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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 27, 30-33, 35-36, 40, 42-46 and 49-50 are pending. Claims 1-26, 28-29, 34, 37-39, 41 and 47-48 were previously cancelled. Claims 27 and 43 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 27, 30-31 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winston et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,264,047) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 27, 30-33, 35-36, 40, 42-46 and 49-50 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napolito (US 2015/0210957) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 27, 30-33, 35-36, 40, 42-46 and 49-50 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastigkeit et al. (US 2009/0281010), hereinafter “Bastigkeit” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 27, 30-33, 35-36 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (WO 02/16537), hereinafter “Morris” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claims 40, 43-46 and 49-50 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris as applied to claims 27, 30-33, 35-36 and 42 above, and further in view of Bastigkeit is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The provisional rejection of claims 43-46 and 49-50 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 37 of copending Application No. 17/070,326 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 27, 30-33, 35-36, 40, 42-46 and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Donnell et al. (WO 2017/102868, already cited in IDS dated 05/19/2025), hereinafter “O’Donnell.”
Regarding independent claim 27 and dependent claims 35-36, 40 and 42, O’Donnell teaches an aqueous, phosphate-free, structured heavy duty, i.e., laundry, liquid detergent composition comprising a surfactant system, a builder system and water, wherein the builder system comprises (A) at least one inorganic builder, preferably a carbonate, more preferably sodium carbonate (which reads on the “water softening material”); (B) at least one polycarboxylic acid or salt thereof; (C) at least one aminocarboxylate, preferably L- glutamic acid Ν,Ν-diacetic acid (GLDA), methyl glycine diacetic acid (MGDA), ethylenediamine Ν,Ν'-disuccinic acid (EDDS), among others, and alkali metal salts thereof, more preferably GLDA tetrasodium salt; (D) at least one phosphonate; and (E) at least one acrylate-containing water-soluble polymer or acid derivative or salts thereof (see claim 1; see also abstract), and wherein the composition comprises from 35.0 to 85.0 wt.-%, preferably 55.0 to 70 wt% water (see claim 2; page 9, 3rd full paragraph). The surfactant system preferably comprises at least one alkyl ether sulfate (see page 6, last full paragraph), which is an anionic surfactant. In addition, the composition may further comprise one or more nonionic surfactants (see page 8, 1st full paragraph). Other suitable inorganic builders include hydrogen carbonate, i.e., bicarbonate (see page 4, last two lines). The viscosity of the liquid detergent composition is generally greater than 1,000 mPas (Brookfield viscosimeter, spindle 3, 12 rpm, 20oC), namely in the range of between 1,000 and 10,000 mPas (see page 9, 4th full paragraph). In Example 2, O’Donnell teaches Composition G which comprises 3.78 wt% sodium C13 LAS (linear alkyl benzene sulfonate) (an anionic surfactant); 1.89 wt% sodium laureth-2 sulfate (an alkyl ether anionic surfactant which reads on claim 36); 6.05 wt% Laureth-8 (a nonionic surfactant); 1.51 wt% Laureth-3 (also a nonionic surfactant); 1.89 wt% sodium carbonate (which reads on “water softening material”); 0.95 wt% sodium hydroxide 50% (which reads on claim 40); 1.89 wt% tetrasodium GLDA (a chelator, wherein the weight percentage reads on the amount recited in claim 42); and balance deionized water, which is 77.31 wt%, by calculation (see Table 4 on page 13). Please note that Laureth-8 and Laureth-3 are both ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactants which read on claim 35. In the above example, the weight ratio of the anionic surfactants to nonionic surfactants is (3.78 + 1.89):(6.05 + 1.51) = 5.67:7.56 or 0.75:1, or simply 0.75 (which meets the weight ratio recited in claim 27). O’Donnell, however, fails to specifically disclose the incorporation of a bicarbonate, say into Composition G, wherein the composition is configured to have a viscosity of about 250 mPas to about 1500 mPas and a conductivity of about 20 mS/cm to about 80 mS/cm as recited in independent claim 27.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a bicarbonate, say into Composition G, because O’Donnell specifically desires at least one inorganic builder as disclosed in claim 1, and hydrogen carbonate, i.e., bicarbonate, is one other suitable inorganic builder as disclosed on page 4, last two lines.
