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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect instant claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that Applicant delete “and any” and insert “or any”. Note that, instant claims 2-20 have also been objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corominas (US2005/0153863).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Corominas teaches process comprising the steps of: (a) providing a binder system comprising (i) a binder, and, (ii) optionally, a viscosity modifier, so that the binder system has a shear modulus value G of from 10 to 100 GPa, a phase angle value of at least 7°, and a melting point of at least 45° C. at 100 kPa; (b) heating the binder system to above its melting point to form a molten binder system; (c) applying the molten binder system to a base powder comprising a premix of detergent components, to form a detergent composition; and (d) forming the detergent composition into tablets. The powder is formed into a tablet by compression or compaction to form a detergent tablet. This compression/compaction step is usually carried out in a conventional tablet press, for example, using a standard single stroke press or a rotary press such as Courtoy, Korch, Manesty or Bonals. See Abstract and para. 28. The base powder is typically present at a level of from 20% to 99.9% by weight, preferably from 35% to 99% by weight, more preferably from 50% to 98.5%, and most preferably from 55 to 95% by weight of the detergent tablet. See para. 33. Binders suitable for use within the binder system of the present invention can be selected from a wide range of substances. Binders can be selected from anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, polymeric materials, sugars, sugar acids, sugar alcohols, sugar esters, fatty acids, fatty acid esters, fatty acid amides, and mixtures thereof. See para. 52. Specific examples of binders include sorbitol, dextrose, etc. See para. 59.
The base powder typically comprises a wide variety of different ingredients, such as building agents, effervescent system, enzymes, dissolution aids, disintegrants, bleaching agents, suds supressors, surfactants (nonionic, anionic, cationic, amphoteric, and/or zwitterionic), fabric softening agents, alkalinity sources, colorants, perfumes, lime soap dispersants, organic polymeric compounds including polymeric dye transfer inhibiting agents, crystal growth inhibitors, anti-redeposition agents, soil release polymers, hydrotropes, fluorescents, heavy metal ion sequestrants, metal ion salts, enzyme stabilisers, corrosion inhibitors, softening agents, optical brighteners, and combinations thereof. See para. 68. The base powder herein preferably comprises an effervescent system, typically present at a level of from 1% to 30% by weight, preferably from 5% to 25% by weight, most preferably from 10% to 20% by weight of the base powder. Effervescent systems suitable herein include those derived by combining an acid source and a bicarbonate or carbonate. See paras. 67-81. The enzymes are normally incorporated in the detergent tablet at levels from 0.0001% to 2% of active enzyme by weight of the base powder, and suitable enzymes include protease, amylase, lipase, etc., and mixtures thereof. See paras. 104-107.
The base powder herein preferably comprises at least one surfactant, preferably two or more surfactants. The total surfactant concentration is typically from 1% to 80% by weight, preferably from 10% to 70% by weight, most preferably from 20% to 60% by weight of the base powder. Suitable surfactants are selected from anionic, cationic, nonionic ampholytic and zwitterionic surfactants and mixtures thereof. See para. 83. The base powder herein may optionally comprise materials selected from catalytic metal complexes, activated peroxygen sources, bleach activators, etc. Suitable bleaches include percarbonate, etc., and suitable bleach activators include tetraacetylethylene diamine, etc. See para. 108-111. Specifically, Corominas teaches a base powder composition containing 35% anionic/cationic agglomerates, 4.5% nonionic agglomerates, 15% sodium percarbonate, 4% bleach activator, 12% sodium carbonate, 0.5% soil release polymer, 4% citric acid, 0.2% protease, 0.05% amylase, etc. Sorbitol, the binder, was then sprayed onto the powder and then the composition was loaded into a die and pressed to obtain a detergent tablet. See paras. 127-132. Corominas discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of Corominas anticipate the material limitations of independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Corominas (US2005/0153863).
Corominas is relied upon as set forth above. Note that, the Examiner asserts the composition as specifically taught by Corominas would inherently have the same dissolution properties as recited by instant claim 18 because Corominas teach compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Corominas disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of Corominas anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims.
Alternatively, even if the broad teachings of Corominas are not sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims, it would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at claimed dissolution properties of the composition in order to provide the optimum cleaning to the composition because Corominas teaches that the amounts and types of required components added to the composition may be varied.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corominas (US2005/0153863) as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 11-15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of WO03/035813.
Corominas is relied upon as set forth above. However, Corominas does not teach the use of light soda ash and/or dense soda ash in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘813 teaches particulate detergent compositions with improved dispensing properties. See page 1, lines 1-5. More specifically, ‘813 teaches particulate laundry detergent composition which comprises a detergent base powder comprising surfactant and builder and, as separate particulate components: (a) an alkali metal carbonate salt selected from carbonate, bicarbonate, sesquicarbonate and combinations thereof; and a water-soluble solid organic acid which, reacted with (a) in the presence of water, generates carbon dioxide gas; wherein the alkali metal carbonate salt, when taken separately, has a 90% dissolution time of less than 15 seconds; and the water-soluble organic acid has a dparticle size which is in the range of from 150 to 1500 microns. See page 3, lines 1-25. Commercially available 'light' sodium carbonate has a bulk density of about 550 g/l and a d particle size of about 200 microns. Commercially available 'dense' sodium carbonate has a bulk density of about 1050 g/1 and a dparticle size of about 400 microns. See page 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use light soda ash and/or dense soda ash in the composition taught by Corominas, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘813 teaches the use of light soda ash and/or dense soda ash as part of an effervescent system in a similar composition and further, Corominas teaches the use of sodium carbonate in general. Note that, prior art recognizes the equivalence of light soda ash to dense soda ash as an effervescent carbonate and It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corominas (US2005/0153863) as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 11-15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of EP 3,339,413.
Corominas is relied upon as set forth above. However, Corominas does not teach the use of the specific nonionic surfactant in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘413 teaches a solid laundry detergent composition comprising: (a) from 20wt% to 39wt% detersive surfactant selected from anionic detersive surfactant and/or non-ionic detersive surfactant; (b) from 10wt% to 40wt% inorganic salts selected from sodium carbonate, sodium sesquicarbonate, sodium bicarbonate and any mixtures thereof; (c) optionally, from 10wt% to 40wt% citric acid and/or salts thereof; and (d) from 0.5wt% to 20wt% alkyl ether carboxylic acid. See Abstract. Suitable non-ionic detersive surfactants include alkyl alkoxylated alcohols, preferably C8-18 alkyl alkoxylated alcohol, preferably a C8-18 alkyl ethoxylated alcohol, preferably the alkyl alkoxylated alcohol has an average degree of alkoxylation of from 1 to 50, preferably from 1 to 30, or from 1 to 20, or from 1 to 10, preferably the alkyl alkoxylated alcohol is a Cg-18 alkyl ethoxylated alcohol having an average degree of ethoxylation of from 1 to 10, preferably from 1 to 7, more preferably from 1 to 5 and most preferably from 3 to 7. The alkyl alkoxylated alcohol can be linear or branched, and substituted or un-substituted. See para. 38.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a C12-C15 fatty alcohol ethoxylated with 7 moles of ethoxylate in the composition taught by Corominas, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘413 teaches the use of a C12-C15 fatty alcohol ethoxylated with 7 moles of ethoxylate in a similar composition and further, Corominas teaches the use of nonionic surfactants in general.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corominas (US2005/0153863) as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 11-15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of WO2020/114968.
Corominas is relied upon as set forth above. However, Corominas does not teach the use of the methyl ester sulfonate in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘968 teaches moderate pH and optionally low conductivity powder detergent compositions comprising a protease. See Abstract. The composition may contain anionic surfactants such as linear alkylbenzenesulfonates (LAS), methyl ester sulfonate, etc. See page 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use methyl ester sulfonate surfactant in the composition taught by Corominas, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘968 teaches the use of a methyl ester sulfonate in a similar composition and further, Corominas teaches the use of anionic surfactants in general.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corominas (US2005/0153863) as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 11-15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Brooker et al (US 2011/0112005).
Corominas is relied upon as set forth above. However, Corominas does not teach the use of a homopolymer of acrylic acid in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Brooker et al teach this invention relates to ecologically responsible laundry detergent compositions that utilize unique surfactant-builder-enzyme combinations in conjunction with performance boosting natural essences. See para. 1. The composition may be in solid form. See para. 9. The compositions of the present invention may also include at least one soil dispersing and/or anti-redeposition or water conditioning polymers such as sodium polyacrylate or carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). Particularly suitable polymeric polycarboxylates are derived from acrylic acid, and this polymer and the corresponding neutralized forms include and are commonly referred to as polyacrylic acid. See para. 36.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a homopolymer of acrylic acid in the composition taught by Corominas, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Brooker et al teach the use of a homopolymer of acrylic acid as a soil dispersing and/or anti-redeposition polymer in a similar composition and further, Corominas teaches the use of ant-redeposition agents in general.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corominas (US2005/0153863) as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 11-15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Brooker et al (US 2011/0112005); WO03/035813; EP 3,339,413; and WO2020/114968.
Corominas is relied upon as set forth above. However, Corominas does not teach the use of a homopolymer of acrylic acid, methyl ester sulfonate surfactant, the specific nonionic surfactant, and light soda ash and/or dense soda ash in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Brooker et al, ‘813, ‘413, and ‘968 are relied upon as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use light soda ash and/or dense soda ash in the composition taught by Corominas, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘813 teaches the use of light soda ash and/or dense soda ash as part of an effervescent system in a similar composition and further, Corominas teaches the use of sodium carbonate in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a C12-C15 fatty alcohol ethoxylated with 7 moles of ethoxylate in the composition taught by Corominas, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘413 teaches the use of a C12-C15 fatty alcohol ethoxylated with 7 moles of ethoxylate in a similar composition and further, Corominas teaches the use of nonionic surfactants in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use methyl ester sulfonate surfactant in the composition taught by Corominas, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘968 teaches the use of a methyl ester sulfonate in a similar composition and further, Corominas teaches the use of anionic surfactants in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a homopolymer of acrylic acid in the composition taught by Corominas, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Brooker et al teach the use of a homopolymer of acrylic acid as a soil dispersing and/or anti-redeposition polymer in a similar composition and further, Corominas teaches the use of ant-redeposition agents in general.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corominas (US2005/0153863) as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 11-15, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of WO02/10329.
Corominas is relied upon as set forth above. However, Corominas does not teach the specific breaking strength of the composition in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘329 teaches a method of forming a polymeric coating on a detergent tablet containing an alkaline agent comprises applying to the tablet a continuum of an aqueous solution or suspension of a polymer having free acid groups, and evaporating water to leave the coating on the tablet. See Abstract. The breaking strength of the uncoated tablet may for example be in the range 15 (e.g.20) to 1000 N more preferably 15 to 500 N. Generally the breaking strengths of laundry wash tablets will be toward the lower end of this range and may for example be 15 to 200 N, more usually 20 to 200N, preferably 20 to 100N and more preferably 20 to 50N. The composition may be used as a laundry or dishwash tablet. See pages 18 and 19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the tablet as taught by Corominas to have a breakage strength, for example, of 20 or 30 N, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘329 teaches the formulation of a similar tablet to have a breakage strength, for example, of 20 or 30 N, and further, Corominas teaches the use of various components and varying amounts of those components in general which would allow for tablets of varying breakage strengths.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, 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, 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/January 5, 2026