Response to Amendment
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 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paullin et al. (US 20150232785) and Guan et al. (US 2019/0185893 A1) in view of Courchay et al (US 20220186158).
Paullin et al. teach a water soluble laundry detergent [0487, 0214] comprising a unit dose [0215] and PVA [0240] copolymer and wherein the liquid laundry composition [0069,0070] comprises a cationically modified poly alpha- 1,6-glucan ether compound [0478-0480] in an amount of about 0.05-30% wt% (0188) which also encompasses claim 1 range from 20% to 50% of the cationically modified poly alpha- 1,6-glucan ether compound; water from 0-70% and organic solvents up to 30% (0216). Regarding the claim limitation to wherein at least 65% or at least 80%, or at least 90% of the glucose monomer units are linked via alpha-1,6-glycosidic linkages as required by claims 2 and 8; said limitation is met by Paullin et al. using dextran backbone in their exemplary compositions. See [0405]. One of ordinary skill reading Paullin et al. examples can understand that it is this dextran backbone being modified. Examiner’s position is further supported by Guan et al. teaching in [0019] that the dextran backbone as disclosed by Paullin is a water soluble alpha-glucan comprising at least 90 % alpha - 1,6 glycosidic linkages (with the balance of the linkages typically being alpha - 1,3 ). Thus, one of ordinary skill reading Paullin et al. understands that Paullin et al. dextran backbone, meets the claimed criteria of the glycosidic linkages percentages as required in claims 1, 8 and 19 because Guan et al. describe the commonly known nature of dextran is a water soluble alpha - glucan comprising at least 90 % alpha - 1,6 glycosidic linkage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed limitation to wherein at least 75% or at least 80%, or at least 90% of the glucose monomer units are linked via alpha-1,6-glycosidic linkages as required by claims 2 because Paullin et al. use a dextran backbone in their exemplary laundry or dishwashing compositions and Guan et al. teach that the dextran backbone as disclosed by Paullin is a water soluble alpha - glucan comprising at least 90 % alpha - 1,6 glycosidic linkages.
Paullin et al. teach claim 2 limitation to wherein the cationically modified poly alpha-1,6-glucan ether compound has a degree of substitution of about 0.001 to about 3 in their claims 1-3 and 15-16 also encompassing material language to characterized by at least one of i-iv. See also page 7, [0092-0094].
Claim 3 limitation to wherein at least 3% of the backbone glucose monomer units have branches via alpha-1,2 and/or alpha-1,3-glycosidic linkages is taught in the abstract and claim 1.
Claims 4-5 limitation to wherein the positively charged organic group comprises a substituted ammonium group is taught on page 5,[0053-0055] teaching wherein the substituted ammonium group comprises at least one C10 to C16 alkyl group. See also [0174-01 76].
Paullin et al. teach material limitation to claim 6 wherein the substituted ammonium group comprises a trimethylammonium group in [0057].
Paullin et al. teach material limitation to claim 7 wherein the positively charged organic group comprises a quaternary ammonium hydroxyalkyl group on page 5, [0054- 0055].
Claim 11, 15-16 limitation to wherein the liquid laundry treatment composition comprises between 20% and 60% a non-soap surfactant is taught in [0280] teaching coconut non- soap surfactants in amounts up to 50%. See page 25, [0280].
Paullin et al teach wherein the non-soap anionic surfactant comprises linear alkyl benzene sulphonate and alkoxylated alkyl] sulphate in a weight ratio of linear alkylbenzene sulphonate to alkoxylated alkyl sulphate from 1:2 to 9:1 in [0217, 0244] teaching the surfactant is present at a level of from about 0.1% to about 60%, linear alkylbenzenesulfonate (LAS), alpha-olefin sulfonate (AOS), alkyl sulfate (fatty alcohol sulfate) (AS), alcohol ethoxy sulfate (AEOS or AES), secondary alkanesulfonates (SAS), alpha-sulfo fatty acid methyl esters, alkyl- or alkenyl Succinic acid, or Soap. Therefore the broad teachings of 60% surfactants to 20% glucan ether compound is within the ratio of 70:30 to 99.5 to 0.5 and can be readily optimized accordingly.
“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).
Claim 15 limitation to wherein the liquid laundry treatment composition further comprises a perfume is taught in [0242].
Claim 19 limitation to the water-soluble unit dose of the liquid laundry treatment composition comprises between 1% and 20% water is taught in [0068-0070] teaching about 20% water in the aqueous solvent ethanol or glycol in amounts from up to 30% (0216) with the glucan ethers from 0.05-30% (0188) admixed at ambient temperatures (0345). Furthermore, the process of a solvent comprising an organic solvent such as alcohol is preferred for washing a poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan ether. A poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan ether product can be washed one or more times with an aqueous solution containing methanol or ethanol, and a subsequent step of said poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan ether produced in the disclosed reaction can be isolated. This step can be performed before or after washing steps using a funnel, centrifuge, press filter, or any other method or equipment known in the art that allows removal of liquids from solids. An isolated poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan ether product can be dried using any method known in the art (0347-0348).
Regarding claims 16-17, Paullin et al. teach in [0100] and [0336] that the poly alpha-1,3-1,6-glucan can be with a positively charged organic group, where the carbon chain of the positively charged organic group has a substitution (e.g., hydroxyl group) in addition to a substitution with a positively charged group (e.g., substituted ammonium group such as trimethylammonium). See pages 8,[0100] and pg.29, [0336].
Paullin et al. do not teach the liquid detergent premix and process in a unit dose article as is required by claim 1.
Courchay et al teach a process of making a water-soluble unit dose article according to the disclosure herein, comprising the steps of; [0019] a. deforming the first water-soluble film to create an open cavity; [0020] b. filling the open cavity with a composition; [0021] c. separately deforming the third water-soluble film to create at least one open cavity; [0022] d. filling the at least one open cavity from step (c) with a composition; [0023] e. closing the open filled cavity from step (d) with the second water-soluble film; [0024] f. sealing the second water-soluble film to the third water-soluble film to create a closed intermediate; [0025] g. closing the open filled cavity from step (b) with the closed intermediate from step (f); and [0026] h. sealing the first water-soluble film to the second water-soluble film to create the water-soluble unit dose article. Furthermore, limitation to wherein the water-soluble film comprises a polyvinyl alcohol is taught [0005-0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Paullin and arrive at the claimed liquid detergent housed in an unit does article as is required by claim 1 because Paullin et al. teach a liquid laundry detergent comprising about 20% water, a cationically modified poly alpha-1,6-glucan ether in a PVA unit dose in general and Courchay et al. teach a process of forming said unit dose form comprising a water-soluble PVA film where the liquid laundry treatment composition ingredients are in multiple compartments.
With respect to the pre-mix limitations, the examiner contends that the process order of sequence mixing to determine the unit dose article as claimed would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in light of the teachings of Paullin et al and Courchay et al where 1,6-glucan ether, solvents and water are suggested as admixed into the general formulation of detergents as a whole (0258) and then housed into a unit dose article. One skilled in the art would expect the same or similar composition whether premixed or admixed given the compositions are the same and utilized for the same purpose, making a liquid detergent composition. The general teachings of ingredients are broadly suggested within their requisite proportions and Courchay et al expands on the process of forming said unit does article as claimed wherein absent a showing to the contrary, commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, the sequence process order of mixing would suggest the same article.
See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-2-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that Paullin is primarily concerned with detergent compositions that may include cationically modified poly alpha glucans, but it does not teach or suggest Applicant's premix-based approach or the claimed premix constraints (including controlled water and organic solvent levels) to maintain doseability during pouch formation using water-soluble film material as claimed. Furthermore, Guan is cited for general dextran linkage disclosure and does not address viscosity challenges during water-soluble pouch filling or motivate the Applicant's premix strategy. Courchay teaches a pouch-forming process flow, but Courchay likewise does not address the specific rheology and manufacturability problem created by adding a cationic poly alpha-1,6-glucan ether into a highly built surfactant system that must be accurately injected into a moving, deformable film cavity and then sealed without leaks, stringing, incomplete fill, or seal contamination. The combination proposed by the Office therefore amounts to an impermissible hindsight reconstruction using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Clearly the prior art of record teach the components and process including premixing, applicant’s specific problems addressed in the specification is given little patentable weight since difference in solving problems is considered obvious since the components and process of applying said components for analogous art are similar in view of the teachings disclosed in the prior art of record.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention; Cross Med. Prods.,Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)
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
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 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