The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on June 11, 2026.
Claims 21-26 and 28-38 are pending. Claims 1-20 and 27 were previously cancelled. There are no amended claims.
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 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besse et al. (US 2012/0231990), hereinafter “Besse” for the reasons set forth in the previous office action and which is repeated below for Applicant’s convenience.
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 filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Besse, the primary reference, Applicant argues that independent claim 21 recites, in part, “mixing a first solid composition comprising an anionic surfactant and a second solid composition comprising an alkaline source to obtain a solid mixture, wherein the concentration of the anionic surfactant in the first solid composition is adjusted to achieve a desired dispense rate.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because, as stated in paragraph 5 above, 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.
Applicant also argues that claim 21 further requires that “the pressed solid block is free of an oxidizer and free of a peroxyacid salt and its initializer and free of a nonionic surfactant.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because the solid cleaning compositions in Table 1 (see para. [0062]) are free of an oxidizer and free of a peroxyacid and its initializer. With respect to the nonionic surfactant, even though Besse teaches that a variety of surfactants can be used which includes anionic or nonionic surfactants in para. [0023], the nonionic surfactants are not recited as essential ingredients, hence, the composition does not require nonionic surfactants.
Applicant also argues that Besse does not teach adjusting anionic surfactant concentration to achieve a desired dispense rate.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because Besse teaches in para. [0023] that the solid cleaning composition can include at least detersive composition comprising a surfactant, like anionic surfactant, and the formed product comprises 0.5-10 wt% of the surfactant as disclosed in Table 1. Hence, the selection of the proportions of the anionic surfactant within the above range is construed to adjusting the anionic surfactant. Please note that Besse discloses a desired rate of dispensing the cleaning agent from the solidified composition during use in para [0037]] and it is understood that the solidified composition comprises the anionic surfactant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights