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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 04/08/2024. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “X” in lines 13-14, and 18 should not be capitalized in accordance with the “x” in formulas I and II. It is suggested that “X” in lines 13-14, and 18 be changed to “x.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the use of the word “comprising” in line 2. It is suggested that “comprising” be changed to “comprises” for grammatical consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 (c) does not disclose the composition of soap powder. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation based on the plain meaning of the claim language, in light of the instant specification (see Page 9-10), a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand soap powder to comprise at least one C10-C22 fatty acid or alkali metal salt. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 1 (c) will be interpreted as a spray-dried particulate composition comprising 3-45% wt, by weight of the composition, of either C10-C22 fatty acids, alkali metal salts of those fatty acids, or a combination thereof.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements rendering the claim unclear. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are the units for the weight average molecular weight of the carboxyl group-containing polymer in the recited claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 4 will be interpreted as the carboxyl group containing polymer having a weight average molecular weight of 20,000-60,000 Daltons.
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.
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, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dupont et. al (US20110245132A1), hereinafter “Dupont”.
With regards to claims 1, 2 and 5 Dupont teaches a spray-dried powder composition which comprises 15.65 wt% linear alkyl benzene sulphonate, 1.02 wt % of soap, and 2.09 wt% carboxyl group-containing copolymer [0192], which further comprises 50-98 mass % structural units derived from a carboxyl group-containing monomers [0016], 1-50 mass % structural units derived from sulfonate group containing monomers [0017], and 1-50 mass % ether bond containing structural units derived from a combination of monomers selected from formulas (I) and (II) [0015]. Additionally, Dupont teaches the use of 8.3 wt% of fatty acid, 12.2 wt% linear alkyl benzene sulfonic acid, and 2.1 wt% carboxyl containing copolymer in Ingredient C of Liquid Laundry Detergent Example 12 [0197]. Dupont further specifies the use of C12-C18 fatty acids in Ingredients F-Q.
Dupont does not specifically disclose a single embodiment with the composition as a spray dried particulate and 3-45wt % soap powder as recited in claim 1 (c) or 4-40 wt % soap powder as recited in claim 5 (c). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the weight composition of soap of the spray-dried powder composition. With respect to optimization, it is not inventive to discover such regimens by routine experimentation when general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP §2144.05(11). Based on the teachings of Dupont, one would increase the soap powder to 8.3 wt % to create a granular laundry detergent. .
With regard to claim 3, Dupont teaches the carboxyl group comprising of unsaturated monocarboxylic acids such as acrylic acid [0034]. Acrylic acid has the structure of formula III where R-10 is a hydrogen atom. Dupont further teaches 2-hydroxy-3-allyloxypropanesulfonic acid (which has the structure of formula IV where R6 is a hydrogen, R7 is a CH2 group, R8 is a hydroxyl group, and R9 is a SO3H) and its salts as the most preferable embodiment of the sulfonate group-containing monomers [0047].
Dupont does not specifically disclose ether bond-containing monomers of formula II where R0 is a hydrogen, R is a CH2 group, x is 0, and R1 is a C1-C4 alkyl group. However, Dupont teaches ether bond-containing monomers of formula II where R0 is a hydrogen or CH3 group, R is a CH2 or CH2CH2 group, x is 0-5, and R1 is a hydrogen atom or C1-C20 alkyl group. This overlaps with the teachings recited in the instant claim. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07. See also In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the genus of the prior art was “huge, but it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant's additives”).
With regard to claim 6, Dupont teaches a spray-powder composition which further comprises 61.98 wt % sodium sulfate [0192].
With regards to claim 7, Dupont teaches 8.3 wt% of fatty acid in Ingredient C of Liquid Laundry Detergent Example 12 [0197] and further specifies the use of C12-C18 fatty acids in Ingredients F-Q.
With regards to claims 8, 10-11, Dupont teaches a Granular Laundry Detergent Composition comprising of anionic detersive surfactant particle 1 at 19.04 wt % and a solid perfume particle at 0.63 wt % by weight of the composition which is necessarily a powder [0196].
With regard to claim 9, Dupont teaches a spray-dried particulate composition [0192] which is necessarily a free-flowing solid.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont (US20110245132A1) in view of Wang et. al (WO2014032267A1) hereinafter “Wang”.
With regard to claim 4, the teachings of Dupont are discussed above. However, Dupont fails to specifically disclose the carboxyl group-containing polymer weight average weight from 20,000-60,000 Da.
Wang teaches a granular detergent product comprising carboxyl group-containing polymers, which further comprise structural units derived from 0.5-15 wt% ether bond-containing monomers (formula 5 of Wang is identical to formula II of the recited claim), 0.5-30 wt% sulfonic acid group-containing monomers, and 55-99 wt% acrylic-based monomers, having specific weight average molecular weight from about 20,000 to about 60,000 Da (see Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to reasonably modify the carboxyl group-containing polymer in Dupont to also has a weight average molecular weight from about 20,000-60,000 Da because it is comprised of the same carboxyl, sulfonate, and ether group containing monomers in overlapping weight compositions recited in Wang’s claim 1. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve improved cleaning performance and whiteness maintenance in the composition (see Page 1, Line 9-11).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,586,523 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to laundry detergent cleaning compositions comprising of alkali metal builders and a carboxyl group containing copolymer further comprising structural units derived from 50-98 wt% carboxyl group-containing monomers, ether bond containing monomers of identical formulas I and II, and structural units derived from sulfonate group-containing monomers. The claims differ in that ‘523 recites 1-50 wt% ether bond containing group and 1-50 wt% sulfonate group, and alkali builders while the present application recites 1-49 wt% ether bond containing group, and 1-49 wt% sulfonate group and alkali metal salts in the soap powder. However, the ranges are so similar that they are not patentably distinct and the alkali metal salts and builder are functionally equivalent in the soap.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, 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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761