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, 2, 4, 5, and 7-14 are pending. Claims 3 and 6 have been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and argument filed November 21, 2025, have been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on November 21, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 21, 2025.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 8/25/25 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 3-8 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1,348,017, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson et al (US2019/0093054) in view of EP 1,348,017 or WO2020/109538, has been withdrawn.
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, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1,348,017 in view of Souter et al (US2016/0355767).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘017 teaches a laundry detergent, rinse or cleaning agent portion which comprises at least one surfactant, optionally together with one or more further wash-active, rinse-active or cleaning-active constituent(s), in a casing which can be disintegrated in water. A surfactant can be used, or a plurality of mutually compatible surfactants, preferably complementary in their properties (including their foaming behavior), can be used. All surfactants can belong to one surfactant type; however, when using a plurality of surfactants, surfactants of different types are preferably used, for example one or more anionic surfactant(s) together with one or more nonionic surfactant(s). See page 1. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the detergent, rinse or detergent portions comprise a water-soluble polymer material as a water-disintegrable casing. In this case, it is possible for the laundry detergent, rinse or cleaning agent portion to surround a casing made of one or more water-soluble polymer material(s) or for a plurality of surrounds made of identical or different materials to be contained. See page 5. Suitable anionic surfactants include those of the sulfate type such as alkylbenzene sulfonates, alkyl sulfates, alkyl ether sulfates, fatty acids, etc. Suitable nonionic surfactants include ethoxylated and/or propoxylated alcohols having from 8 to 18 carbon atoms and an average of 1 to 12 moles of ethylene oxide, etc. In the context of the present invention, preference is given to portions of laundry detergent, rinse or cleaning agent which comprise 5 to 50% by weight, preferably 7.5 to 40% by weight and in particular 15 to 25% by weight, of one or more anionic surfactant (e), based in each case on the weight of the portion of laundry detergent, rinse or cleaning agent. See page 3. In cases where the portions according to the invention are laundry detergents, these usually comprise one or more surfactant (e) in total amounts of from 5 to 50% by weight, preferably in amounts of from 10 to 35% by weight, it being possible for portions of surfactants to be present in relatively large or relatively small amounts in partial portions of the laundry detergents, rinse compositions or cleaning compositions according to the invention. In other words: the amount of surfactant is not the same in all partial portions; rather, partial portions with relatively larger and partial portions with relatively smaller surfactant content can be provided. See page 4. Specifically, ‘017 teaches a water-soluble pouch made of PVA which contains a detergent composition, the detergent composition comprising 22.5% of a C12-C14 ethoxylated/propoxylated alcohol, 28% of MIPA-LAS, 22.3% of a C12-C18 fatty acid, 3.5% ethanol, 1% glycerin, 15% propylene glycol, 6.3% monoethanolamine, etc.
‘017 does not teach the use of a secondary alcohol ethoxylate or a concentrated composition containing less than 5% by weight of water, an anionic surfactant with a monoisopropylamine and/or triisopropanolamine ion, a nonionic surfactant comprising secondary alcohol ethoxylate, a non-aqueous solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant clam 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Souter et al teach a liquid laundry detergent composition that includes: a liquid phase; and a solid enzyme particle, where the solid particle is dispersed within the liquid phase. See Abstract. The liquid laundry detergent composition of the present invention comprises a liquid phase into which the solid enzyme particle is dispersed.
The liquid phase comprises between 5% and 60% by weight of the liquid of an alcohol. The alcohol is described in more detail below. The liquid phase may comprise a natural or synthetically derived fatty alcohol ethoxylate non-ionic surfactant. Preferred synthetically derived fatty alcohol ethoxylate non-ionic surfactant or those derived from the oxo-synthesis process, or so-called oxo-synethesised non-ionic surfactants. The composition may comprise from 0% to 30% or even from 0.1% to 25% by weight of the composition of fatty alcohol ethoxylate non-ionic surfactant. The ethoxylated nonionic surfactant may be, e.g., primary and secondary alcohol ethoxylates, especially the C.sub.8-C.sub.20 aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 50 or even 20 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol, and more especially the C.sub.10-C.sub.15 primary and secondary aliphatic alcohols ethoxylated with an average of from 1 to 10 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of alcohol. See paras. 86-90.
