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 and 12/11/2025. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, with respect to claims 1-2, and 4 have fully been considered. The objection of claims 1-2 is withdrawn because of applicant’s amendment to claims 1-2. The rejection of claim 4 under 35. U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention is withdrawn because of the Applicant’s addition of units to amended claim 4.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-8, regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11 under 35. U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Dupont (US20110245132A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 4 under 35. U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Dupont (US20110245132A1) in view of Wang (WO2014032267A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Hence, these rejections are maintained. The Applicant’s arguments regarding the non-statutory double patenting of claims 1, 2 and 5 over claims 1 and 7 of US Patent No. 8,586,523 B2 are found persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn.
The Applicant argues Dupont fails to disclose 3-45 wt% of soap powder in the final composition. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner gave a claim interpretation the soap powder of the instant claim to comprise of C10-C22 fatty acids and alkali metal salts of those fatty acids as noted in the instant specification (see pages 9-10). Dupont teaches Liquid Laundry Detergent Example 12 comprising 8.3 wt% of fatty acid, specifying the use of C12-C18 fatty acid (see [0197]; see also Ingredients F-Q). Dupont also teaches the use of soap in the spray dried powder composition (see [0192]). Therefore, the species of the soap powder is taught and was addressed in the maintained rejection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spray dried composition with 8.3 wt% of soap to create a granular detergent as stated in the previous office action. The examiner correctly cited MPEP 2144.05 in the previous office action to show obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges. Dupont generally teaches the use of soap in the exemplary spray dried composition (see [0192]) and the specific use of 8.3 wt% of C12-C18 fatty acid which comprises the soap (see [0197]). Hence, a prima facie case for obviousness exists for claim 1 and all the elements of claim 1 are taught by or obvious over Dupont’s teachings.
The previous office action is cited below for reference:
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 R¹0 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 R° 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-C₁₈fatty 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).
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 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
Prosecution Insights