DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-4, 6-7 10,12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A2) as being anticipated by Piorkowski et al (2020/0199491).
Piorkowski et al disclose a unit dose detergent composition to enhance its hydration and dissolution, which includes the steps of: providing the detergent composition including: about 2.5 to about 15 wt. % of a polyglycol, an alkyl-ether sulfate, a linear alkylbenzene sulfonate, and a fatty alcohol ethoxylate, wherein the alkyl-ether sulfate, linear alkylbenzene sulfonate, and fatty alcohol ethoxylate are collectively present in an amount of 30 to 70 wt. %, by weight of the detergent composition (0005). Specifically, C1-C20 AES having 1-15 moles of EO; amine oxides and C8-C22 linear alkyl benzene sulfonates (0038, 0039 and 0047). The polyglycol as required, has a molecular weight between 200 and 1200 Daltons, preferably, 300 to 800 Daltons, and most preferably from 300 to 500 Daltons (0008). In addition, present invention may contain about 5 wt. % to about 40 wt. %. of 1,3 propanediol and/or mixture of glycerin and propylene glycol, where the ratio of glycerin to propylene glycol is from 2:1 to 1:2 (0060-0061). Moreover, the unit dose detergent compositions of the present invention may be placed a water-soluble pouch. The water soluble pouch is made from a water-soluble material such as water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol film-forming resin (0078) and water may comprise no more than 20 wt. % of the unit dose detergent composition (0063). Adjunct ingredients are found at 0077. Specifically, Table 1, formula 4 exemplifies the claimed invention. It is noted that the PEG 400 is listed and outside of the PEG 300 Daltons claimed, however, the author Piorkowski et al specifically teach and claims the data points of 200-300 Daltons in the claims which suggest with sufficient specificity the range of PEG as claimed to anticipate the claimed PEG component and thus anticipate the claimed invention as a whole (see Table 1, formula 4 and claims 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 5, 8-9, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piorkowski et al (2020/0199491).
Piorkowski et al is relied upon as set forth above. Specifically, additional specific surfactant components such as LAS, amine oxide, AES and additional solvents such as 1,3 propanediol are not taught with sufficient specificity to anticipate the above claims.
It would have been nonetheless obvious to the skilled artisan to add and/or substitute the aforementioned surfactants and/or solvents to the compositions of Piorkowski et al since each of the specific surfactants are taught and suggested as pertinent to the compositions for reduction of surface tension or added as solvents to aid as emulsifiers of said detergent composition. One skilled in the art, in the absence of a showing to the contrary commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, would have been motivated to include or admixed said components for their intended purpose.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761