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 secondary alcohol ethoxylate in the composition taught by ‘017, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Souter et al teach the use of a secondary alcohol ethoxylate as a nonionic surfactant in a similar composition and further, ‘017 teach the use of ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactants in general.
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 concentrated composition containing less than 5% by weight of water, an anionic surfactant with a monoisopropylamine and/or triisopropanolamine ion, a nonionic surfactant comprising secondary alcohol ethoxylate, a non-aqueous solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant clam 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 ‘017 in view of Souter et al suggest a concentrated composition containing less than 5% by weight of water, an anionic surfactant with a monoisopropylamine and/or triisopropanolamine ion, a nonionic surfactant comprising secondary alcohol ethoxylate, a non-aqueous solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant clam 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson et al (US2019/0093054) in view of EP 1,348,017 or WO2020/109538; and Souter et al (US2016/0355767).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Patterson et al teach a water-soluble unit dose article comprising a water-soluble film and a liquid laundry detergent composition, wherein the liquid laundry detergent composition comprises: a variant of a parent lipase. See claim 1. The detergent compositions are in liquid form and contain various detergent adjuncts including surfactants, solvents, etc. The detergent adjunct preferably comprises a surfactant, in particular for a cleaning composition the surfactant preferably comprises anionic and/or nonionic surfactants, preferably in a weight ratio of from 50:1 to 1:10, or more preferably from 20:1 to 1:2.
The detergent composition preferably comprises up to 50%, preferably between 5% and 50%, more preferably between 7.5% and 45%, even more preferably between 10% and 40%, or even more preferably between 12% and 37%, most preferably between 15% and 30% by weight of the detergent composition of a non-soap anionic surfactant. Preferably, the non-soap anionic surfactant comprises linear alkylbenzene sulphonate, alkoxylated alkyl sulphate or a mixture thereof. More preferably, the non-soap anionic surfactant is a mixture of linear alkylbenzene sulphonate and alkoxylated alkyl sulphate, more preferably a mixture of linear alkylbenzene sulphonate and ethoxylated alkyl sulphate. See para. 273. Preferably, the non-soap anionic surfactant is neutralised with an amine. See para. 276. The detergent composition preferably comprises between 0% and 40%, preferably between 0.01% and 30%, more preferably between 0.1% and 20%, most preferably between 0.15% and 15% by weight of the liquid laundry detergent composition of a non-ionic surfactant. Preferably, the non-ionic surfactant is selected from alcohol alkoxylates, an oxo-synthesised alcohol alkoxylate, Guerbet alcohol alkoxylates, alkyl phenol alcohol alkoxylates or a mixture thereof.
The water-soluble unit dose article preferably comprises 20% or less, or more preferably 15% or less by weight of the unit dose article of water, preferably comprising between 0.1% and 15%, more preferably between 1% and 12.5% by weight of the unit dose article of water. Preferably, the water-soluble unit dose article comprises between 10% and 60%, preferably between 12% and 50%, most preferably between 15% and 40% by weight of the liquid laundry detergent composition of a non-aqueous solvent, preferably wherein the non-aqueous solvent is selected from 1,2-Propanediol, glycerol, sorbitol, dipropylene glycol, tripropyleneglycol, or a mixture thereof. See para. 281-283.
Patterson et al do not teach the use of an anionic surfactant neutralized with monoisopropylamine (MIPA), a secondary alcohol ethoxylate, or a concentrated composition containing less than 5% by weight of water, an anionic surfactant with a monoisopropylamine and/or triisopropanolamine ion, a nonionic surfactant comprising secondary alcohol ethoxylate, a non-aqueous solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant clam 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘017 and Souter et al are relied upon as set forth above.
‘538 relates to fabric softeners and washing detergents comprising water soluble 1,3:1,4-B-D-glucans (B-glucans) for treating and softening textiles and fabrics derived from cellulose and/or protein-based fibres, and a method for treating and softening such textiles and fabrics. The laundry composition may be used as a washing detergent. See page 3. Detergents and surfactants utilized in the ẞB-glucan containing formulations can be of all the major accepted types; anionics (for example Soap, Sodium Lauryl ethyl Sulphate, MIPA laureth sulphate, etc.
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 surfactant such as MIPA laureth sulfate or MIPA-LAS in the composition taught by Patterson et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘538 or ‘017 teaches the use of MIPA laureth sulfate or MIPA-LAS, respectively, in a similar composition and further, Patterson et al teach the use of a wide variety of amine neutralized anionic surfactants in general.
