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, 3-5, and 7-20 are pending. Claims 2 and 6 have been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed February 25, 2026, have been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on February 25, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 25, 2026.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 12/8/25 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 2 and 9 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 17/835079 (reference application), has been withdrawn.
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, 3-5, and 7-11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Arredondo et al (US 2022/0403291).
The applied reference has a common (i.e., joint) inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Arredondo et al teach a surfactant composition includes a homogeneous mixture of greater than 70%, by weight, of N-acyl alaninate surfactant of formula (1) and an N-acyl amino acid surfactant of formula (II). See Abstract. Note that, the Examiner asserts that Formula (II) as taught by Arredondo et al corresponds to formula (I) as recited by the instant claims. The homogeneous N-acyl alaninate surfactant blend composition of the present disclosure comprises at least 50% by weight of the combined homogeneous blend of surfactants of formula (I) and (II). The composition preferably comprises from 70-95% by weight of said combined homogeneous blend of surfactants of formula (I) and (II). For example, the composition of the present disclosure may comprise 70% by weight, preferably greater than 75% by weight, and more preferably greater than 85% by weight of the mixture of N-acyl alaninate of formula (1) and N-acyl amino acid surfactant of formula (II) combined, specifically reciting all values within these ranges and any ranges created thereby. See para. 32.
In another aspect, Arredondo et al teach a consumer product cleaning or personal care composition comprising about 0.001 wt. % to about 99.999 wt. %, preferably about 0.1 wt % to about 80 wt. % of the homogeneous N-acyl alaninate surfactant blend, as described herein, based on the total weight of the composition, and 0.001 wt. % to about 99.999 wt. % of one or more additional cleaning components, or one or more additional personal care components. In some cases, the composition is selected from the group consisting of a granular detergent, a bar-form detergent, a liquid laundry detergent, a liquid hand dishwashing composition, a hard surface cleaner, a tablet, a disinfectant, an industrial cleaner, a highly compact liquid, a powder, and a decontaminant. In a class of cases, the composition is delivered in a form selected from the group consisting of a wipe, a cloth, a bar, a liquid, a powder, a creme, a lotion, a spray, an aerosol, a foam, a mousse, a serum, a capsule, a gel, an emulsion, a doe foot, a roll-on applicator, a stick, a sponge, an ointment, a paste, an emulsion spray, a tonic, a cosmetic, and mixtures thereof. In various embodiments, the composition further comprises a product selected from the group consisting of a device, an appliance, an applicator, an implement, a comb, a brush, a substrate, and mixtures thereof. In some embodiments, the composition is dispensed from an article selected from the group consisting of a bottle, ajar, a tube, a sachet, a pouch, a container, a tattle, a vial, an ampoule, a compact, a wipe, and mixtures thereof. See paras. 74 and 75.
Arredondo et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing an N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonate of formula (I) and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing an N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonate of formula (I) and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Arredondo et al suggest a composition containing an N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonate of formula (I) and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO97/41095.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘095 teaches a process for preparing purified N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonates. See page 1, lines 1-10. Note that, ‘095 teaches N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonates having the same formula as recited by the instant claims. See page 4. The blends of the invention can be used directly in various personal care and household cleaning products or blended with further ingredients as desired. By this invention, blends of ingredients can be made using the product of the invention as a base. See page 16, lines 1-10. The blends contain from about 80% to about 95% of actives, the remainder of the solids being impurities and reactants. See page 15.
‘095 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing an N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonate of formula (I) and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing an N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonate of formula (I) and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘095 suggest a composition containing an N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonate of formula (I) and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using Arredondo et al, Applicant states that a statement of common ownership has been submitted with respect to Arredondo et al which is sufficient to disqualify Arredondo et al as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2). In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the statement of common ownership is not sufficient to disqualify Arredondo et al as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2). The statement of ownership is not of proper form since it states “The Subject Application” instead of the actual serial number which is required and is 18/530397. The following formats are acceptable: 1) "Application X and Patent A were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Application X, owned by Company Z." or 2) “Application X and the subject matter disclosed in Patent A were, at the time the invention of Application X was effectively filed, owned by Company Z.” See MPEP 717.02(a) and 717.02(b). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Arredondo et al are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using WO97/41095, Applicant states that ‘095 fails to teach all elements of amended independent claim 1 and that ‘095 is silent as to a surfactant system comprising two co-present sulfonate surfactants as claimed. Additionally, Applicant states that the Office Action is improper for failing to address all limitations of the claims with specificity. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the description given above for ‘095 is sufficient to address all the claim limitations. Additionally, ‘095 clearly teaches that the surfactant blends contain from about 80% to about 95% of actives, the remainder of the solids being impurities and reactants (See page 15 of ‘095). Also, note that, the N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonate of Formula (I) as recited by the instant claims can be a N-acyl-N-methylaminoalkane sulfonate such that an N-acyl-N-methylaminoalkane sulfonate as taught by ‘095 can represent the N-acyl aminoalkane sulfonate of Formula (I) (R1 can represent a C1 methyl group) and the N-acyl-N-methylaminoalkane sulfonate surfactant as recited by instant claim 1. In other words, an N-acyl-N-methylaminoalkane sulfonate can represent both requirements of instant claim 1 and is clearly taught by ‘095. Alternatively, ‘095 teaches the equivalence of a variety of N-acyl-N-methylaminoalkane sulfonate compounds and one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use mixtures of these compounds to form a blend; 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. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘095 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
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 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/March 31, 2026