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 Interpretation
The invention is interpreted in claim 1 broadly as a solid cleansing composition comprising 1) a builder; 2) an anionic OR amphoteric surfactant; and 3) a builder, all other components are optional. Claim 16, is interpreted as a solid cleansing composition comprising 1) sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate or sugar; 2) an anionic or amphoteric; 3) a hydrotropic additive, all other ingredients are optional. Dependent process claims are relegated towards vehicle cleansing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The aforementioned claim 3 states “the vehicle cleaning composition of claim 1, wherein the sugar” but claim 1 does not call out a sugar component from which claim 1 depends? Claims 4-6 depend from 3 and therefore are also rejected. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Weber et al (20040029765).
Weber et al disclose a washing and cleaning agents which comprise cleaning agent components in the form of fine microparticles, better dispersibility, increased dissolution rate, more homogeneous distribution and improved cleaning action in the wash liquor (0017). Particularly, the particulate cleaner is used in particular, as dishwashing detergents, all-purpose cleaners, bath cleaners, floor cleaners, automobile cleaners, glass cleaners, furniture care compositions or cleaners, facade cleaners, washing agents and/or the like (0055). Weber teaches that the builder, foam and hydrotropic agents are utilized such as The carrier materials and/or coating substances can be chosen from the group consisting of salts, such as carbonates; organic and inorganic acids, such as citric acid; sugars, such as sucrose, glucose, fructose, sorbitol, lactose; starch and cellulose compounds, and/or urea (0045). In addition, fragrance and dyes are employed (0048) and surfactants such as those of the sulfonate and sulfate type, including C.sub.9-C.sub.13-alkylbenzenesulfonates (0111). Specifically, Weber teaches the reaction effect if disintegrants, which increase in volume upon ingress of water, with on the one hand an increase in the intrinsic volume (swelling) and on the other hand, by way of the release of gases as well, the possibility of generating a pressure which causes the tablet to disintegrate into smaller particles. Examples of established disintegration auxiliaries are carbonate/citric acid systems (0170). As the example specifically teaches with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claims, they are considered anticipatory.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
362
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) 15, 18-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al (20040029765) in view of Sivik et al (2020/0190446).
Weber et al is relied upon as set forth above.
Specifically, Weber et al do not teach the composition of claims 15-16 which include sodium carbonate, C10-c16 LAS, citric acid, dye and fragrance; urea additive of claim 18 and the process of cleaning a vehicle of claims 24-26.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to comprise additional component not called out in the examples but suggested in the broader context of Weber et al since urea, sugar, dyes and fragrance are all suggested in the four corners of the reference. One skilled in the art in the absence of a showing to the contrary, would have been motivated to combine the ingredients for their intended purpose, in the absence of a showing to the contrary and in light of non-preferred embodiments being considered indicative for obviousness.
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).
[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).]
With respect to the process and method of combining the ingredients to wash a vehicle, Weber et al teach that automobiles are utilized as substrates for said granular cleansing and furthermore, depositing said granulated formula in a wash liquor before washing a substrate (automobiles) is suggested (0017, 0055, 0170).
Weber et al do not disclose the use of a water disintegrable dosage or pack.
Sivik et al teach that water soluble pack for cleansing automobiles is well known and that said water soluble materials is made for polyvinyl alcohol (0015-0017; 0225; 0340).
It would have been obvious to incorporate a dosing apparatus such as a water soluble pack as outlined in Sivik et al with the guidance of Weber et al since Weber teaches utilizing broad dosing applications for their composition in a variety of apparatuses such as laundry and includes vehicle cleansing (0055). Sivik et al teaches that a dosing packet that solubilizes helps to meter the substance or compositions and they are more conveniently used and efficiently shipped (0005).
As stated in KSR Int'l Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007):
"[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claimwould have been prima facie obvious] need not seek out preciseteachings directed to the specific subject matter of thechallenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferencesand creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the artwould employ."
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