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 secondary alcohol ethoxylate in the composition taught by Patterson et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Souter et al teach the use of a secondary alcohol ethoxylate as a nonionic surfactant in a similar composition and further, Patterson et al teach the use of ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactants in general.
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 concentrated composition containing less than 5% by weight of water, an anionic surfactant with a monoisopropylamine and/or triisopropanolamine ion, a nonionic surfactant comprising secondary alcohol ethoxylate, a non-aqueous solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant clam 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 Patterson et al in view of ‘538 or ‘017; and Souter et al suggest a concentrated composition containing less than 5% by weight of water, an anionic surfactant with a monoisopropylamine and/or triisopropanolamine ion, a nonionic surfactant comprising secondary alcohol ethoxylate, a non-aqueous solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant clam 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using EP 1,348,017 in view of Souter et al (US2016/0355767); or Patterson et al (US2019/0093054) in view of EP 1,348,017 or WO2020/109538; and Souter et al (US2016/0355767), Applicant states that the composition pointed to by the Office Action as disclosed in ‘017 includes 22.5% of a C12-C14 ethoxylated/propoxylated alcohol which can be classified as a non-ionic surfactant and 22.3% of a C12-C18 fatty acid and 28% of MIPA-LAS which can be classified as anionic surfactants resulting in totals that are outside of the recited weight ratio between the anionic and the non-ionic surfactant of "from 1.3:1 to 1:1.3". Additionally, Applicant states that Patterson et al disclose "the weight ratio of total anionic surfactant (i.e. all anionic surfactant present in the liquid composition): non-ionic surfactant in the liquid composition is between 5:1 and 23:1 which is in contrast with the recited weight ratio between the anionic and the non-ionic surfactant of "from 1.3:1 to 1:1.3”.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of 1,348,017 in view of Souter et al (US2016/0355767); or Patterson et al (US2019/0093054) in view of EP 1,348,017 or WO2020/109538; and Souter et al (US2016/0355767) 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, ‘017 clearly teaches that anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, and mixtures thereof, may be used in amounts from 5 to 50% by weight, preferably in amounts of from 10 to 35% by weight, it being possible for portions of surfactants to be present in relatively large or relatively small amounts in partial portions of the laundry detergents, rinse compositions or cleaning compositions according to the invention. In other words: the amount of surfactant is not the same in all partial portions; rather, partial portions with relatively larger and partial portions with relatively smaller surfactant content can be provided, which would clearly suggest mixtures of anionic surfactant and nonionic surfactant in a weight ratio of 1:1 or 1.3:1 as recited by the instant claims. Additionally, Patterson et al clearly teach that the composition preferably comprises up to 50%, preferably between 5% and 50% by weight, of a non-soap anionic surfactant, and from between 0% and 40%, preferably between 0.01% and 30%, a non-ionic surfactant (See para. 273 of Patterson et al), which would clearly suggest a composition containing mixtures of anionic surfactant and nonionic surfactant in a weight ratio of 1:1 or 1.3:1 as recited by the instant claims.
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that WO2020/109538 and Souter et al are analogous prior art relative to ‘017 and Patterson et al and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of ‘538 and Souter et al to cure the defiencies of ‘017 and Patterson et al. ‘538 and Souter et al are secondary references relied upon for their teaching of an anionic surfactant neutralized with monoisopropylamine (MIPA) and a secondary alcohol ethoxylate, respectively. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a secondary alcohol ethoxylate in the composition taught by Patterson et al or ‘017, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Souter et al teach the use of a secondary alcohol ethoxylate as a nonionic surfactant in a similar composition and further, Patterson et al or ‘017 teach the use of ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactants in general. Also, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a surfactant such as MIPA laureth sulfate or MIPA-LAS in the composition taught by Patterson et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘538 or ‘017 teaches the use of MIPA laureth sulfate or MIPA-LAS, respectively, in a similar composition and further, Patterson et al teach the use of a wide variety of amine neutralized anionic surfactants in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of EP 1,348,017 in view of Souter et al (US2016/0355767); or Patterson et al (US2019/0093054) in view of EP 1,348,017 or WO2020/109538; and Souter et al (US2016/0355767), 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/February 24, 2026