DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims are interpreted as a detergent and method of using the same comprising hydroxyl compound a1-a10 in proportions; an optional component and method of using the same with the additional water immiscible component or fragrance. It is recommended that applicant choose to open or close the claim by using “comprising or consisting of.”
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, 8, 12 and 13 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.
The aforementioned claim 4 states “anionic, cationic, non-ionic and/or amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactants.” The claims is confusing because it fails to define what applicant is claiming in the Markush group. Is applicant claiming 3 surfactants and/or two surfactant mixtures? An appropriate claim should read “anionic, cationic, non-ionic, amphoteric, zwitterionic surfactants and mixtures thereof .” Corrections are required.
Claims 8, 12 and 13 state the phrase in component (b) “adding to said detergent composition” however, said claims do not include a detergent compositions or are the claims depended from the detergent compositions of claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what detergent composition the claims are referencing and thereby rendering said claims indefinite. Clarification and/or corrections are required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 8, 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The aforementioned claims state “amounts from 0.001 to about 2,0 wt. percent” or “0.005 to 1,55 wt. percent”. The percentages have a “,” within the numerals and should comprise a “.” for continuity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Schmaus et al (2010/0196504).
Schmaus et al disclose a detergent composition for antibacterial and disinfecting capabilities wherein said compositions comprising cationic surfactants alkyltrimethyl ammonium salts (same as tetraalkyl ammonium salt; a quaternary Page 3 ammonium softening agent) or didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride in amounts of 0.1 15 w%; [170, claim 2], b)- antimicrobial agents such as 1,2-decanediol, 1, 2 pentanediol, 1,2 hexanediol, 1,2-octanediol in amounts of 0.5-2 wt%; [23, 112, pg.12: table 3], and ; c)- water in amounts added to 100 W% of composition; [pg. 13; table 3]. Schmaus teaches anionic surfactants of alkyl (alkane) sulfonates, alkyl ether sulfates and fatty acid ether sulfates; [88, 157, 159], nonionic surfactants such as alkyl polyglucoside and amine oxide; [170, 177, 179]. Composition further comprises components perfume and colorants; [112-113].
Schmaus teaches organic solvents such as ethylene glycol, propylene glycol and glycerol; [70], chelating agents such as ethylene diaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA); [123], dye transfer inhibiting agent as polyvinyl pyrrolidone; [112], foam inhibitors and suds control agent as waxes, and siloxane polymers; [119-120], thickener as polyacrylates and polysaccharides; [72], inorganic salts such as silicates; [pg.13: table 3].
Table 3 exemplifies at example 2, o.5% 1,2 Decanediol; 0.1% ethoxylated fatty alcohol; 0.2% fragrance and balance being water. In example 7 of Table 3, Schmaus et al exemplifies 2% 1,2 Decanediol; fragrance; 5% cocamidopropyl betaine; balance water.
As this reference teach all of the instantly required it is considered anticipatory.
Claim(s) 8, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schmaus et al ((2010/0196504).
Schmaus et al is relied upon as set forth above. Specifically, Schmaus et al teaches a method for making (i.e. stabilizing) antibacterial detergent composition by providing; a cationic surfactant alkyltrimethyl ammonium salts (same as tetraalkyl ammonium salt; a quaternary ammonium softening agent; a textile softening agent) or didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride in amounts of 0.1-15 w%; [170, 62]; anionic, nonionic and amphoteric surfactants; [62], and 1-2 alkanediols such as 1,2-decanediol, 1, 2-pentanediol, 1,2 hexanediol, 1,2 octanediol; in amounts of 0.5-2 wt% [23, 112, pg. 12: table 3], added to a detergent composition for cleaning microbial contamination; [17-18, 27, 29, 212-214, pg.12: table 3]. Composition further comprises component such as perfume and colorants; [112-113]. See Table 3 and examples 2 and 7 as stated above.
As this reference teaches all of the instantly required it is considered anticipatory.
In the alternative, Schmaus et al teaches the method of stabilizing but is silent with respect to the additional characteristics of the method claims such as improving solubility, or increasing viscosity, foaming, wetting or reducing surface tension.
It would have nonetheless been inherent to the composition to comprise the characteristics as claimed in the methods given since Schmaus et al teach the same compositions within their requisite proportions of detergents and hydroxy compounds with fragrance components that are used for the method of detergency or cleansing that would have resulted in the same or similar claimed methods, absent criticality to the contrary.
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