With respect to the viscosity of the composition, considering that O’Donnell teaches that the liquid composition has a viscosity of greater than 1,000 mPas, preferably between 1,000 and 10,000 mPas as disclosed on page 9, 4th full paragraph, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 1,000 – 1,500 mPas) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With respect to the conductivity of the composition, even though O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the conductivity of the composition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the composition of O’Donnell to exhibit a conductivity within those recited because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
Regarding claim 30, O’Donnell teaches the features as discussed above. In Example 2, Composition G above, the combined total amount of the nonionic surfactants and anionic surfactants is (6.05 wt% Laureth-8 + 1.51 wt% Laureth-3 nonionic surfactants) + (3.78 wt sodium C13 LAS + 1.89 wt% sodium laureth-2 sulfate anionic surfactants) = 13.23 wt% surfactants. O’Donnell also teaches from 5.0 to 25.0 wt%, preferably 13.0 to 20 wt% of the surfactant system (see claim 2), wherein the surfactant system comprises at least one anionic surfactant (see claim 4) and a nonionic surfactant (see claim 5).
Regarding claims 31-33, O’Donnell teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, O’Donnell teaches that the surfactant system comprises at least one anionic surfactant (see claim 4), i.e., a single anionic surfactant. O’Donnell also teaches one nonionic surfactant (see page 8, 1st full paragraph), hence, a single nonionic surfactant.
Regarding independent claim 43, O’Donnell teaches the features as discussed in independent claim 27 above. As discussed above, O’Donnell teaches an aqueous, phosphate-free, structured heavy duty, i.e., laundry, liquid detergent composition comprising a surfactant system, a builder system and water, wherein the builder system comprises at least one inorganic builder, preferably a carbonate, more preferably sodium carbonate; at least one aminocarboxylate, preferably L- glutamic acid Ν,Ν-diacetic acid (GLDA), methyl glycine diacetic acid (MGDA), ethylenediamine Ν,Ν'-disuccinic acid (EDDS), and alkali metal salts thereof, more preferably GLDA tetrasodium salt, among others (see claim 1; see also abstract), and wherein the composition comprises from 35.0 to 85.0 wt.-%, preferably 55.0 to 70 wt.-% water (see claim 2; page 9, 3rd full paragraph). In Example 2, O’Donnell teaches Composition G which comprises 3.78 wt% sodium C13 LAS (linear alkyl benzene sulfonate) (an anionic surfactant); 1.89 wt% sodium laureth-2 sulfate (also an anionic surfactant); 6.05 wt% Laureth-8 (a nonionic surfactant); 1.51 wt% Laureth-3 (also a nonionic surfactant); 1.89 wt% sodium carbonate; 0.95 wt% sodium hydroxide 50%; 1.89 wt% tetrasodium GLDA (a chelator); and balance deionized water, which is 77.31 wt%, by calculation (see Table 4 on page 13). In the above example, the total amount of the nonionic surfactants and anionic surfactants is (6.05 wt% Laureth-8 + 1.51 wt% Laureth-3 nonionic surfactants) + (3.78 wt sodium C13 LAS + 1.89 wt% sodium laureth-2 sulfate anionic surfactants) = 13.23 wt% surfactants, and the weight ratio of the anionic surfactants to nonionic surfactants is (3.78 + 1.89):(6.05 + 1.51) = 5.67:7.56 or 0.75:1, or simply 0.75. O’Donnell also teaches other suitable inorganic builders which include hydrogen carbonate, i.e., bicarbonate (see page 4, last two lines). O’Donnell, however, fails to specifically disclose the incorporation of a bicarbonate, say into Composition G, as recited in claim 43.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a bicarbonate, say into Composition G, because O’Donnell specifically desires at least one inorganic builder as disclosed in claim 1, and hydrogen carbonate, i.e., bicarbonate, is one other suitable inorganic builder as disclosed on page 4, last two lines.
Regarding claims 44-46, O’Donnell teaches the features as discussed in claim 43 above. In addition, O’Donnell teaches that the surfactant system comprises at least one anionic surfactant (see claim 4), i.e., a single anionic surfactant. O’Donnell also teaches one nonionic surfactant (see page 8, 1st full paragraph), hence, a single nonionic surfactant.
Regarding claim 49, O’Donnell teaches the features as discussed in claim 43 above. In addition, O’Donnell teaches that the viscosity of the liquid detergent composition is generally greater than 1,000 mPas (Brookfield viscosimeter, spindle 3, 12 rpm, 20oC), namely in the range of between 1,000 and 10,000 mPas (see page 9, 4th full paragraph). O’Donnell, however, fails to specifically disclose that the composition is configured to have a viscosity of about 250 mPas to about 1500 mPas.
