a cost, a purity parameter, an impurity parameter, a form parameter, a size parameter, a lower limit, and an upper limit (Claim 6), wherein obtaining ingredient data comprises obtaining third ingredient data associated with one or more third ingredients including a third primary ingredient, and wherein determining a first performance is based on the third ingredient data (Claim 7), the method comprising: determining an ingredient representation based on the first detergent composition; and displaying the ingredient representation, wherein displaying the ingredient representation comprises displaying, in accordance with a user activation of a first ingredient user interface element, a first ingredient representation indicative of the first ingredients of the first detergent composition, and displaying, in accordance with a user activation of a second ingredient user interface element, a second ingredient representation indicative of the second ingredients of the first detergent composition (Claim 10), obtain ingredient data comprising first ingredient data and second ingredient data, the first ingredient data associated with one or more first ingredients including a first primary ingredient and the second ingredient data associated with one or more second ingredients including a second primary ingredient (Claim 14)
EP1869151A2 et al. does not explicitly teach
A computer-implemented method for performance evaluation of a detergent composition, the method comprising (Claim 1)
an electronic device comprising a processor, a memory, and an interface, wherein the processor is configured to (Claim 14)
wherein the method comprises: obtaining an object parameter; determining a second detergent composition based on the first wash condition, the ingredient data and the object parameter; and outputting the second detergent composition (Claim 9)
obtaining one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition (Claim 1), determining a first performance of the first detergent composition; and outputting a first performance representation of the first performance (Claim 1)
wherein the method comprises obtaining a primary reference detergent, obtaining a primary first reference performance associated with the primary reference detergent and including a primary first reference performance representation of the primary reference detergent in the first performance representation (Claim 8)
determine a first performance of the first detergent composition; and output a first performance representation of the first performance (Claim 14), obtain one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition (Claim 14)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, 14, CA2323860A1 teaches a computer implemented method for optimizing formulations which include evaluating their properties (abstract, A computer-implemented method for performance evaluation of a detergent composition, the method comprising (Claim 1) an electronic device comprising a processor, a memory, and an interface, wherein the processor is configured to (Claim 14)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 9, CA2323860A1 teaches selecting criteria to optimize a set of candidate formulations in the form of a cost function which is equivalent to an object parameter to obtain a Pareto optimal set of candidate formulations. This will output the ingredient data ad composition of the detergents. (Description, SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, paragraphs 4-6, wherein the method comprises: obtaining an object parameter; determining a second detergent composition based on the first wash condition, the ingredient data and the object parameter; and outputting the second detergent composition (Claim 9)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 14, WO2010109164A1 teaches evaluating washing conditions after washing at 400 C. The performance of 8 different detergents is evaluated visually and ranked by how well they remove certain stains such as Tea, Red Wine, Chocolate, grass and many other materials. A score of 1 to 5 is given with 1 being the best. (Description, pg. 3, paragraph 6, obtaining one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition (Claim 1), determining a first performance of the first detergent composition; and outputting a first performance representation of the first performance (Claim 1), wherein the method comprises obtaining a primary reference detergent, obtaining a primary first reference performance associated with the primary reference detergent and including a primary first reference performance representation of the primary reference detergent in the first performance representation (Claim 8), determine a first performance of the first detergent composition; and output a first performance representation of the first performance (Claim 14), obtain one or more wash conditions including a first wash condition (Claim 14)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1 as all works are in the same field of endeavor of detergent or product formulation. EP1869151A2 provides the basis for the invention method for predicting stability of liquid detergent composition, identifying and designing liquid detergent compositions that provide said desired stability, consumer acceptance and performance. Which can easily be used for new detergent design as one will need to predict properties of the new detergent.While CA2323860A1 provides a computational method for optimizing formula designs which can be readily applied to the detergents from EP1869151A2. WO2010109164A1 is an obvious addition because it is a method that compares different detergents to each other at various washing conditions and determines the best detergent. This can be used to determine the best detergent designed. There is a reasonable expectation of success because each piece works independently and they are just being combined without changing how any of them work. Therefore, they are expected to work when combined the same way as individually.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 14 above in further view of US8076468B2. The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-10, 14 have been taught by over EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1 above.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 4, WO2010109164A1 teaches evaluating washing conditions after washing at 400 C. The performance of 8 different detergents is evaluated visually and ranked by how well they remove certain stains such as Tea, Red Wine, Chocolate, grass and many other materials. A score of 1 to 5 is given with 1 being the best. (Description, pg. 3, paragraph 6 and the one or more wash conditions comprises a second wash condition indicative of a wash temperature, wherein determining a first performance of the first detergent composition is based on the first wash condition and/or the second wash condition (Claim 4),
EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1 does not explicitly teach
wherein the first wash condition is indicative of a geographical location (Claim 4)
However, these limitations were known in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by US8076468B2 teaches
With respect to the limitations of Claims 4, US8076468B2 teaches the use of different detergents based on geography discussing it is evident that concentrations of detergent compositions in typical wash solutions throughout the world varies from less than about 800 ppm of detergent composition (“low detergent concentration geographies”), for example about 667 ppm in Japan, to between about 800 ppm to about 2000 ppm (“medium detergent concentration geographies”), for example about 975 ppm in U.S. and about 1500 ppm in Brazil, to greater than about 2000 ppm (“high detergent concentration geographies”), for example about 4500 ppm to about 5000 ppm in Europe and about 6000 ppm in high suds phosphate builder geographies. The concentrations of the typical wash solutions are determined empirically. For example, in the U.S., a typical washing machine holds a volume of about 64.4 L of wash solution. Accordingly, in order to obtain a concentration of about 975 ppm of detergent within the wash solution about 62.79 g of detergent composition must be added to the 64.4 L of wash solution. This amount is the typical amount measured into the wash water by the consumer using the measuring cup provided with the detergent. As a further example, different geographies use different wash temperatures. The temperature of the wash water in Japan is typically less than that used in Europe. For example, the temperature of the wash water in North America and Japan can be between 10 and 30° C. (e.g., about 20° C.), whereas the temperature of wash water in Europe is typically between 30 and 60° C. (e.g., about 40° C.) (Description, VI. APPLICATIONS FOR SERINE PROTEASE ENZYMES, paragraph 9-12, wherein the first wash condition is indicative of a geographical location (Claim 4)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1 with US8076468B2. As US8076468B2 just provides geographic considerations such as hardness of water in detergent design. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily use this information to design a detergent. In addition, there is a reasonable expectation of success because US8076468B2 just gives information of optimizing detergent selection based on geolocation and does not change how the underlying method works.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 14 above in further view of WO2019148116A1. The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
The limitations of claims 1-3, 5-10, 14 have been taught by over EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1. above.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 11, 12, 13, WO2010109164A1 teaches evaluating washing conditions after washing at 400 C. The performance of 8 different detergents is evaluated visually and ranked by how well they remove certain stains such as Tea, Red Wine, Chocolate, grass and many other materials. A score of 1 to 5 is given with 1 being the best. (Description, pg. 3, paragraph 6 determining a first performance of the second detergent composition; and outputting a first performance representation of the first performance of the second detergent composition (Claim 11), wherein the method comprises determining a second performance and a third performance of the second detergent composition and outputting a second performance representation of the second performance of the second detergent composition and a third performance representation of the third performance of the second detergent composition (Claim 12), wherein the method comprises determining a fourth performance of the second detergent composition and outputting a fourth performance representation of the third performance of the second detergent composition (Claim 13)
EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1 does not explicitly teach
receiving a user input indicative of a change in one or more of the first detergent composition and the first wash condition; determining secondary ingredient data based on the user input indicative of a change in the first detergent composition; determining a second detergent composition based on the secondary ingredient data; (Claim 11)
However, these limitations were known in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by WO2019148116A1
With respect to the limitations of Claims 11, WO2019148116A1 teaches a method that includes receiving, by the computing device, one or more second data inputs reflecting changes in the first data inputs and getting the composition of the skin care formulation. (Description, paragraph 17, receiving a user input indicative of a change in one or more of the first detergent composition and the first wash condition; determining secondary ingredient data based on the user input indicative of a change in the first detergent composition; determining a second detergent composition based on the secondary ingredient data; (Claim 11)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine EP1869151A2 in view of CA2323860A1 in further view of WO2010109164A1 with WO2019148116A1. As WO2019148116A1 just adds a method for changing ingredients and outputting the new composition. Although WO2019148116A1 is applied to makeup. The same principles of adjusting an ingredient list to generate a new formulation apply. A person of ordinary skill in the art would see how other fields have solved this problem leading a person of ordinary skill in the art to identify the solution of WO2019148116A1. There is a reasonable expectation of success because everything works separately and therefore is expected to work when combined as WO2019148116A1 just adds another method to determine composition without changing how the method works therefore it is expected to continue to work.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor Beveridge whose telephone number is 571-272-2099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 5 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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at 571-272-9047. 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.
/C.H.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights