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 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) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Monsrud et al. (US2012/0291815A1).
Re claims 1-2, Monsrud et al. teach a 2-1 or 3-1 acidic composition for use in both the detergent and the rinse aid (paragraph 205) for ware washing, the acidic composition having at least one acid source (paragraph 43), at least one rinse surfactant (paragraph 47) and at least one solidification aid and/or water (paragraphs 254, 255, Table 4), with a pH of less than 6 (paragraph 40), and rinsing the rinse aid composition from the surface with a water source (paragraphs 193-194). Re claim 1, paragraph 77 of the instant specification teaches hydroxycarboxylic acids include citric, lactic, gluconic, acetic acid and alkali metal salts. Applicant is directed to paragraph 39 of Monstrud et al. which teach acid sources include citric, gluconic acids and mixtures thereof. There is a clear teaching of using citric acid for use in the acid compositions. Monsrud clearly teaches that citric acid is particularly well suited for use in the acid compositions (paragraph 39). Re claim 3, refer to paragraph 207. Re claim 4, refer to paragraph 205 for example. Re claim 5, refer to paragraph 143. Re claim 6, refer to 270. Re claim 8, refer to paragraph 319. Re claims 9-10, refer to paragraph 2.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monsrud et al. (US2012/0291815A1) and further in view of Andersson et al. (EP0467028A1).
Monsrud et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of softened water source. Andersson et al. teach a process of softening treated water used in a household washing machine used for washing dishes. Page 2 teaches the effectiveness of the surfactants in the dishwashing process is inhibited with the use of hardened water, as the increase in the concentration of calcium ions in the water requires a greater quantity of detergent to obtain the desired washing results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Monsrud et al. to include softened water, as taught by Andersson et al. for purposes of reducing the amount of calcium ions in the water, thereby allowing for an efficient and economical means to decrease detergent concentrations.
Response to Arguments
9. The rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Monsrud et al. is maintained for the reasons recited above. Applicant’s arguments are directed to failure of Monsrud et al. to teach the newly amended limitations directed to citric acid and/or lactic acid. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the following reasons. Applicant is directed to paragraph 77 of the instant specification which teaches hydroxycarboxylic acids including citric, lactic, gluconic, acetic acid and alkali metal salts. Applicant is directed to paragraph 39 of Monsrud et al. which teach additional acids that are particularly well suited include citric, gluconic acids and mixtures thereof. It is also noted that claim 1 of Monsrud et al. recites citric acid. Applicant continues to argue that Monstrud teaches a wide variety of acids, with preferred acids being sulfuric acid derivatives. Applicant argues that there is no teaching out of a broad list of genus of acids taught by Monsrud to choose an acid source comprising citric acid and/or lactic acid. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive as Monstrud et al. also teaches additional acids, such as citric acid, which are “well suited” for use in the acid composition and further recites citric acid in claim 1. Additionally, a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, including non-preferred embodiments because a non-preferred portion of a reference is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of the claims, Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 10 USPQ2d 1843. “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use”, In re Gurley, 31 USPQ2d 1130. Re claim 7, no additional arguments have been presented, and therefore, the rejections of the claims as being anticipated and/or obvious over Monstrud et al. are maintained.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc