Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 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 § 112
2 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 4-7 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 4 indefinites because the counter anion “X-” in the claimed formulae (I) and (II) is not defined.
Claim 4, indefinites because the quaternary nitrogen atom in the claimed formulae (I) and (II) is not represented in its cationic form (ammonium) but in its neutral form (tertiary amine). Correction is required by deleting Rz=Ru= H.
Claim 5 dependent upon a rejected base claim. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected as well.
Double Patenting
3 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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/407,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application No. 18/407,491, teach a liquid hard dishwashing detergent composition comprising from about 5.0% to about 50% by weight of a surfactant system comprising anionic surfactant and from about 0.01% to about 5% of a cationic polyvinyl alcohol as claimed in claims 1-20 (see claims 1-20 of the copending application No. 18/407,491). Therefore, this is an obvious formulation.
The instant claims differ from the claims of the copending application No. 18/407,491, by
reciting from about 0.01% to about 5% of a hydrophobically modified cationic polyvinyl alcohol as claimed in claim 1.
However, the claims of the copending application No. 18/407,491, teaches a cationic polyvinyl alcohol comprising on average less than about 1.0 mol% of hydrophobic monomers (see claim1).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of the claims of the copending application No. 18/407,491, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of hydrophobic monomers in the hydrophobic polyvinyl alcohol in order to get the maximum effective amount of these monomers in the whole copolymer and thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a liquid detergent composition to have similar results to those claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4 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.
5 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 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzberger et al. (US 20220127548 A1) in view of Chilou et al. (US 6379394 B1).
Herzberger et al. (US’ 548 A1) teaches a dishwashing cleaning composition comprising surfactant system includes an anionic surfactant in the amount of 19.6 wt., % and hydrophobically modified polyvinyl alcohol (PVAacetal (4-acetal) in the amount of 2% as claimed in claims 1-3 (see page 10, Table 3, Example 1), wherein the cleaning composition comprises 8% to 45% by wt., of a surfactant system as claimed in claim 8 (see page 3, paragraph, 0025), wherein the surfactant system comprises alkyl alkoxy sulfate and 60% to 90% by wt., of alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant having from 8 to 18 carbon atoms as claimed in claims 9-12 (see page 3, paragraphs, 0026-0027), wherein the anionic surfactants having a weight average degree of branching of more than 10% as claimed in claim 13 (see page 3, paragraph, 0032), wherein the surfactant system also comprises co-surfactants include an amphoteric surfactants comprise an amine oxide surfactant and wherein the anionic surfactant and the co-surfactant are present in a weight ratio of from about 1:1 to about 8:1 as claimed in claims 15-16 (see page 4, paragraph, 0040), wherein the co-surfactants comprise zwitterionic surfactants include betaine surfactants as claimed in claim 17 (see page 5, paragraph, 0059), wherein the surfactant system also comprises non-ionic surfactants include alkyl polyglucolide as claimed in claims 18-19 (see page 5, paragraphs, 0060-0061). Herzberger et al. (US’ 548 A1) also teaches a method of manually washing dishware comprising the steps of delivering the cleaning composition to a volume of water to form a wash solution and immersing the dishware in the solution as claimed in claim 20 (see page 2, paragraph, 0011).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Herzberger et al. (US’ 548 A1) by reciting a cleaning composition comprising a hydrophobically modified cationic polyvinyl alcohol as claimed.
Chilou et al. (US’ 394 B1) in analogous art of cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition comprising polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) modified by unit carrying a cationic functional group and by units having a hydrophobic character (see col. 11, Example 4 and claim 1).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Chilou et al. (US’ 394 B1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to modify the cleaning composition of Herzberger et al. (US’ 548 A1) by incorporating polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) modified by unit carrying a cationic functional group and by units having a hydrophobic character as taught by Chilou et al. (US’ 394 B1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would have been obvious because the skilled person would expect that the use of polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) modified by unit carrying a cationic functional group and by units having a hydrophobic character as taught by Chilou et al. (US’ 394 B1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning composition taught by Herzberger et al. (US’ 548 A1), absent unexpected results.
Regarding to the limitations of claims 6 and 7, Chilou et al. (US’ 394 B1) teaches a synthesis of a polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) modified by units carrying a cationic functional group and by units having a hydrophobic character by using 15,000 molar mass of starting polyvinyl alcohol (see col. 11, Example 4). Therefore, in view of the teaching of Chilou et al. (US’ 394 B1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amount and the molecular weight of polyvinyl alcohol that used in the synthetic process in order to get the maximum effective amount of polyvinyl alcohol in the cleaning composition and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a cleaning composition to have similar results to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
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)272-2817. 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761