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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on 12/04/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 1-2, 4-20 are pending and under examination.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US6391840) in view of Van Buskirk et al. (US20090253605).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Thompson et al. teaches sodium hypochlorite kitchen cleaner composition comprising 1.0% of sodium hypochlorite, 0.2% of decyldimethylamine oxide (C10-dimethylamine oxide) and 0.1% of sodium laurate (sodium C11COO-) (column 19, line 5 to 36).
Van Buskirk et al. teaches improved compositions and kits are employed that provide dosing and cleaning solutions containing a halogen-based oxidant effectively delivered to remediate microfloral and biofilm development on the laundering surfaces of enclosed horizontal axis washers (abstract). A treatment composition for remediation of microfloral propagation and biofilm development on internal laundering surfaces of a washing machine that are oxidatively sensitive, comprising: 2 to 15 weight % of a halogen-based oxidant; 0.05 to 5 weight % of an alkaline builder selected from the group consisting of silicates, phosphates, carbonates, and mixtures thereof; 0.01 to 2.5 weight % of a halogen stable surfactant ([0027, 0042]). The surfactant is selected from the group consisting of amine oxides, carboxybetaines, sulfobetaines, alkyl sulfates, alkyl sulfonates, alkylene sulfonates, aryl sulfonates, alkylaryl sulfonates, fatty acid soaps, and combinations thereof ([0039]). Suitable halogen based oxidants include the chlorine bleaches including hypochlorite and/or chlorine-based oxidant compositions that yield a hypochlorite species in aqueous solution. Particularly preferred is sodium hypochlorite which is effective and widely commercially available ([0054]). Bleach stable amine oxides suitable for use in the present invention include alkyl di(lower alkyl)amine oxides in which the alkyl group has about 10-20, and preferably 12-18 carbon atoms, and can be straight or branched chain, saturated or unsaturated. The lower alkyl groups include between 1 and 7 carbon atoms. Examples include lauryl dimethyl amine oxide, myristyl dimethyl amine oxide ([0057]). Bleach-stable anionic surfactants useful in the present invention and which are especially stable in the presence of hypochlorite include water soluble alkali metal alkyl sulphates, alkyl sulphonates and alkylbenzene sulphonates, particularly the sodium salts of those having from 8 to 18 carbon atoms in the alkyl group, and sodium alkyl sarcosinate salts in which the alkyl group is a saturated hydrocarbon chain having from 7 to 17 carbon atoms, and aryl sulphonates. One example of a bleach stable alkyl sulphate is lauryl sulphate ([0059]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Thompson et al. is that Thompson et al. do not expressly teach percentage of surfactant This deficiency in Thompson et al. is cured by the teachings of Van Buskirk et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thompson et al., as suggested by Van Buskirk et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have 0.005 to 0.09% by weight for each of decyldimethylamine oxide and sodium laurate as well as their combination because this is optimization under prior art condition or through routing experimentation. MPEP 2144.05. Under guidance from Van Buskirk et al. teaching 0.01 to 2.5 weight % of a halogen stable surfactant such as amine oxides, alkyl sulfates, fatty acid soaps and combinations thereof for sodium hypochlorite composition, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have 0.005 to 0.09% by weight for each of decyldimethylamine oxide and sodium laurate as well as their combination and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-6, 15-18 and 20, prior art teaches a cleaner composition comprising 1.0% of sodium hypochlorite. 0.01-0.09% of decyldimethylamine oxide (C10-dimethylamine oxide) and 0.01-0.09% of sodium laurate (sodium C11COO-) with the total amount of surfactant is no more than 0.09% by weight. Prior art is silent about 6-log reduction in C. diff within 110 second or 2 min as well as surface tension of 28mN/m or less, which are all regarded as inherency of prior art composition. Since prior art teaches the same or substantially same composition as applicant’s claimed composition, this same or substantially same prior art composition must have the same properties such as 6-log reduction in C. diff within 110 second or 2 min as well as surface tension of 28mN/m or less. MPEP 2112, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, since prior art teaches 0.01-0.09% of decyldimethylamine oxide (C10-dimethylamine oxide) (MW 201) and 0.01-0.09% of sodium laurate (sodium C11COO-)(MW 222) with the total amount of surfactant is no more than 0.09% by weight, when decyldimethylamine oxide is 0.06% and sodium laurate is 0.03%, the amount of total surfactant is 0.09%, the weight ratio with 1.0% of sodium hypochlorite is 0.09:1. Inside of claimed range of 0.01:1 to 0.95:1. For the molar ratio of anionic surfactant sodium laurate to zwitterionic surfactant decyldimethylamine oxide, (0.03%/222) : (0.06% /201) = about 1:2, inside claimed range.
Regarding claims 9, 13-14 and 19, only decyldimethylamine oxide (C10-dimethylamine oxide) and sodium laurate (sodium C11COO-) are required, and the limitation of “consisting of” is met.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US6391840) in view of Van Buskirk et al. (US20090253605), as applied for the above 103 rejection for the claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 13-20, further in view of Scheuing et al. (WO2015072986).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Thompson et al. and Van Buskirk et al. teaching have already been discussed in the above 103 rejection and are incorporated herein by reference.
Scheuing et al. teaches composition comprising hypohalite or a hypochlorous acid (abstract). Examples of anionic surfactants include, but are not limited to alkyl sulfates (e.g., C8-C18 linear or branched alkyl sulfates such as sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), and sodium tetradecylsulfate), alkyl sulfonates (e.g., C6-C18 linear or branched alkyl sulfonates such as sodium octane sulfonate and sodium secondary alkane sulfonate, alkyl ethoxysulfates, fatty acids and fatty acid salts (e.g., C6-C16 fatty acid soaps such as sodium laurate), and alkyl amino acid derivatives ([0041]). Other nitrogen containing surfactants may also be employed. They may be amphoteric or zwitterionic. These include amine oxides, sarcosinates, taurates and betaines. Examples include C8-C18 alkyldimethyl amine oxides (e.g., octyldimethylamine oxide, lauryldimethylamine oxide, and cetyldimethylamine oxide), C4-C16 dialkylmethylamine oxides (e.g. didecylmethylamine oxide), C8-C18 alkyl morpholine oxide (e.g. laurylmorpholine oxide), tetra-alkyl diamine dioxides (e.g. tetramethyl hexanane diamine dioxide, lauryl trimethyl propane diamine dioxide), C8- C18 alkyl betaines (e.g. decylbetaine and cetylbetaine), C8-C18 acyl sarcosinates (e.g. sodium lauroylsarcosinate), C8-C18 acyl C1-C6 alkyl taurates (e.g. sodium cocoylmethyltaurate), C8-C18 alkyliminodipropionates (e.g. sodium lauryliminodipropionate), and combinations thereof. Lauryl dimethyl amine oxide (AMMONYX® LO) and myristyl dimethyl amine oxide (AMMONYX® MO) are examples of suitable amphoteric surfactants, available from Stepan Co ([0042]). In one embodiment, the composition is a cleaner for kitchen ([0051]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Thompson et al. is that Thompson et al. do not expressly teach myristyl dimethyl amine oxide and sodium lauryl sulfate. This deficiency in Thompson et al. is cured by the teachings of Scheuing et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thompson et al., as suggested by Scheuing et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace myristyl dimethyl amine oxide for decyldimethylamine oxide because this is simple substitution of one known nitrogen containing surfactants for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143, it is prima facie obviousness for simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Under guidance from Scheuing et al. teaching myristyl dimethyl amine oxide (C14 alkyldimethyl amine oxides ) is alternative to decyldimethylamine oxide (C10 alkyldimethyl amine oxides ), it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace myristyl dimethyl amine oxide for decyldimethylamine oxide and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace sodium lauryl sulfate for sodium laurate because this is simple substitution of one known anionic surfactant for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143, it is prima facie obviousness for simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Under guidance from Scheuing et al. teaching sodium lauryl sulfate is alternative to sodium laurate, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace sodium lauryl sulfate for sodium laurate and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 11, only myristyl dimethyl amine oxide (C14 alkyldimethyl amine oxides, also named as myristyl amine oxide ) and sodium lauryl sulfate (C12) are required. The limitation of consisting of is met.
Regarding claim 12, prior art teaches 0.06% of myristyl dimethyl amine oxide (MW 257) and 0.03% of sodium lauryl sulfate (MW 288), the molar ratio of anionic surfactant sodium lauryl sulfate to zwitterionic surfactant myristyl dimethyl amine oxide is (0.03%/288) : (0.06% /257) = about 1:2, inside claimed range.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Argument:
Applicants argue that none of references teaches applicant’s claimed invention.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed in the above 103 reaction, Thompson et al. is relied on for teaching sodium hypochlorite kitchen cleaner composition comprising 1.0% of sodium hypochlorite, 0.2% of decyldimethylamine oxide (C10-dimethylamine oxide) and 0.1% of sodium laurate (sodium C11COO-) (column 19, line 5 to 36); Van Buskirk et al. is relied on for teaching 0.01 to 2.5 weight % of a halogen stable surfactant such as amine oxides, alkyl sulfates, fatty acid soaps and combinations thereof for sodium hypochlorite composition; Scheuing et al. teaching myristyl dimethyl amine oxide (C14 alkyldimethyl amine oxides ) is alternative to decyldimethylamine oxide (C10 alkyldimethyl amine oxides ) and sodium lauryl sulfate is alternative to sodium laurate; thus, it is obvious to produce applicant’s claimed inventio with reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 13-20 only requires the optimization of range of surfactant under guidance of Van Buskirk et al., and Scheuing et al. only applies for the rejection for claims 7-8 and 11-12.
Applicants argue no teaching of lower percentage of surfactant because Van Buskirk et al. only teaches 0.01 to 2.5% of surfactant instead of 0.005%.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. Buskirk et al. only teaches 0.01 to 2.5% of surfactant, overlaps with applicant’s claimed range of 0.005 to 0.09%. MPEP 2144.05, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Applicants argue about synergistic effect of sodium lauryl sulfate and myristamine oxide. All related arguments are incorporated herein by reference.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. MPEP 716.02(b), Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Applicant’s arguments are not sufficient to overcome the 103 rejection at least for the following two reasons. Firstly, applicant’s results (combination of sodium lauryl sulfate and myristamine oxide only) are not commensurate in scope of claims (any combination of surfactants with different tail chain length). Secondly, applicants failed to compare with closest prior art teaching (decyldimethylamine oxide (C10-dimethylamine oxide) and sodium laurate (sodium C11COO-) to show synergist effect is unexpected. Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. The new ground of 102 and 103 rejection have fully addressed each limitation of amended claimed invention.
MPEP 2141 III states: “The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” Respectfully, after weighing all the evidence, the Examiner has reached a determination that the instant claims are not patentable in view of the preponderance of evidence and consideration of all the facts which is more convincing than the evidence which has been offered in opposition to it.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights