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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-15 are rejected. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on June 22nd, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 22nd, 2026.
Priority
This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a-d) to EP23178958.7 and EP22188009.9, filed June 13th, 2023 and August 1st, 2022, respectively.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on January 30th, 2024, August 14th, 2024, November 6th, 2024 and September 4th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 currently ends in two periods.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15 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.
The term “about” recited in various instances in claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As discussed in prior art rejections below, the prior art teaches compositions having similar levels of components and absent some standard of comparison, it is unclear how much the values may vary from the range endpoints. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(A) and MPEP 2173.05(b)(I): “When relative terms are used in claims wherein the improvement over the prior art rests entirely upon size or weight of an element in a combination of elements, the adequacy of the disclosure of a standard is of greater criticality.” Dependent claims are rejected as indefinite for the same reason as the parent claims.
Claims 4-6 are rejected as indefinite based on the limitation “further comprising from about 0.1% to about 1% by weight of the composition of surfactant.” It is unclear if Applicant is (1) limiting the weight percent of item ii), (2) requiring the presence of a second surfactant different from the one embraced by item ii) or (3) a combination thereof where the surfactant of item ii) might meet the limitations of both item ii) of claim 1 but not necessarily claims 4-6. The use of “further” suggests that the surfactant recited in claim 4 might be different from item ii); however, it is unclear if the claims permit double inclusion where a single surfactant meets the limitation of item ii) and claims 4-6.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation "the surfactant" in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As an extension of the rejection above, the parent claims conceivably embrace multiple different surfactants with different weight ranges where it is unclear if dependent claims 5 and 6 are limited both or only one, and if so which one.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2009/041014 A1 by Ebine et al., where a machine translation is appended to the reference.
Ebine et al. teach example 148 on page 48 that contains (prior to dilution) 0.7% by weight 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one, 2.7% by weight of Component (B) #10, which is dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (see page 10 of machine translation), and 4.0% by weight of component (E) #1, which is lauryl betaine (see page 18 of machine translation). The prior art further teaches water to balance and a 400X dilution that would result in 0.00675% by weight component (B) and 0.01% by weight component (E). The instant claims are rejected as indefinite based on the term “about” and given the similar values of the prior art (even factoring in the active strength of the components in the commercial sources of the prior art), the prior art is deemed to anticipate instant claim 1 since it contains about 0.01% by weight of dioctyldimethylammonium compound after dilution, about 0.01% by weight of the zwitterionic surfactant lauryl betaine, no polymer and greater than 80% by weight water. The prior art further teaches no additional ammonium compound. The composition anticipates instant claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (where the alkyl portion appears to be defining the alkyl chain outside the zwitterionic betaine portion where lauryl betaine has a twelve carbon chain), 7, 8 (where claims 4, 7 and 8 are based on the same indefiniteness/breadth rationale), 9 and 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent PGPub No. 2013/0035396 A1 by Moen et al.
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. (See MPEP § 2141.01)
Moen et al. teach antimicrobial cleaning compositions (abstract) and where the compositions have the following general components:
[0005] In one aspect, the present disclosure is directed to an antimicrobial cleansing composition including a polar carrier solvent, a cationic compatible surfactant, a quaternary ammonium biocide, and a cationic compatible afterfeel agent. The cleansing composition includes from about 0.1% (w/w) to about 15% (w/w) cationic compatible surfactant and from about 0.01% (w/w) to about 10% (w/w) quaternary ammonium biocide. The cleansing composition is substantially free of a betaine-based surfactant and substantially free of a compound selected from the group consisting of triclosan, triclocarban, a halogenated phenolic antimicrobial agent, and combinations thereof.
As an example, the prior art teaches the following formulation on page 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
320
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The composition contains 92.54% water corresponding to instant item iv), polyaminopropyl biguanine at 0.1% by weight corresponding to instant item iii) (and further embraced by instant claim 2), 0.95% by weight of cetrimonium chloride corresponding to a cationic surfactant of instant item ii) (and further embraced by instant claim 4). Regarding the presence of additional components that might be considered a surfactant within the scope of items ii) and iii), the instant limitations only refer to “a surfactant” or “a polymer” that must meet the limitation rather than all possible compounds that might meet the generic definition. Furthermore, instant claim 1 is drafted as open-ended using the transitional phrase “comprising”.
Ascertainment of the differences between the prior art and the claims. (See MPEP § 2141.02)
The example formulation above contains didecyldimonium chloride whereas the instant claims require a dioctyldimethylammonium compound. Furthermore, the prior art teaches 0.88% by weight of the noted component whereas the upper limit of the instant claims is about 0.5% by weight.
Finding of prima facie obviousness --- rationale and motivation (See MPEP § 2141.02)
Regarding the identity of the biocide, the prior art teaches the following on page 2:
[0023] Suitable quaternary ammonium biocides include those having efficacy against microbes, including, for example, benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, didecyldimonium chloride, dioctyldimonium chloride, and combinations thereof.
The prior art teaches the alternative use of didecyldimonium chloride (in the exemplified formulation) and dioctyldimonium chloride (corresponding to instant item i)). At least in the interest of developing optimum formulations or developing formulations that would be useful in a variety of utilities, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have at least been motivated to test the alternative biocides taught by the prior art including dioctyldimonium chloride.
Regarding the weight percentage, this limitation is rejected as indefinite and given the lack of any definition in the instant application, the prior art is deemed to meet this limitation at 0.88% by weight. Even if this were not the case, the prior art teaches (paragraph [0005]) “from about 0.01% (w/w) to about 10% (w/w) quaternary ammonium biocide”. As noted in MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Similarly, MPEP 2144.05(II) notes: ‘Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)’. The same rationale would apply to instant claims 7 and 8.
Regarding instant claim 9, the prior art formulation above does not contain glycol ether. Regarding instant claim 11, the prior art teaches a pH of 6.10 for the formulation above.
Regarding instant claims 12 and 13, the prior art teaches on page 3:
[0037] In addition to the ingredients described above, the antimicrobial cleansing composition may further include optional ingredients such as, for example, vitamins, botanical compounds, moisturizers, and combinations thereof.
[…]
[0039] As used herein, the term "botanical compound" is meant to include bio-compounds such as botanical extracts and/or botanical actives, as well as essential oils and herbs. Suitable botanical compounds include Aloe Ferox HS, American Ginseng, Calendula (Marigold), Comfey Leaves, Cromoist 0-25, Cromoist HYA, Dandelion, Devil's Claw, Dong Quai, Echinacea Dry Aq., Gingko Biloba, Ginseng GR 471 Hydro, Glucosamine 99, Goldenseal, Gotu Kola PG 5:1, Grape Seed Extract, Green Tea, Hydrolite-5, Hydrosoy 2000 SF, Marron D'Inde (Horse Chestnut), Milk Thistle, Nab Willowbark Extr., Soluble Wheat Protein, Spirulina, St. John's Wort W/S, White Mistle Toe, Witchhazel Distillate, Witchhazel GW, Yucca 70, and Yucca Extr. Powder 50%.
[0040] Suitable moisturizers may be, for example, glycerin, betaine, hydroxyethyl urea; urea; PCA and salts of PCA (Na, Mg, Mn, Cu, Arginine, etc), Sodium Lactate, Potassium Lactate, and combinations thereof.
The prior art teaches the use of magnesium salts, which are divalent. Furthermore, the prior art teaches the optional inclusion of components that are fragrant, such as ginseng or green tea. A person of ordinary skill seeking to optimize the compositions for various intended purposes would have at least been motivated to test the optional inclusion of the components noted above.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/015839 A1 by Karsten et al., where a machine translation is appended to the reference and will be cited herein.
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. (See MPEP § 2141.01)
Karsten et al. teach the following general compositions (page 1):
The invention relates to a liquid aqueous cleaning agent comprising a) at least one cationic surfactant, comprising at least one quaternary ammonium compound; b) at least one non-ionic surfactant, comprising at least one amine oxide; c) at least one alcohol; d) optionally additives; and e) water, which is 100 wt. %, wherein the sum of a) to e) is 100 wt. %
As an example, the prior art teaches composition E4 on page 22 that contains (by weight) 0.6% DDAC (di-n-decyldimethylammonium chloride), 0.5% C10-C16-dimethyl-N-O (a non-ionic surfactant embraced by instant item ii) and further embraced by isntant claim 4), no polymer (as embraced by isntant claims 2 and 3), 0.5% monoethanolamine (as recited in instant claim 10), water greater than 80% (as embraced by instant item iv)), no alkyldimethylbenzylammonium compound or additional quaternary ammonium compound (corresponding to isntant claims 1 and 14), no glycol ether solvent (corresponding to isntant claim 9) and a pH of 10.3 (corresponding to instant claim 11).
Ascertainment of the differences between the prior art and the claims. (See MPEP § 2141.02)
The exemplary composition contains di-n-decyldimethylammonium chloride where the instant claims require dioctyldimethylammonium compound. Additional limitations of dependent claims are addressed below.
Finding of prima facie obviousness --- rationale and motivation (See MPEP § 2142-2143)
Regarding the identity of the ammonium compound, the prior art teaches the following on page 12:
[...] Preferred QAC are, for example, benzalkonium chloride (N-alkyl-N, N-dimethyl-benzylammonium chloride, CAS No 8001-54-5), benzalcone B (m, p-dichlorobenzyl-dimethyl-CI2-alkylammonium chloride, CAS No 58390-78-6), benzoxonium chloride (benzyl-dodecyl-bis-(2-hydroxyethyl)-ammonium chloride), cetrimonium bromide (N-hexadecyl-N, N-trimethyl-ammonium bromide, CAS No 57-09-0), benzetoniumchloride (N, N-dimethyl-N-[2-[2-[p-(1, 1, 3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenoxy ] ethoxy ] ethyl ] benzyl ammonium chloride, CAS No 121-54-0), dialkyldimethylammonium chloride such as di-n-decyldimethylammonium chloride (CAS No 7173-51-5 -5), didecyldimethylammonium bromide (CAS No 2390-68-3), dioctyldimethylammonium chloride, 1-cetylpyridinium chloride (CAS No 123-03-5) and thiazoline iodide (CAS No 15764-48-1) and mixtures thereof. [...]
The prior art teaches the alternative use of di-n-decyldimethylammonium chloride (in the exemplified formulation) and dioctyldimethylammonium chloride (corresponding to instant item i)). At least in the interest of developing optimum formulations or developing formulations that would be useful in a variety of utilities, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have at least been motivated to test the alternative quaternary amines taught by the prior art including dioctyldimethylammonium chloride.
Regarding the weight percentage, this limitation is rejected as indefinite and given the lack of any definition in the instant application, the prior art is deemed to meet this limitation at 0.6% by weight. Even if this were not the case, the prior art teaches on page 11:
The agent according to the invention contains one or more cationic surfactants comprising a quaternary ammonium compound. The total amount of cationic surfactant is usually from 0.001 to 5 wt. %, preferably 0.01 to 4 wt. %, in particular 0.1 to 3 wt. %, particularly preferably 0.2 to 2 wt. %, most preferably 0.5 to 1, 5 wt. %, for example 1 wt. %.
As noted in MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Similarly, MPEP 2144.05(II) notes: ‘Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)’. The same rationale would apply to instant claims 7 and 8.
Regarding instant claims 5 and 6, the exemplary composition above teaches the use of C10-C16-dimethyl-N-O compounds. The prior art, however, teaches on page 7:
Examples of suitable amine oxides are disclosed in WO 2008/046778 A1, to which reference is explicitly made. Preferred amine oxides are, for example, cocamidopropylamine oxides, N-cocoalkyl-N, N-dimethylamine oxide, Cio-16-dimethylamine oxide, Cio-16-diethylamine oxide, C10-16-dihydrohyethylamine oxide, N-tallow alkyl-N, N-dihydroxyethylamine oxide, Cio-dimethylamine oxide
(Ammonyx ® DO), myristyl/cetyldimethylamine oxide or lauryl dimethyl amine oxide.
The prior art teaches the use of additional amine oxides including a C10 dimethyl amine oxide (Ammonyx ® DO). A person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to optimize the combinations of the prior art would have at least been motivated to test the specific types of amine oxides taught by the prior art. Furthermore, the prior art teaches general ranges overlapping with instnat claim 4 as follows on page 5:
Nonionic surfactants are usually present in an amount of from 0.05 to 15% by weight, preferably 0.25 to 10 wt. %, in particular 0.5 to 6 wt. %
The same rationale regarding optimization applies to instant claims 4-6.
Regarding instant claim 12, the prior art teaches on pages 14 and 15:
Water-soluble salts
The cleaning agent according to the invention can furthermore contain one or more water-soluble salts which serve, for example, for viscosity adjustment. In this case, it can be inorganic and/or organic salts, in a preferred embodiment, the agent contains at least one inorganic salt.
The prior art further teaches on page 15:
The organic salts which can be used according to the invention are in particular colorless water-soluble alkali metal salts, alkaline earth metal salts, ammonium salts, aluminum salts and/or transition metal salts of the carboxylic acids.
The prior art teaches the use of alkaline earth salts corresponding to di-valent ion salts. Regarding instant claim 13, the prior art teaches on page 23:
Perfumes and fragrances
In a preferred embodiment, the agent according to the invention contains perfumes and/or fragrances. All perfume and/or fragrances known to a person skilled in the art can be used, with the proviso that they essentially do not negatively influence the properties of the cleaning agent.
At least in the interest of optimizing the compositions for various applications, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been mtoivated to include the optional and suggested additional components noted above and embraced by isntant claims 12 and 13.
Regarding isntant claim 15, the prior art composition above contains ethanolamine and the prior art teaches on page 30:
[...] For foam generation, a manually activated foam dispenser, in particular selected from the group comprising aerosol spray dispensers, self-printing spray dispensers, pump spray dispensers and trigger spray dispensers, in particular pump foam dispensers, such as are offered, for example, by the company Airspray, from Taplast, from Keltec or also from Daiwa Can Company. [...]
Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to contain and distribute the prior art compositions would ahve been motivated to apply the exemplary modes including as an aersol.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,580. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent are drawn to wipes containing “from about 0.005% by weight and about 0.5% by weight of said composition of a detergent surfactant wherein said detergent surfactant includes an alkylpolyglucoside” which overlaps with instant item ii) as a non-ionic surfactant and further contains an antimicrobial active where dependent claim 6 of the patent recites a weight content of 0.001% to 0.1%, which overlaps with instant item i) and where claim 4 of the patent particularly recites dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride as recited in instant claims 7 and 8. Furthermore, claim 1 of the patent recites a balance of an aqueous solvent system such that the general ranges overlap with instant claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 (recited as a range of 2 to 12 in claim 1 of the patent) and 14. As noted in MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Similarly, MPEP 2144.05(II) notes: ‘Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)’. Regarding instant claim 13, at least since scents are typically added to commercial cleaning compositions, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a fragrance.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,470,656. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent are drawn to wipes containing “ from about 0.5% to about 2% of a detergent surfactant, comprising an alkyl polysaccharide detergent surfactant” which overlaps with instant item ii) as a non-ionic surfactant and where claim 22 of the patent recites “from about 0.001% to about 0.2% of one or more antimicrobials” and recites dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride as an option, which overlaps with instant item i) and as recited in instant claims 7 and 8. Furthermore, claim 1 of the patent recites a balance of an aqueous solvent system and a pH of 2-12 such that the general ranges overlap with instant claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14. As noted in MPEP 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Similarly, MPEP 2144.05(II) notes: ‘Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)’. Regarding instant claim 13, at least since scents are typically added to commercial cleaning compositions, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a fragrance.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 4,806,253. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patnet recite detergent composition that “contains 1-5 wt % of a water-soluble -di-C1-C4, di- C6-C10 alkyl quaternary ammonium salt and not more than 3% by weight of alkoxylated nonionic detersive surfactant.” Dependent claim 6 of the patent specific recites dioctyl dimethyl ammonium as an example of a salt, which is further generic to the chloride salt. Dependent claim 7 of the patent further recites contacting at least 500 ppm of the composition with an aqueous solution that would result in components overlapping with instant items i), ii) and iv) of instant claims 1, 2, 3 (where claim 1 of the patent does not require a polymer), 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 (where the prior art does not teach deviating from neutrality) and 14. Regarding instant claim 13, at least since scents are typically added to detergents, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a fragrance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P COUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 am - 6 pm EST.
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 571-272-8394. 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.
/MATTHEW P COUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights