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 04/09/2026. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, and 16-17 are pending. Claims 7, 12, 14-15, and 18-19 are canceled and claims 1, and 8-11 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, have fully been considered. The rejection of claims 1-10, 13, and 15-16 under 35. U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hernandez (EP3686265A1) and the rejection of claims 1-4, and 12-14 under 35. U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richli (EP3290020A1) are withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claims 7, 12, 14-15. The rejection of claim 11 under 35. U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Hernandez is also withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment to claim 1. The rejection of claims 1-2, and 18-19 under 35. U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Staley et. al (US20010037821A1) in view of Kim et. al (KR20150117350A) is withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of the method claims 18-19. The rejection of claims 18-19 under 35. U.S.C 101 for statutory double patenting is rendered moot due to the cancellation of claims 18-19.
Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made below:
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.
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 1-6, 8, 13, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karsten et. al (EP2494017B1) hereinafter Karsten.
Karsten teaches a cleaning agent for hard surfaces comprising at least one glycolipid and at least one solvent comprising ethylene glycol n-hexyl ether (see Claim 1). Additional surfactants are not required in the composition. With regards to claims 1-4, and 13, the glycolipid biosurfactants, comprising preferably of sophorolipids and rhamnolipids, in amounts of 0.0002-8 wt% of the total composition (see [0013]) and pH adjusters such as acetic acid, citric acid, glycolic acid, lactic acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, gluconic acid, or amidosulfonic acid (see [0026]). The pH of the composition is preferably between 5.5-8.5 (see [0026]).
Although these limitations are not taught in a single embodiment to a point of anticipation, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to formulate a cleaning composition comprising of a sophorolipid and rhamnolipid glycolipid biosurfactant and pH adjuster. The combination would lead to a cleaning composition that has the added benefit of successfully removing stains from the hard surface and dries free of residue (see [0002]).
Karsten does not explicitly teach a removal rate of 30% of total defects counts (TDC). However, the structure of the prior art is structurally identical to the claimed composition in the instant claim/specification. Therefore the TDC removal rate is inherent and necessarily 30%.“Products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II. Hence, the TDC is inherently taught by Kartsen, absent of evidence to the contrary.
With regards to claim 5, Karsten does not explicitly disclose the general wt% of the pH adjusting agents in the composition. However in Example composition V3-4, Kartsen teaches the use of 0.003 wt% citric acid monohydrate which falls within the range recited in the instant claim (see [0042]).
With regards to claim 6, in Example V3-4 both citric acid and sodium hydroxide (both pH adjusters) both adjust the final pH of the composition to 9 (see [0042]).
With regards to claim 8, Kartsen does not explicitly state the rhamnolipid to be comprised of mono-rhamnolipids and di-rhamnolipids. However, it is generally known in the art that the term “rhamnolipid” includes mono-rhamnolipids. 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 regards to claim 16, Kartsen teaches the optional use of fatty alcohol sulfates and alkyl polyglycol ether sulfates (anionic surfactants) in the composition (see [0018]). It is known in the art that sulfates are anionic polymers.
Claims 9-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karsten as applied to claims 1-6, 8,13 and 16, above, in view of Hernandez et. al (EP3686265A1) hereinafter Hernandez.
The general teachings of Karsten are recited above. Karsten teaches a cleaning agent for hard surfaces comprising at least one glycolipid and at least one solvent comprising ethylene glycol n-hexyl ether (see Claim 1). However, Karsten fails to disclose the chemical formula and composition of the sophorolipid or the presence of dieonic acid in the composition.
With regards to claim 9, Hernandez teaches a liquid laundry cleaning composition comprising of biosurfactants further comprising of sophorolipids (see Abstract). Hernandez specifically discloses the use of a sophorolipid of the general formulas I and II. A sophorolipid of formula II (R1 and R2 are H or COCH3; R3 is unsaturated C-1-C9 alkyl chain; R4 is a saturated or unsaturated C1-C19 alkyl chain) overlaps with formula III of the instant claim (see [0050]).
With regards to claim 10, Hernandez’s sophorolipid of general formula I (R1 and R2 are H COCH3; R3 is unsaturated C-1-C9 alkyl chain; R4 is a saturated or unsaturated C1-C19 alkyl chain; R6 is an OH) overlaps with formula IV of the instant claim (see [0049]).
With regards to claim 11, Hernandez teaches 4.5 wt % composition of the sophorolipid in the liquid composition (see Example 1, Table 1) which is about 5 wt%. If range of prior art and claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the range are close enough that one would not expect a difference in properties, In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America V. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Karsten’s cleaning composition with 4.5 wt% of the sophorolipid of formulas I-II as taught by Hernandez. The combination would lead to a cleaning composition with improved performance of the removal of enzymatic and bleachable stains (see [0140]).
With regard to claim 17, Hernandez teaches a formulation comprising of a sophorolipid biosurfactant, and a fatty acid such as linoleic acid (a dienoic acid) (see [0013]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add linoleic acid to the modified cleaning composition of Karsten for the benefit of enhanced bactericidal effect (see [0024]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
/BRIAN P MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights