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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18 and 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/28/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 and 20 in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the term “metal oxide zinc ricinoleate nanocomposite”, this is taken to mean a particle that comprises a combination of a metal oxide, ricinoleate, and zinc (which can be the metal oxide). The above interpretation is in light of the specification paragraphs [0038-0040] where the zinc ricinoleate (as a ricinoleate salt) is added to a solution containing a metal donor and the zinc and ricinoleate separate as aqueous ionic species in the solution.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the nonionic alkoxylated linear alcohol surfactant is…” Since the nonionic surfactant is optional according to claim 1, claim 15 is taken as inheriting the optionality of claim 1 where the surfactant may be nonionic or zwitterionic.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. This objection pertains to instant paragraph 0052 and 0084 (table).
The use of the term SURFONIC® JL-80X, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The applicant’s tables are not labeled or given titles, appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 contains the trademark/trade name SURFONIC® JL-80X. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a nonionic linear alkoxylated alcohol surfactant and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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, 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.
Claim 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coope-Epstein (US 20180127692 A1) in view of Diez-Pascual (Antibacterial Nanocomposites Based on Thermosetting Polymers Derived from Vegetable Oils and Metal Oxide Nanoparticles) with evidence from Mogilnicka (Microbiota and Malodor—Etiology and Management).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Coope-Epstein steaches a detergent composition that comprises nonionic alkoxylated linear alcohol surfactants (paragraphs [0085-0087]) and/or zwitterionic surfactants and additionally malodor control agents and biocidal components (Paragraphs [0010], [0021], and [0026]). However, Coope-Epstein does not teach metal oxide zinc ricinoleate nanocomposite particles.
Diez-Pascual teaches antimicrobial nanocomposite particles comprising a zinc oxide core which is modified by chitin and ricinoleic acid (source of ricinoleate from castor oil) (sections 2.2 and 3.2). The zinc oxide ricinoleate nanocomposite is antimicrobial (as shown in Table 3) and as a result is also a malodor counteractant since the bacteria that the nanoparticles destroy produce malodors, as described in Mogilnicka. The zinc oxide nanocomposite particles also have a particle size of 40-180 nm (described in section 3.2), which has substantial and significant overlap with the claimed range and is disclosed with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03.
A person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have found it obvious to use the zinc oxide ricinoleate nanocomposite particles of Diez-Pascual as a malodor control agent or as a biocidal component in the detergent composition of Coope-Epstein and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Diez-Pascual applies as described above regarding the particle size of the zinc oxide ricinoleate nanoparticles.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 9 and 11, Coope-Epstein teaches that the detergent composition comprises between 2.5-50 wt.% of a non-ionic surfactant, a solid cleaning composition comprising 0.5-20 wt.% of a non-ionic surfactant and further exemplifies a composition containing 25.0 wt.% of a non-ionic surfactant (paragraphs [0008], [0044] and example 1). The claimed ranges for the amount of surfactant in the composition is rendered prima facie obvious in view of the ranges disclosed in Coope-Epstein, see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 10, Diez-Pascual teaches examples with concentrations of the zinc oxide ricinoleate nanocomposite particles between 1-7.5 wt.% (Table 3). The claimed ranges for the amount of zinc oxide ricinoleate nanocomposite particles in the composition is rendered prima facie obvious in view of the ranges disclosed in Diez-Pascual, see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, the composition of Coope-Epstein in view of Diez-Pascual applies as described above and Diez-Pascual further teaches that the amount of zinc oxide nanocomposite particles used is a result-effective variable on antibacterial activity where the increase in concentration generally results in the increase of antibacterial activity (Table 3, Figure 9). A person of ordinary skill, through routine optimization of a composition comprising zinc oxide ricinoleate nanocomposite particles in pursuit of improving antibacterial/malodor counteractant properties of the composition, would be expected to arrive at compositions comprising the nanocomposite particles in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Coope-Epstein teaches that a suitable zwitterionic surfactant may be “amido propyl betaines” (paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Coope-Epstein teaches that the composition may contain propylene glycol (paragraph [0014]), which the examiner notes that the applicant considers to be a solubility aid in instant paragraph [0039], as well as structuring agents (described in paragraphs [0065-0072]) and a pH adjusting agent (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 20, Coope-Epstein teaches methods of applying the composition to target environments such as fabric laundering and dishwashing (paragraph [0002]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coope-Epstein in view of Diez-Pascual and further in view of Sherrell (Cocoamidopropyl betain: Uses and safety) and Huntsman (Surfonic JL-80X Surfactant Technical Bulletin).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the composition of Coope-Epstein in view of Diez-Pascual applies as described above. However, neither of the aforementioned references teach cocoamidopropyl betain as a zwitterionic surfactant or SURFONIC® JL-80X as a nonionic alkoxylated linear alcohol surfactant.
Sherrell teaches that cocoamidopropyl betain is a surfactant that has a low risk of skin irritation and could be used in applications including laundry detergent and household cleaners (pages 1 and 3 of the copy provided as non-patent literature in the instant application). Sherrell does not teach SURFONIC® JL-80X.
Huntsman teaches SURFONIC® JL-80X as a nonionic alkoxylated linear alcohol surfactant which can be used in household detergents (page 1, of the copy provided as non-patent literature in the instant application)
Cocoamidopropyl betain and SURFONIC® JL-80X and their functions were known in the art, so a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application would have combined cocoamidopropyl betain as a zwitterionic surfactant and SURFONIC® JL-80X as a nonionic alkoxylated linear alcohol surfactant by known methods to the composition of Coope-Epstein in view of Diez-Pascual with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ochomogo (US 6454876 B1) teaches a method of eliminating malodors comprising non-ionic surfactants and zwitterionic surfactants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOLTON JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-9802. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (517)272-1130. 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.
/KOLTON JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights