Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3-18-2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cron et al (20180216031) are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney et al (20140349913).
Delaney et al disclose a detergent composition comprising: from about 1% to about 50% of a sulfated surfactant; an organic acid; a polyamine compound; and from about 0.25% to about 10% of an alkalizing agent, where the composition has a pH of from about 2 to about 6.9 when measured neat; and where the composition is substantially free of peroxide bleach (0007). Furthermore, the cleaning compositions may have a form selected from liquid, single-phase or multi-phase unit dose, pouch, gel, or paste. When the compositions are in a unit dose form (0018). In addition, the compositions comprise from about 50% to about 95%, or from about 60% to about 90%, or from about 65% to about 81%, by weight of the composition of water (0019); sulfated surfactant may be selected from alkyl sulfate, alkyl alkoxylated sulfate, or mixtures thereof. In some aspects, the detergent compositions of the present invention comprise from about 0.1% to about 50% (0023); and non-sulfated surfactants", alkyl benzene sulfonates as well as nonionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, ampholytic surfactants, or mixtures thereof, may comprise from about 1% to about 50% (0028). Moreover, The detergent compositions of the present disclosure may comprise from about 0.01% to about 10%, or to about 15%, or to about 20%, by weight of the composition of alkoxylated polyamines (0071), where the alkoxylated polyamines may be ethoxylated polyalkyleneamines, ethoxylated polyalkyleneimines, or mixtures thereof. The alkyl group of the polyalkyleneamine or polyalkyleneimine may be a C2 group, a C3 group, or mixtures thereof (0079). Specifically, zwitterionic polyamines having up to 20 moles of ethylene oxide are suggested in a variety of formulae (0085; 0129-0138). See Table 2, example 6 and claims.
Delaney et al lack a sufficient specificity of each of the claimed ingredients in a preferred embodiment, however, it would have been obvious to combine the components in their requisite proportions to suggest the claims. Cron et al teach the preferred AES:LAS; PEI/zwitterionic and further suggest the low amounts of nonionic and balance of water all the while being absent of hydrotropes as the dependent claims call out. Furthermore, unit dose formulation are suggested while being silent with the amount of the dose, one skilled in the art would be able to optimize the amounts given the amount of surfactant composition within a dosage system. Accordingly, the claims are prima facie obvious in view of Cron et al and in the absence of unexpected results, commensurate in scope of the claims, one skilled would readily combine the components within the teachings to suggest the claimed invention. With respect to the ratio of AES:LAS, it is suggested that optimizing broad range of said anionic surfactants, which are well known in the detergent art, would have been obvious in the absence of a showing to the contrary, on skilled would have been motivated to comprise a proportion of 3:1 or 1.7:1, respectively with the expectation of delivery an optimum surface tension cleansing which said anionic are designed to deliver.
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
With respect to the dosage package size, the examiner contends that the design choice of said dosage is would have been within the purview of the artisan to suggest a unit dose size for obvious reasons, and the sklled artisan would have been motivated to suggest a size encompassing the claims given that the analogous art of Delaney et al teach utilizing said dosage compartments for washing machine and household usage. The skilled artisan would readily look to optimizing said dosage of Delaney et al for conventional sizes for utilization in commercially sold machines for their commercial success, in the absence of a showing to the contrary.
The public use of an ornamental design which is directed toward generating consumer interest in the aesthetics of the design is not an experimental use. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
As stated in KSR Int'l Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007):
"[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claimwould have been prima facie obvious] need not seek out preciseteachings directed to the specific subject matter of thechallenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferencesand creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the artwould employ."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights