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 Objections
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1. The claims begin with “a composition” and should begin with “the composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 has an extra period at the end of the claim.
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 5 and 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 5 recites the limitation "the total surfactant" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the phrases "more preferably" and “most preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of expedited prosecution the claim is being interpreted as the composition having a pH of 5-10.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al (US2014/0187466) in view of Boutique et al (US2017/0362539).
Lin et al teach a laundry detergent a comprising a nonionic surfactant that is methyl ester ethoxylate (MEE) with alkyl chain length of from about 10 to about 20 carbon atoms [0011]. Lin et al further teach the composition has stable MEE at a pH of at least 7.8 [0016]. Lin et al teach the composition comprises 1-5% wt nonionic surfactant [0017]. Lin et al teach an aqueous formulation comprising 75-85% water, 1-6% MEE and 0.15-0.5% fragrance that has a pH of 7.8 [0086].
Lin et al do not specifically teach the instantly claimed fragrances.
Boutique et al teach liquid laundry detergent composition comprising a perfume composition providing superior malodour neutralization of fabrics without causing a colour change of the composition [Abstract]. Boutique et al teach a specific example with an ethoxylated nonionic surfactant and water [0060]. Boutique et al further teaches the perfume raw materials providing superior malodour neutralization of fabrics include compositions containing 2.5% dihydromyrcenol [0056].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to select the dihydromyrcenol fragrance as taught by Boutique et al and use in the composition taught by Lin et al before the effective filing date following reasons. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a laundry detergent that is stable and provides superior fragrance perception. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of neutralizing malodor of the fabric being washed by the composition, as taught by Boutique et al. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW whose telephone number is (571)272-2817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8-5.
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, Yvonne Eyler can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761