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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 6, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 21-26 and 28-38 are pending. Claims 1-20 and 27 were previously cancelled. Claims 21, 34 and 35 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 21, 23-26 and 28-38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotzauer et al. (US 2015/0133357) in view of Tjelta et al. (US 2009/0176687) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein. It is also noted that Dotzauer teaches that the detergent composition can also include additional surfactants … like anionic surfactants (see [0164]), which implies that the anionic surfactant is in addition to the nonionic surfactant recited in [0054]).
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotzauer in view of Tjelta as applied to claims 21, 23-26 and 28-38 above, and further in view of Gorlin (US Patent No. 6,605,583) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-26 and 28-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besse et al. (US 2012/0231990), hereinafter “Besse.”
Regarding claims 21, 23 and 33, Besse teaches a cleaning composition which includes a carboxymethyl carbohydrate polymer, sodium carbonate, and water (see abstract). In one embodiment, Besse teaches in Table 1, a solid cleaning composition in the form of a formed product which comprises 1-30 wt%, preferably 10-20 wt% carboxymethyl carbohydrate, 2-50 wt%, preferably 5-12 wt% water, <40 wt%, preferably <25 wt% builder, 20-90 wt%, preferably 50-75 wt% sodium carbonate (i.e., alkaline source), and 0.5-10 wt, preferably 1-6 wt% surfactant (see [0062]). A variety of surfactants can be used which includes anionic or nonionic surfactants (see [0023]). It is noted that the composition in Table 1 is free of an oxidizer and free of a peroxyacid and its initializer. The formed product can be a solid block having a mass of between approximately 1 and approximately 10 kilograms (see [0069]). Besse, however, fails to specifically disclose the surfactant in Table 1 as a anionic surfactant, and the composition being free of nonionic surfactant, and the process of preparing the composition as recited in claims 21 and 33.
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 an anionic surfactant and not a nonionic surfactant in the solid cleaning composition, say in Table 1, because Dotzauer specifically desires the composition to include a surfactant, and an anionic surfactant is one of the suitable selections as disclosed in [0023].
Please note that the present claims are product-by-process claims, hence, any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Regarding claim 22, Besse further teaches that some examples of the anionic surfactant are sodium alkylarylsulfonate, i.e., sodium alkylbenzenesulfonate and sodium alpha-olefinsulfonate (see [0024]), wherein the alky group would overlap those recited.
Regarding claim 24, as discussed above, Besse teaches a solid cleaning composition in the form of a formed product which comprises 2-50 wt%, preferably 5-12 wt% water (see [0062]). Besse, however, fails to specifically disclose a water content of from about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt%.
Considering that Besse teaches from 2-50 wt%, preferably 5-12 wt% water, 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., 2-10 wt%) 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 25, as discussed above, Besse teaches a solid cleaning composition in the form of a formed product which comprises from 0.5-10 wt, preferably 1-6 wt% surfactant (see [0062]), like anionic surfactant(see [0023]).
Regarding claim 26, as discussed above, Besse teaches a solid cleaning composition in the form of a formed product which comprises from 0.5-10 wt, preferably 1-6 wt% surfactant (see [0062]), like anionic surfactant(see [0023]). Besse, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 3.5 wt% to about 4.5 wt% of the anionic surfactant.
Considering that Besse teaches from 0.5-10 wt% anionic surfactant, 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 3.5-about 4.5 wt%) 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 28, as discussed above, Besse teaches a solid cleaning composition in the form of a formed product which comprises 20-90 wt%, preferably 50-75 wt% sodium carbonate (i.e., alkaline source) (see [0062]). Besse, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 85 wt% to about 95 wt% of the sodium carbonate (i.e., alkaline source).
Considering that Besse teaches from 20-90 wt% of sodium carbonate, 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 85 wt% to about 90 wt%) 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 29, Besse further teaches that the solid cleaning composition can also include a hardening agent (see [0035]), preferably polyethylene glycol (PEG) (see [0038]), at a concentration of from approximately 1% to 75% by weight and particularly approximately 3% to approximately 15% by weight (see [0038]). Besse, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% of polyethylene glycol.
Considering that Besse teaches approximately 1% to approximately 75% by weight polyethylene glycol, 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 1 wt% to about 10 wt%) 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 30, Besse further teaches that one preferred PEG is PEG 8000, i.e., PEG having a molecular weight of 8,000 (see [0038]).
Regarding claim 31 and 37, Besse further teaches that some examples of the anionic surfactant are sodium alkylarylsulfonate, i.e., sodium alkylbenzenesulfonate and sodium alpha-olefinsulfonate (see [0024]).
Regarding claim 32, Besse further teaches that the use composition has a pH of at least about 8 (see [0020]), which reads on at least about 8.5.
Regarding claims 34-35, Besse further teaches that the solid cleaning composition can include an anti-redeposition agent (see [0045]), enzymes (see [0048]), corrosion inhibitor (see [0049]), fragrances and dyes (see [0054]-[0055]), among others.
Regarding claim 36, Besse further teaches that it is preferred that the amount of the hardening agent included in the solid cleaning composition is effective to provide a desired hardness and desired rate of controlled solubility of the processed composition when placed in an aqueous medium to achieve a desired rate of dispensing the cleaning agent from the solidified composition during use (see [0037]). Besse, however, fails to disclose the dispense rate of the solid block from about 20 g/cycle to about 120 g/cycle measured using a 60 second or 90 second dispense period.
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 dispense rate to be within those recited not only because Besse specifically desires a desired rate of dispensing but also because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence, would behave similarly.
Regarding claim 38, Besse further teaches other anionic surfactants such as alkylcarboxylates, alkylsulfonates, sulfated alcohol ethoxylates, sulfate alkylphenols, sulfosuccinates, among others (see paragraph [0024]).
In the alternative, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besse as applied to the above claims, and further in view of Gorlin (US Patent No. 6,605,583, already of record).
Regarding claim 22, Besse teaches the features as discussed above. Besse, however, fails to disclose the sodium alkylbenzene sulfonate anionic surfactant having an alkyl group of C8-C20.
Gorlin, an analogous art, teaches that alkyl benzene sulfonate contains from 10 to 16 atoms in the alkyl group (see col. 4, lines 52-67).
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 sodium alkylbenzene sulfonate anionic surfactant of Besse to comprise 10 to 16 atoms in the alkyl group because this is a typical alkylbenzene sulfonate in a similar composition as taught by Gorlin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-26 and 28-38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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