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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2 and 19 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 2 and 19 recite a broad weight% range, and the claims also recite “preferably…” and “more preferably…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note that, for the purposes of examination, the Examiner asserts that the clauses “preferably…” or “more preferably…” are merely exemplary and are not read as patentably limitations.
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 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.
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 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobrawa et al (US2013/0118531).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Dobrawa et al teach a composition comprising an emulsion comprising a) oil(s) in an amount of from 2 to 75 weight %, b) polymeric cationic emulsifiers P in an amount of from 0.05 to 40 weight %, wherein P is the product of the polymerization of A) one or more cationic ethylenically unsaturated monomers (monomer A), B) one or more linear or branched alkyl(meth) acrylates (monomer B), C) from 0 to 30 weight % of one or more C₂-Cg monoethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acids (monomer C), c) surfactant(s) S, in an amount of from 0 to 25 weight %, d) additive(s) A in an amount of from 0 to 20 weight % and e) water in an amount of from 10 to 97.95 weight %, based on the total weight of the emulsion. Aspects of the invention include the use of the emulsion compositions disclosed herein in laundry detergent compositions (e.g., TIDETM), hard surface cleaners (e.g., MR CLEANTM), automatic dishwashing liquids (e.g., CASCADETM), and dishwashing liquids (e.g., DAWNTM). The cleaning compositions disclosed herein are typically formulated such that, during use in aqueous cleaning operations, the wash water will have a pH of between about 6.5 and about 12, or between about 7.5 and 10.5. Liquid dishwashing product formulations typically have a pH between about 6.8 and about 9.0. See para. 201.
In one aspect, the fabric treatment composition may comprise from about 0.01% to about 10%, from about 0.05 to about 5%, or from about 0.15 to about 3% of a deposition aid. In one aspect, the deposition aid may be a cationic or amphoteric polymer. In another aspect, the deposition aid may be a cationic polymer. In one aspect, the cationic polymer may have a cationic charge density of from about 0.005 to about 23, from about 0.01 to about 12, or from about 0.1 to about 7 milliequivalents/g, at the pH of intended use of the composition. See para. 205. Suitable cationic polymers may be formed from cationic monomers such as diallyl dialkyl ammonium chloride (e.g. diallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride), etc. and a second monomer such as a C1-C12 alkyl acrylate, C1-C12 hydroxyalkyl acrylate, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, etc. See para. 206-209. The weight-average molecular weight of the polymer may be from about 500 Daltons to about 5,000,000 Daltons, or from about 1,000 Daltons to about 2,000,000 Daltons, or from about 2,500 Daltons to about 1,500,000 Daltons, as determined by size exclusion chromatography relative to polyethylene oxide standards with RI detection. In one aspect, the MW of the cationic polymer may be from about 500 Daltons to about 37.500 Daltons. See para. 214.
The products of the present invention may comprise from about 0.11% to 80% by weight of a surfactant. In one aspect, such compositions may comprise from about 5% to 50% by weight of surfactant. Surfactants utilized can be of the anionic, nonionic, zwitterionic, ampholytic (i.e., amphoteric) or cationic type or can comprise compatible mixtures of these types. See para. 215. The anionic surfactant may comprise a C11-C18 alkyl benzene sulfonate surfactant; a C10-C20 alkyl sulfate surfactant; a C10-C18 alkyl alkoxy sulfate surfactant, etc. See para. 220.
Dobrawa et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a quaternised acrylic copolymer, a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant, and a cosurfactant such as an amphoteric surfactant and/or a zwitterionic surfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a quaternised acrylic copolymer, a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant, and a cosurfactant such as an amphoteric surfactant and/or a zwitterionic surfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Dobrawa et al suggest a composition containing a quaternised acrylic copolymer, a surfactant system comprising an anionic surfactant, and a cosurfactant such as an amphoteric surfactant and/or a zwitterionic surfactant, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobrawa et al (US2013/0118531) as applied to claims 1-9 and 11-20 above, and further in view of Li et al (US2019/0390141).
Dobrawa et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Dobrawa et al do not teach the use of an amine oxide surfactant in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Li et al teach a liquid laundry detergent with improved soil suspension benefit is provided, which contains a from about 0.1 wt % to about 5 wt % of an alkoxylated polyethyleneimine and a specific surfactant system including both nonionic (NI) surfactant(s) and anionic (AI) surfactant(s) at an NI-to-AI weight ratio of about 1.7-20. See Abstract. Other surfactants useful herein include amphoteric surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants and cationic surfactants. Such surfactants are well known for use in laundry detergents and are typically present at levels from about 0.2 wt %, 0.5 wt % or 1 wt % to about 10 wt %, 20 wt % or 30 wt %. Preferred amphoteric surfactants are selected from the group consisting of amine oxide surfactants, such as, for example, alkyl dimethyl amine oxide or alkyl amido propyl dimethyl amine oxide, more preferably alkyl dimethyl amine oxide and especially coco dimethyl amino oxide. See para. 53.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an amine oxide surfactant in the composition taught by Dobrawa et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Li et al teach the use of amine oxide surfactants in a similar composition and further, Dobrawa et al teach the use of amphoteric surfactants in general.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, 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, 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/February 4, 2026