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 .
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 13 (second occurrence), 17 and 18 (i.e., last three claims) have been renumbered 17, 18 and 19, respectively.
Claims 1, 9, 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 1, while “ethylene oxide . . . and 2,3-pentene oxide” are recited in lines 4-5, it is suggested that “of alkylene oxide moieties” be added after “at least two monomers” in line 3 to provide for clearer support for “the alkylene oxide moieties” in line 6; It is also suggested that “- if present -“ in line 13 be replaced with “, if present,”
b) in claim 9, line 9, “25” should be replaced with “25%”
c) the claim number “13” in line 1 before “The detergent composition of claim 1” should be replaced with “13.” to be consistent with the rest of the claims;
d) in claim 19, the dash “-“ in line 2 in the phrase “- the weight ratio” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, 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, claim 1 recites the broad recitation:
a) “less than 0.5,” in line 14
b) “25 to 85%” in line 18
c) “15 to 75%” in line 21
and the claim also recites:
a) “preferably less than 0.4 . . . and most preferably less than 0.1” in lines 14-16
b) “preferably 30 to 80% . . . and most preferably 55 to 75%” in lines 18-19
c) “preferably 20 to 70% . . . most preferably 25 to 45%” in lines 21-22
which are the narrower statements of the ranges/limitations. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-19, being dependent from claim 1, inherit the same rejection as in claim 1 above.
In addition, in claim 9, the limitation “ (A) about 55% to about 75% by weight of the graft polymer of the copolymer backbone (A) comprising ethylene oxide and 1,2-propylene oxide as the at least one vinyl ester monomer (B1) the vinyl ester monomer distribution in the backbone is in random order…” in lines 2-5 is not understood. Did Applicant mean “ (A) about 55% to about 75% by weight of the graft polymer of the copolymer backbone (A) comprising ethylene oxide and 1,2-propylene oxide, wherein the distribution of the alkylene oxide moieties within the copolymer backbone is in random order…” as recited in claim 1? For prior art purposes, the portion (A) of claim 9 will be interpreted to be the latter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delplancke et al. (US 2017/0121638), hereinafter “Delplancke.”
Regarding claims 1-3, Delplancke teaches a liquid detergent composition which comprises a surfactant system which comprises an anionic surfactant and a primary co-surfactant, and a specific cleaning amine (see [0008]), and preferably, the composition comprises an amphiphilic graft copolymer (see [0026]), preferably a random graft copolymer having a hydrophilic backbone comprising monomers like alkoxy units, and hydrophobic side chains like a vinyl ester of a saturated monocarboxylic acid containing from 1 to 6 carbon atoms (see [0035]). The polymer may contain either a linear or branched polyalkylene oxide backbone with ethylene oxide, propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide; the polyalkylene oxide backbone may contain more than about 80%, by weight ethylene oxide; and the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyalkylene oxide backbone is typically from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, or from about 1,000 g/mol to about 18,000 g/mol (see [0179]). The amphiphilic graft polymers have preferably (A) from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester component composed of (B1) from 70% to 100% by weight of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate and (B2) from 0 to 30% by weight of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer, in the presence of (A) (see [0191]). The vinyl ester component (B) may consist advantageously of (B1) vinyl acetate or vinyl propionate (see [0198]), therefore the vinyl component (B) does not contain monomer (B2), hence, the weight ratio of (B2) to (B1) is 0, which reads on “less than 0.5” because “less than” includes zero as a lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F.2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974); see also MPEP 2173.05(c)II. Delplancke, however, fails to specifically disclose the random graft copolymer wherein the backbone comprises at least two monomers like ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene oxide, as recited in claim 1-3, and wherein the distribution of the monomers is in random order, the copolymer backbone having a molecular weight within 500 to 7000 g/l, and from 25 to 85% by weight of the copolymer backbone and 15 to 75% by weight of the sidechain, i.e., vinyl ester as recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected at least ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene oxide as the specific monomers in the backbone because Delplancke specifically desires said combination as one suitable selection as disclosed in [00179] and to reasonably expect the at least ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene, to have been distributed in the backbone in random order because Delplancke discloses a random graft polymer which implies that the monomers in the backbone are in random order.
With respect to the percentages of the polyalkylene backbone and vinyl ester side chains, considering that Delplancke teaches amphiphilic graft polymers having from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester side chains, 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 (e.g., 25-70 wt% polyalkylene oxide backbone and 30-75 wt% vinyl ester side chains) 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).
Regarding claim 4, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the polyalkylene oxide backbone may contain more than about 80%, by weight ethylene oxide (EO) (see [0179]). Delplancke, however, fails to specifically disclose a total mass of the EO in the backbone in the range from about 20% to about 80%.
Considering that Delplancke teaches that the polyalkylene oxide backbone may contain more than about 80%, by weight ethylene oxide (EO), 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 (e.g., about 80% EO) 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).
