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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 14, “claim 1to” in line 6 should be replaced with “claim 1 to”
b) in claim 15, “claim 1to” in line 7 should be replaced with “claim 1 to”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-11 and 14-16 are rejected 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 2-11 and 16 recite broad ranges/limitations and the claims also recite the narrower statement of the ranges/limitations preceded by “preferably” and/or “more preferably” and/or “even more preferably” and/or “most preferably” (in claim 2, see lines 3-5; in claim 3, see lines 3-5; in claim 4, see line 4; in claim 5, see lines 4-5; in claim 6, see lines 5-6; in claim 7, see lines 4-7; in claim 8, see lines 4-5; in claim 9, see lines 4-6; in claim 10, see lines 3-4; in claim 11, see lines 3-4; in claim 16, see lines 2-3). The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 14-15 are indefinite in the recital of “predetermined” (in claim 14, see line 7 and in claim 15, see line 8) because the term “predetermined” was held to be indefinite, see Seagram & Sons Inc. V. Mazall, 84 USPQ 180 (CADC 1950).
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.
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 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitko et al. (US Patent No. 6,878,680), hereinafter “Kitko.”
Regarding claims 1-10 and 12, Kitko teaches a detergent composition, i.e., a particulate solid composition having a bulk density of from 640 g/l to 850 g/l, in particular Composition C which comprises 10 wt% C28AS (sodium C12-C18 alkyl sulphate), 0.4 wt% C28E9 (C12-C18 predominantly linear primary alcohol condensed with an average of 9 moles of ethylene oxide), 2 wt% C45E3S (sodium C14-C15 alkyl sulfate condensed with 3 moles of ethylene oxide), 4 wt% LAS (sodium linear C11-C13 alkyl benzene sulfonate) (a total of 16.4 wt% surfactants), 1.5 wt% PB1 (anhydrous sodium perborate bleach, i.e., an inorganic peroxide bleach), 2.5 wt% NOBS (nonanoyl oxybenzene sulfonate, bleach activator), 0.35 wt% PVI (polyvinyl imidazole), 0.2 wt% PVP (polyvinyl pyrolidone (sic) (also known as homopolymer of 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone) having a weight average molecular weight of 60000), 0.30 wt% PVNO (polyvinyl pyridine (sic) N-oxide polymer), 0.4 wt% PVPVI (copolymer of polyvinyl pyrolidone (sic) and vinyl imidazol (sic) (also known as copolymer of 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone and 1-vinylimidazole), having a molecular weight of 20000) (a total of 1.25 wt% dye transfer inhibitors), 0.4 wt% cellulase, 0.15 wt% protease (see col. 15, lines 61-65; col. 17, line 1 to col. 19, line 40). In addition, Kitko teaches that the detergent composition comprises, in general, from 1% to 50%, by weight of the composition, of one or more bleaching agents like sources of peroxide such as perborate or percarbonate (see col. 13, lines 17-27). In the above Composition C, the weight ratio between PVPVI and PVP is 0.4:0.2 or 2:1. Kitko, however, fails to specifically disclose the amount of the bleaching agent, i.e., sodium perborate, say in the above Composition C, in an amount between 10 wt% and 60 wt% as recited in claim 1.
Considering that Kitko teaches from 1% to 50 wt%, by weight of the composition, of bleaching agent like perborate as disclosed in col. 13, lines 17-27, 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., 10 wt% to 50 wt%) 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 11, Kitko teaches the features as discussed above. Kitko, however, fails to specifically disclose the pH of a dilution of 1:100 at 20oC of the composition which is between 8 and 12.
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 pH of the composition of Kitko, upon dilution of 1:100 at 20oC of the composition, to be within those recited because similar ingredients with overlapping proportions have been utilized, hence would have similar properties.
Regarding claims 14-16, Kitko teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Kitko teaches a method of washing fabrics which comprises contacting the fabrics with an aqueous solution comprising the above detergent composition (see col. 11, lines 34-38 and claim 15), which will reasonably remove stains, which would include a polyphenolic compound like curry stain, because similar detergent compositions and similar washing steps have been utilized, hence, would behave similarly, i.e., remove polyphenolic stains.
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 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