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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner construes the limitations “C18:1” and “C18:0” that is recited in instant claim 1 to mean that the fatty acid nomenclature describes the fatty acid by two numbers A:B, where A is the number of carbons in the fatty acid and B is the number of double bonds it contains, as defined by applicant on page 2, lines 16-21 of the instant specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In instant claim 1, the abbreviation of “MEE” should either be spelled out to methyl ester ethoxylate or should be defined.
In instant claim 2 the limitation “claim 1 comprising wherein” should be amended to recite “claim 1 wherein” for grammatical purposes.
Claims 2-11 are objected to for being dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-11 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 9 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “pH of 5-10”, followed by the narrow recitations of “preferably 6 to 8, most preferably 6.1 to 7.0”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the detergent composition" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the examiner asserts that this limitation should be amended to recite “the laundry detergent composition” to provide proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "laundry liquid composition" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the examiner asserts that this limitation should be amended to recite “laundry detergent composition” to provide proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction and/or clarification 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morimoto et al, US 2018/0265807.
Morimoto et al, US 2018/0265807, discloses a liquid detergent composition comprising a nonionic surfactant of formula (1), wherein R1 is a double bond containing C15-17 alkyl group in an amount of at least 5-30% by weight, EO is ethylene oxide, and R2 is methyl (see paragraphs 9-19), that the nonionic surfactant of formula (I) contains palmitic (i.e. C16 MEE), stearic (i.e. C18:0 MEE) and oleic acids (i.e. C18:1 MEE) for the alkyl group (see paragraph 46), that the composition contains an anionic surfactant (see paragraph 54), that the composition contains water (see paragraphs 73-74), that the pH of the composition is 5-9 (see paragraph 102), and that the composition is used in a process to wash textiles (see paragraph 107), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Preparation Examples 1-5 and Examples 1-21 in Tables 1-3. Therefore, instant claims 1-11 are anticipated by Morimoto et al, US 2018/0265807.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hsu et al, US 2007/01111914.
Hsu et al, US 2007/01111914, discloses a method for washing laundry with a composition comprising 1-80% by weight of an alkoxylated ester surfactant (see abstract and paragraph 9). It is further taught by Hsu et al that the alkoxylated ester surfactant has the structure of Formula (I), wherein R1 is a C12-18 alkyl group, R2 is a C2H4, and R3 is methyl (see paragraphs 26-35), that the composition is a liquid and is stored in a container (see paragraphs 40 and 104), that the composition has a pH of 7.67 (see Table 3), that the composition has water added to the balance (see Tables 1 and 3), and that the wash liquor is prepared by diluting 2 grams of the composition in 1 liter of water (see paragraph 133), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note the Examples in Tables 1-4. Therefore, instant claims 1-11 are anticipated by Hsu et al, US 2007/01111914.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cox et al, “Methyl Ester Ethoxylates”.
Cox et al, “Methyl Ester Ethoxylates”, discloses a composition comprising C16 and C18 alkyl methyl ester ethoxylates (see abstract and Table 2). It is further taught by Cox et al that the composition is used in a process to wash cotton swatches, wherein the methyl ester ethoxylates contain palmitic (i.e. C16 MEE), stearic (i.e. C18:0 MEE) and oleic acids (i.e. C18:1 MEE) (see Table 4), and that the pH of the composition is 7-9 (see Table 5), per the requirements of the instant invention. Therefore, instant claims 1-11 are anticipated by Cox et al, “Methyl Ester Ethoxylates”.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-13 of copending Application No. 18/288,563 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/288,563 claims a similar laundry detergent composition comprising an alkyl ether sulphate and a methyl ester ethoxylate surfactant that contains a portion of a C18 alkyl group, wherein the composition is used in a process to wash textiles (see claims 1 and 3-13 of copending Application No. 18/288,563), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-11 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1 and 3-13 of copending Application No. 18/288,563.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/294,797 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/294,797 claims a similar method for treating a fabric with a detergent composition comprising a fragrance and a methyl ester ethoxylate surfactant that contains a portion of a C18 alkyl group (see claims 1, 3-10 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/294,797), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-11 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1, 3-10 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/294,797.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/294,807 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/294,807 claims a similar laundry detergent composition comprising a fragrance and a methyl ester ethoxylate surfactant that contains a portion of a C18 alkyl group, wherein the composition is used in a process to wash textiles (see claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/294,807), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-11 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/294,807.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/288,558 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/288,558 claims a similar laundry detergent composition comprising water and a methyl ester ethoxylate surfactant that contains a portion of a C18 alkyl group, wherein the composition is used in a process to wash textiles (see claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/288,558), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-11 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/288,558.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/557,457 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/557,457 claims a similar composition comprising water and a mixture of methyl ester ethoxylate surfactants of Formula (I) that contains a portion of a C17 alkyl group (see claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/557,457), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-11 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 16-30 of copending Application No. 18/557,457.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/703,505 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/703,505 claims a similar composition comprising water, a fragrance, and a methyl ester ethoxylate surfactant that contains a portion of a C18 alkyl group (see claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/703,505), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-11 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/703,505.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
September 29, 2025