The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 2, 2025.
The objection to the disclosure for minor informalities in withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelderman et al. (US 2018/0312787) in view of Silvernail et al. (US 2011/0180112) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s statement of common ownership over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0312787.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on December 2, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 10,889,783 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvernail et al. (US 2011/0180112), hereinafter “Silvernail.”
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-18, Silvernail teaches methods of using cleaning compositions to remove protein soils from surfaces and to prevent redeposition of the soils on surfaces, wherein the compositions are substantially free of phosphates, and the cleaning compositions can be used in various industries, including, but not limited to: warewash (institutional and consumer), food and beverage, health and textile care, in particular, the cleaning compositions can be safely used on glass, ceramic, plastic and metal surfaces (see paragraph [0009]). The composition can be provided as a solid concentrate in the form of a capsule or pellet of compressed powder, a solid, or loose powder (see paragraph [0041]).
The solid concentrate composition can be diluted through dispensing equipment whereby water is sprayed at the solid block forming a use solution, and the solid concentrate composition can also be diluted through pellet or tablet dispensers (see paragraph [0044]). In use, the use solution is applied to a surface to be washed during a washing step of a wash cycle (see paragraph [0050]). A 0.05 to 0.25% solution of the cleaning composition has a pH of between about 10 and about 12.5 (see paragraphs [0007] and [0011]). The composition includes between about 1% and about 90% by weight poly sugar, between about 1% and about 80% by weight alkalinity source, between about 1% and about 10% by weight or up to about 15 % by weight of surfactant component (see paragraphs [0006]), [0016]; Table 2). One particularly suitable poly sugar is sodium carboxymethylcellulose (see paragraph [0010]). The alkalinity source includes an alkali metal hydroxide, alkali metal carbonate or alkali metal silicate, in particular, sodium carbonate, sodium hydroxide or mixture of sodium carbonate and sodium hydroxide (see paragraph [0011]). In Example 4, Silvernail teaches a composition which comprises 61.19 wt% dense ash (i.e., sodium carbonate), 1.06 wt% Pluronic 25R2 (a nonionic surfactant), 2.08 wt% KOH (45%), 5.76 wt% sodium citrate (a chelating agent or buffer) and 3 wt% sodium CMC (carboxymethylcellulose; whose degree of substitution and degree of polymerization should be within those recited), (see Table 3). Silvernail also teaches that the cleaning agents and/or other active ingredients may be dispensed from the solid composition over an extended period of time (see [0038]). Silvernail, however, fails to specifically disclose the composition, say in Example 4, comprising a hydroxide alkalinity source, and wherein the solid composition lasts at least 5 cycles as recited in claim 1, in an amount between about 25 wt% and about 95 wt% as recited in claim 14.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sodium carbonate with sodium hydroxide, say in Example 4, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Silvernail in paragraph [0011] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one alkalinity for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding the amount of the sodium hydroxide, considering that Silvernail teaches between about 1% and about 80% by weight alkalinity source like sodium hydroxide, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., 25-80wt%) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the solid composition lasting at least 5 cycles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the solid composition of Silvernail to last at least 5 cycles because Silvernail teaches that the ingredients of the solid composition may be dispensed from the solid composition over an extended period of time.
Regarding claims 19-20, Silvernail teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Silvernail teaches that the concentrate, i.e., solid concentrate, can be diluted with the water of dilution at a weight ratio of at least 1:1 and up to 1:8; and if a light duty cleaning use solution is desired, it is expected that the concentrate can be diluted at a weight ratio of concentrate to water of dilution of up to about 1:256 (see paragraph [0047]). Silvernail, however, fails to specifically disclose a solid to water dilution ratio of between about 1:10 and about 1:10,000 as recited in claim 19, or between about 1:100 and about 1:5,000 as recited in claim 20.
Considering that Silvernail teaches a solid concentrate to water dilution ratio of up to about 1:256, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (i.e., 1:10 to 1:256) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvernail as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-20 above, and further in view of Neplenbroek et al. (US 2010/0154831), hereinafter “Neplenbroek” for the reasons set forth in the previous office action which is repeated below for Applicant’s convenience.
Regarding claim 7, Silvernail teaches the features as discussed above. Silvernail, however, fails to disclose the incorporation of xanthan, and the ratio of the carboxymethylcellulose to xanthan in the range from about 1:1 to about 30:1.
Neplenbroek, an analogous art in ware washing (see abstract), teaches a detergent composition which comprises an alkalinity source like sodium hydroxide, surfactants (see paragraph [0072], among others, and polysaccharides which can be sodium carboxymethylcellulose, xanthan gum or a combination of sodium carboxymethylcellulose and xanthan gum (see paragraphs [0061-0069], page 3), wherein the polysaccharides advantageously provide an improved drying behavior of the ware (see paragraph [0032], page 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate xanthan gum into the composition of Silvernail because such incorporation, which results in the combination of sodium CMC and xanthan gum, would advantageously provide an improved drying behavior of the ware as taught by Neplenbroek.
With respect to the ratio of the carboxymethylcellulose to xanthan, while Silvernail in view of Neplenbroek is silent as to the specific proportions of each of the sodium CMC and xanthan gum, when used as a mixture, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of the sodium CMC and xanthan gum to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the sodium CMC and xanthan gum through routine experimentation for best results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvernail, and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvernail as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-20 above, and further in view of Neplenbroek, Applicant argues that while Silvernail provides an example pertaining to Multi-Cycle Spot, Film and Soil Removal Test, a detergent, however, was added at the beginning of each cycle (see [0066]). Applicant then argues that Silvernail fails to render obvious a composition utilizing the polysaccharide material as claimed to formulate a multi-use composition lasting at least 5 cycles.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments because as stated above, Silvernail teaches that the cleaning agents and/or other active ingredients may be dispensed from the solid composition over an extended period of time (see [0038]), hence, the composition can last for at least 5 cycles.
Applicant also argues that the Examples of the present application demonstrate the impact the viscosity of the polysaccharide material has on the number of cycles the composition lasts for. Applicant then argues that Fig. 6 of the present application demonstrates how the viscosity of the polysaccharide material affects the tablet lifespan (in cycles), i.e., as the viscosity increases, the tablet lifespan also increases.
The Examiner carefully considered the impact the viscosity the polysaccharide material has on the number of cycles the composition lasts for, in Example 4 and Fig. 6. The showing, however, is not commensurate in scope with the present claim 1. It is only true for the solid caustic-based detergent composition in Example 4 which includes carboxymethyl cellulose having degrees of substitution from 0.9 to 1.2 and viscosity from about 150 cP to about 1700 CP, and not any generic polysaccharide material as recited in independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference is considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761