Regarding claim 5, Delplancke further teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymer has a polydispersity Mw/Mn of less or equal than 3 (see [0039]), preferably 2.5 and more preferably 2.3 (see 0186]).
Regarding claims 6-8, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the side chains (B) are formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester component composed of (B1) from 70% to 100% by weight of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate and (B2) from 0 to 30% by weight of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer, in the presence of backbone (A) (see [0191]), preferably (B1) is from about 90% to about 99% by weight vinyl acetate (see [0180]).
Regarding claim 9, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymers have preferably (A) from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester component composed of (B1) from 70% to 100% by weight of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate and (B2) from 0 to 30% by weight of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer, in the presence of (A) (see [0191]); and the polyalkylene oxide backbone contains ethylene oxide, propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide; the polyalkylene oxide backbone may contain more than about 80%, by weight ethylene oxide; and the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyalkylene oxide backbone is typically from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, or from about 1,000 g/mol to about 18,000 g/mol (see [0179]); and the vinyl ester component (B) may consist advantageously of (B1) vinyl acetate (see [0198]), therefore the vinyl component (B) does not contain monomer (B2). Delplancke, however, fails to specifically disclose the detergent composition comprising: (A) about 55% to about 75% by weight of the graft polymer of the copolymer backbone (A) comprising ethylene oxide and 1,2-propylene oxide, wherein the distribution of the alkylene oxide moieties within the copolymer backbone is in random order, and the molecular weight of the copolymer backbone Mn in g/mol is within 1200 to 2500, with the relative amount of EO in the polymer backbone (A) being within 20 to 80% by weight of the total mass of alkylene oxides in the polymer backbone (A), and (B) 25% to 45% by weight of the graft polymer of the polymeric sidechains grafted onto the copolymer backbone, i.e., solely vinyl acetate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected at least ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene oxide as the specific monomers in the backbone because Delplancke specifically desires said combination as one suitable selection as disclosed in [00179] and to reasonably expect the at least ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, i.e., 1,2-propylene, to have been distributed in the backbone in random order because Delplancke discloses a random graft polymer which implies that the monomers in the backbone are in random order.
With respect to the percentages of the polyalkylene backbone, i.e., ethylene oxide and 1,2-propylene oxide, and vinyl acetate side chains, and molecular weight of the copolymer backbone, considering that Delplancke teaches amphiphilic graft polymers having from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester, i.e., vinyl acetate, side chains, and the polyalkylene oxide backbone having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, 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 (e.g., 55-70 wt% polyalkylene oxide backbone and 30-45 wt% vinyl ester side chains; and 1200 to 2500 Mw of polyalkylene oxide backbone) 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).
Regarding claim 10, Delplancke teaches the features as discussed above. Delplancke, however, fails to disclose the graft polymer having a biodegradability of at least 40% within 28 days when tested under OECD301F.
Even though Delplancke does not explicitly disclose the biodegradability of the amphiphilic random graft copolymer, 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 amphiphilic random graft copolymer of Delplancke to exhibit a biodegradability within those recited because similar backbone monomers and side chains having overlapping proportions, and similar backbone monomers having similar molecular weights have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
Regarding claim 11, Delplancke further teaches that the composition preferably comprises from about 1% to about 40%, by weight of the composition of the surfactant system (see [0023] and [0059]), and from about 0.1% to about 2% by weight of the composition of the amphiphilic random graft polymer (see claim 14).
Regarding claim 12, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches a liquid detergent composition which comprises a surfactant system (see [0008]), and an amphiphilic graft copolymer (see [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Delplancke further teaches that the composition can optionally further comprise a number of other adjunct ingredients suitable for use in liquid detergent compositions such as perfume, suds stabilizers/boosters, structurants, chelants, enzymes and anti-caking agents (see [0210]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyalkylene oxide backbone is typically from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, or from about 1,000 g/mol to about 18,000 g/mol (see [0179]). Delplancke, however, fails to specifically disclose the copolymer backbone having a molecular weight from 500 to about 4500 g/mol as recited in claim 14, or from about 1000 to about 3500 g/mol as recited in claim 15.
Considering that Delplancke teaches polyalkylene oxide backbone having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, 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 (e.g., 500 to about 4500 g/mol, or about 1000 to about 3500 g/mol ) 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).
Regarding claims 16-17, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the vinyl ester component (B) may consist advantageously of (B1) vinyl acetate or vinyl propionate (see [0198]), therefore the vinyl component (B) does not contain monomer (B2), hence, the weight ratio of (B2) to (B1) is 0, which reads on “less than 0.3” as recited in claim 16, or “less than 0.1” as recited in claim 17 because “less than” includes zero as a lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F.2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974); see also MPEP 2173.05(c)II.