Considering that O’Donnell teaches that the liquid composition has a viscosity of greater than 1,000 mPas, preferably between 1,000 and 10,000 mPas as disclosed on page 9, 4th full paragraph, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 1,000 – 1,500 mPas) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 50, O’Donnell teaches the features as discussed in claim 43 above. O’Donnell, however, fails to disclose that the composition is configured to have a conductivity of about 20 mS/cm to about 80 mS/cm.
Even though O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the conductivity of the composition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the composition of O’Donnell to exhibit a conductivity within those recited because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
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 27, 30-33, 40 and 42 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 36-37 of copending Application No. 17/070,326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to similar laundry detergent compositions comprising similar ingredients with overlapping proportions, overlapping anionic surfactant:nonionic surfactant weight ratio, and overlapping composition viscosities, differing only in that copending ‘326 does not specifically disclose the conductivity of the composition.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the composition of copending US ‘326 to exhibit a conductivity within those recited because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions and overlapping anionic surfactant:nonionic surfactant weight ratio have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
Claims 35-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 36-37 of copending Application No. 17/070,326 as applied to claims 27, 30-33, 40 and 42 above, and further in view of O’Donnell.
Regarding claims 35-36, copending ‘326 teaches the features as discussed above. Copending ‘326, however, fails to disclose the nonionic surfactant comprising an ethoxylated surfactant as recited in claim 35; and the anionic surfactant comprising an alkyl ether sulfate as recited in claim 36.
O’Donnell, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, O’Donnell teaches that the surfactant system preferably comprises at least one alkyl ether sulfate (see page 6, last full paragraph), which is an anionic surfactant; and one or more nonionic surfactants (see page 8, 1st full paragraph) like Laureth-8 and Laureth-3 which are ethoxylated alcohol nonionic surfactants (see Table 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized an alkyl ether sulfate and ethoxylated alcohol as the specific anionic surfactant and nonionic surfactant, respectively, in the composition of copending ‘326 because these are known anionic and nonionic surfactants as taught by O’Donnell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 43-46 and 49-50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 37 of copending Application No. 17/070,326 in view of O’Donnell.
Copending ‘326 teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising: an aqueous base in an amount of about 70% by weight or greater, based on the total weight of the composition; a two-surfactant system formed of a single nonionic surfactant and a single anionic surfactant (which reads on claims 44-46) present in an anionic surfactant to nonionic surfactant weight ratio of about 0.8 to about 1.2, the two-surfactant system present in a total amount of about 5% to about 20% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition; a water softening material; a bicarbonate; and a hydroxide; wherein the composition is configured to have a viscosity of about 100 mPa-s to about 4000 mPa-s and is formed of a total of 8 components or less; wherein the composition comprises one or more chelators; and wherein the one or more chelators is present in a total amount of about 0.02% to about 8% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition (see claim 37). Copending ‘326, however, fails to specifically disclose an aqueous base in an amount of about 75% to about 95% by weight, and chelators like MGDA, GLDA or EDDS as recited in claim 43; the composition configured to have a viscosity of about 250 mPa-s to about 1500 mPa-s as recited in claim 49; and the composition configured to have a conductivity of about 20 mS/cm to about 80 mS/cm as recited in claim 50.
O’Donnell, an analogous art, teaches the features as discussed above. In particular, O’Donnell teaches that the composition comprises at least one aminocarboxylate or chelator like L- glutamic acid Ν,Ν-diacetic acid (GLDA), methyl glycine diacetic acid (MGDA), ethylenediamine Ν,Ν'-disuccinic acid (EDDS), and alkali metal salts thereof, more preferably GLDA tetrasodium salt (see claim 1 and abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized, as the chelator, MGDA, GLDA or EDDS in the composition of copending ‘326 because these are known aminocarboxylates or chelators for use in a similar composition as taught by O’Donnell.
With respect to the amount of the aqueous base and the viscosity of the composition, considering that copending ‘326 teaches an aqueous bases in an amount of about 70% by weight or greater, and a composition configured to have a viscosity of about 100 mPa-s to about 4000 mPa-s, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., about 75 wt% to about 95 wt% aqueous base; and 250-1500 mPa-s) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Even though copending ‘326 in view of O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the conductivity of the composition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the composition of copending ‘326 in view of O’Donnell to exhibit a conductivity within those recited because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 27, 30-33, 35-36, 40, 42-46 and 49-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The provisional rejection of claims 27, 30-33, 40 and 42 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 36-37 of copending Application No. 17/070,326 is maintained because Applicant is silent to the rejection.
The above provisional rejection is also maintained until such time Applicant submits a timely filed terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference is 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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761