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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on October 6th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on October 6th, 2025.
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.
Claims 4-6 are 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 4 states “additionally comprising” while claim 1 states “consisting of”. Claim 4 does not further limit claim 1.
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 and claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minty (WO 2018222545 A1).
With regard to claim 1 and claim 2, Minty discloses a polymer rheology modifier (see Abstract) which may be used in household or industrial cleaners (see Claim 11). Minty further discloses a crosslinked polymer composed of D,L-y-poly(glutamate) with ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether as a cross linker (see Example 1 and [0037]). Minty further discloses the composition may comprise a surfactant (see [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the crosslinked polymer composed of D,L-y-poly(glutamate) with ethylene glycol diglycidyl ether as a cross linker as this is described in Example 1 of Minty.
With regard to claim 3, Minty discloses the crosslinking bond ranging from 1 cross link bond per 10 (10mol%) amino acid monomers to 1 per 50 (2mol%) (see [0035]).
With regard to claim 7, Minty discloses the poly(amino acid) as having a concentration of 1g/L to 100g/L in the aqueous composition (see Claim 10).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minty (WO 2018222545 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tang (US 20150337236 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Minty discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Minty fails to disclose the detersive surfactant as chosen from anionic, cationic, amphoteric or nonionic detersive surfactants.
Tang discloses a liquid laundry detergent (see Abstract) comprising a surfactant (see [0030]) and a rheology modifier (see [0052]). Tang further discloses the anionic surfactants are known in the art of laundry detergents (see [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the anionic surfactant of Tang in the composition of Minty as Minty discloses surfactants. Anionic surfactants are a type of surfactant. Further, Tang discloses that anionic surfactants are known in the art of laundry detergents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
The closest prior art is Miao (“Synthesis and characterization of hydrophobically modified derivatives of polysaccharides”). Miao discloses the synthesis of polysaccharides. Miao further discloses modified hydroxypropyl guar (HPG) (page 43). Miao further teaches modifications comprising epoxides containing long alkyl chains as exhibiting remarkable increase of viscosity compared to initial guar (see page 43). Miao further teaches such polymers as useful as thickening agents for aqueous systems (see page 43).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761