Regarding claims 18-19, Delplancke, as discussed above, teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymers have preferably (A) from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and (B) from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester component side chains (see [0191]); and the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the polyalkylene oxide backbone is typically from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, or from about 1,000 g/mol to about 18,000 g/mol (see [0179]). Also, as discussed above, the weight ratio of monomer (B2) to monomer (B1) is 0. Delplancke, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 40 to about 75% by weight of the copolymer backbone (A), and about 25 to about 60% by weight of the polymeric sidechains (B) as recited in claim 17, or from about 55 to about 75% by weight of the copolymer backbone (A), and about 25 to about 45% by weight of the polymeric sidechains (B); and backbone molecular weight from about 1200 to about 3000 g/mol as recited in claim 18
Considering that Delplancke teaches amphiphilic graft polymers having from 20% to 70% by weight of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and from 30% to 80% by weight of a vinyl ester side chains; and the polyalkylene oxide backbone having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of from about 400 g/mol to 40,000 g/mol, 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 (e.g., about 40-70 wt%, or about 55-70 wt% polyalkylene oxide backbone and 30-60 wt% or 30-45 wt% vinyl ester side chains; and 1200 to 3000 Mw of polyalkylene oxide backbone) 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).
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 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 1-10, 12, 14-16 and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 42 of copending Application No. 18/682,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to similar cleaning or detergent compositions, which may be liquid or solid, and comprising surfactant and similar graft polymers comprising copolymer backbones having at least two similar monomers in random order in the backbone, and similar polymeric side chains (B) having vinyl ester (B1) and optional monomer (B2), differing only in the molecular weights of the copolymer backbones and the specific proportions of the copolymer backbones and polymeric side chains in the graft polymer. However, the molecular weight of the copolymer backbone and the proportions of the copolymer backbones and polymeric side chains in the graft polymer overlap. Hence, 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 because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. Also even though copending ‘509 does not explicitly disclose the polydispersity and biodegradability of the graft polymer as recited in claims 5 and 10, respectively, 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 graft polymer of copending ‘509 to exhibit similar properties because similar graft polymers having similar backbone monomers and side chains having overlapping proportions, and similar backbone monomers having similar molecular weights have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 34 of copending Application No. 18/682,540 in view of Delplancke.
Copending ‘540 teaches similar detergent compositions comprising at least one graft polymer comprising (A) a copolymer backbone as a graft base, wherein said copolymer backbone (A) is obtainable by polymerization of at least two monomers selected from the group of ethylene oxide, 1,2-propylene oxide, 1,2-butylene oxide, 2,3-butylene oxide, 1,2-pentene oxide or 2,3-pentene oxide, a. wherein the distribution of the alkylene oxide moieties within the copolymer backbone is in random order, and b. wherein the molecular weight of the copolymer backbone Mn in g/mol is within 500 to 7000, and (B) polymeric sidechains grafted onto the copolymer backbone, wherein said polymeric sidechains (B) are obtainable by polymerization of at least one vinyl ester monomer (B1), and optionally at least one other monomer (B2), wherein, if present, the weight ratio of monomer (B2) to monomer (B1) is less than 0.5, comprising in percent by weight in relation to the total weight of the graft polymer 25 to 85%, of the copolymer backbone (A), and 15 to 75% of the polymeric sidechains (B) differing only in that copending ‘540 fails to disclose a surfactant as recited in claim 1, the polydispersity and biodegradability as recited in claims 5 and 10, respectively, the proportions of the graft polymer and surfactant as recited in claim 11, the detergent in liquid form as recited in claim 12, and the incorporation of at least one ingredient like enzyme as recited in claim 13.
Delplancke, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, teaches a liquid detergent composition which comprises a surfactant system (see [0008]), and a similar amphiphilic graft copolymer (see [0026]), having a polydispersity Mw/Mn of less or equal than 3 (see [0039]). Delplancke further teaches that the composition preferably comprises from about 1% to about 40%, by weight of the composition of the surfactant system (see [0023] and [0059]), and from about 0.1% to about 2% by weight of the composition of the amphiphilic random graft polymer (see claim 14), and the composition can optionally further comprise a number of other adjunct ingredients such as enzyme (see [0210]). In addition, Delplancke teaches that the detergent formulation is used in the removal of greasy soils from dishware (see [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a surfactant system and other adjunct ingredients such as enzyme into the dish wash composition in copending ‘540 because these are typical ingredients in a dish wash composition effective for removing greasy soils as taught by Delplancke. With respect to the proportions of the graft polymer and surfactant system, considering that Delplancke teaches from about 1% to about 40%, by weight of the composition of the surfactant system and from about 0.1% to about 2% by weight of the composition of the amphiphilic random graft polymer, 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 because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the graft polymer of copending ‘540 in view of Delplancke to exhibit similar dispersibility and biodegradability properties because similar graft polymers having similar backbone monomers and side chains having the same proportions, and similar backbone monomers having the same molecular weights have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
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