DETAILED ACTION
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
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-13 and 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall et al. (US 6,214,786 B1) in view of Swamy et al (2021/0025110 A1).
Regarding claims 1-10, Randall teaches an aqueous cleaning detergent composition (C.13: 59-65, Table 8] comprising surfactants (Instant claims 5-7) such as anionic, nonionic and cationic surfactants of sodium alkyl sulfate alcohol ethoxylate and polyhydroxy fatty acid amide; [abstract, C.9: 1-67, claim 1], amino acids such as lysine, arginine and tryptophan (instant claim 2-4); [C.7: 40-43], enzymes (instant claims 8-9) such as protease, amylase and lipase; [C.12: 3-30], wherein the pH of liquid (instant claims 1 and 10) composition is from about below 10 to greater than 10; [C.11: 36-46], in another embodiment above 8.5; [. Note that the Randal also teaches presence of 27 wt.% sodium carbonate which would provide a pH of 11.8 in a solution; [Table 7].
Randall does not exactly teach the fixed upper and lower pH limits of 11 and 12 However, At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the pH range of exactly between 10-12 to further optimize the cleaning efficacy of detergent toward specific soils when desired. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (before the effective filing date of the invention) to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 1, Randall does not teach the amino acids are from natural source. However, the analogous art of Swamy teaches organic antimicrobial textile(s) for laundry applications; [102, 104, claim 79], comprising naturally occurring amino acids of arginine and lysine; [24, 25, claim 64], wherein the pH of liquor is 8.5 or above; [17]. Swamy and Randall are from the same field of endeavor, thus at the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to add the naturally occurring enzymes of Swamy to Randall’s composition, with the motivation of further improving treatment of fabrics since positively charged amino acids are usually used in advanced eco-friendly and high-performance laundry formulations. They act as green buffers, radical scavengers, and building blocks for bio-based surfactants, improving cleaning efficiency while protecting both fabric integrity and skin compatibility.
Further more, Both amino acids possess basic side chains that help maintain a mild, stable alkaline pH optimal for cleaning. Please consult any bio-chemistry textbook for naturally occurring amino acid properties.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 16-17, Randall teaches alkaline bases such as carbonate, bicarbonate and tetra-borate; [C.11: 10-15], additives such as chelating agent, defoamer and anti-redeposition (e.g. soil suspender); [C.11:L 25-35], and (instant claims16-17) water in the amount of about 55 wt.%; [Table 8: water balance], surfactants in amount of 5-50 wt.%; [C.9: 1-10], amino acid 0.4-5 wt.%; [C.5: 53-56], and enzymes in amounts of 0.001-1 wt.%; [C.12: 25-30].
Regarding claim 19, The Office realizes that all the claimed effects or physical properties (chlorine scavenging) are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed reagents, in the claimed ranges, was prepared under similar conditions, and that the original specification specifies that the properties arise from a combination of specific ingredients or process step and that it is rendered obvious by the applied art. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. chlorine scavenging, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. If it is the applicants’ position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be presented to support applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties and effects with only the claimed ingredients.
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2112.01].
Claim 14 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall et al. (US 6,214,786 B1), Swamy et al (2021/0025110 A1), as applied to claims 13, 1 & 16, 1, and further in view of Hamersky et al. (US 2018/0216037 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Randall does not teach the instantly claimed performance polymer. However the analogous art of Hamersky teaches a similar composition comprising polyethyleneimine ethoxylate; [26, 55]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add (or partially substitute) as surfactant booster, anti-redeposition agent, dirt dispersant, and enzyme stabilizer with the motivation of enhancing cleaning efficacy of the composition. Randall does not teach (instant claim 18) an alkalinity agent of hydroxide. However, Hamersky teaches alkaline agents such as hydroxide in its composition; [87].
It would have been obvious to also include the hydroxide of Hamersky as a pH adjusting agent for alkaline region aqueous composition causing stronger detersive properties. Note that Randall already teaches C12-C14 fatty acid in its composition; [Table 8].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall et al. (US 6,214,786 B1), Swamy et al (2021/0025110 A1), as applied to claims 13 & 1, and further in view of Bennett et al. (WO 2009/153184 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Randall does not teach the instantly claimed acrylic based anti-redeposition agent. However, the analogous art of Bennett teaches acrylic based anti-redeposition polymers; [pg.30: 15-25]. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add (or partially substitute) the acrylic base polymer of Bennett with the motivation of expanding the soil suspending property of composition thus preventing its redeposition as taught by Bennett above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, the related argument(s) are responded to briefly.
In response to applicant’s argument (page 6) that; “And nothing in Randall would have motivated a skilled artisan to replace Randall's amino acid based polymer with a naturally occurring amino acid because Randall discloses that its amino acid based polymer is essential to achieve its appearance benefits without disturbing the cleaning performance of the laundry detergent composition: "[t]he essential component of the compositions of the present invention comprises one or more amino acid based polymer, oligomer or copolymer. .. The amino acid based fabric treatment materials used in the compositions and methods herein can provide such fabric appearance benefits with acceptably little or no loss in cleaning performance provided by the laundry detergent compositions into which such materials are incorporated." Randall, col. 4, lines 56-67; col 5, lines 1-4. Reasonably, a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to replace Randall's essential amino acid based polymer with a naturally occurring amino acid because such a modification would diminish the intended function of Randall's composition.”, it should be noted that: I)- Contrary to applicant’s assertion, in the action above the Randall’s amino acid are not replaced with any other types of amino acid, rather some naturally occurring amino acids of lysine or arginine are added to Randall with motivation for enhanced composition without any adverse effect on chemical integrity of Randal’s composition. II)- It should be further noted that similar to instant claims Randall’s composition is not “consisting of” rather an open ended “comprising” one, as stated on claim 1 of Randall on column 18.
In response to applicant’s argument (page 7) that; “The Examiner alleges that "Randall also teaches presence of 27 wt.% sodium carbonate which would provide a pH of 11.8 in a solution [Table 7]" (see Office Action, page 3), however, the explicit teachings of Randall discussed above would have led a skilled artisan to include a pH adjuster in the composition to maintain a pH of below 10, preferably below 9.5, more
preferably below 7.5, to ensure that the benefits of the composition are not diminished.”, it should be noted that it is true that for some embodiments Randall’s preferred pH is at lower range such as 7.5 or 8, however the stated upper limits such as the calculated pH of 11.8 for embodiment of table VII is a fact indeed. It should be noted that; a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), [MPEP 2123, R-5].
Applicant’s arguments regarding the combinations of Hamersky and Bennett are based on the previous arguments regarding the independent claim 1 and the alleged insufficiency of Randal, and thus are not responded to.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 AM- 8 PM Flex..
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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/08/06
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights