DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group II, in the reply filed on April 10, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 4,061,602 to Oberstar in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0166341 to Pfeiffer.
Regarding claims 12-15, 17, 19, and 20, Oberstar teaches a composition comprising a single phase aqueous detergent composition containing an amphoteric detergent and an anionic detergent and a cationic derivative of a naturally occurring polymer, such as polygalactomannan gums (Oberstar, Abstract, column 1 lines 26-32). Oberstar teaches that the polygalactomannans are commercially available as guar gum or locust bean gum (Id., column 1 lines 37-49). Oberstar teaches that the proportion of amphoteric detergent used in the composition will range between 5 and 20 percent by weight (Id., column 2 lines 32-46). Oberstar teaches that the anionic detergent is used in an amount ranging from about 5 to 20 percent by weight and that suitable nonionic detergents may be used in an amount ranging from about 0.1 to 5 percent by weight, preferably 0.1 to 1 percent by weight (Id., column 2 lines 58-68). Oberstar teaches that the cationic polymer is ordinarily used in an amount of from about 0.1 to 5 percent by weight (Id., column 3 lines 1-4). Oberstar teaches that the pH of the composition should be at least about 4.5 to about 8.0 (Id., column 3 lines 6-14). Oberstar teaches that other additives are added to the compositions such as preservatives, dyes, perfumes, antibacterials, and the like (Id., column 3 lines 15-17). Oberstar teaches that the composition includes water (Id., column 3 line 25 to column 4 line 6).
Oberstar does not appear to teach the claimed viscosity and weight average molecular weight. However, Pfeiffer teaches a similar cationic polygalactomannan useful in personal care compositions, textiles, industrial cleaning chemical compositions, and fabric detergents (Pfeiffer, Abstract, paragraphs 0020, 0050). Pfeiffer teaches that the polygalactomannan is preferably from guar, such as guar gum, having a molecular weight typically of between 50,000 and 2,000,000 (Id., paragraphs 0021-0024, 0030), wherein the cationic polygalactomannan has a Brookfield viscosity higher than 500 mPa·s at 1% by weight, 25ºC , 20 rpm (Id., paragraph 0019), such as from 1,000 to 5,000 (Id., paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composition of Oberstar, wherein the polygalactomannan has a viscosity and molecular weight, such as a weight average molecular weight, within the claimed ranges, as taught by Pfeiffer, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composition suitable for personal care and fabric detergents, comprising polygalactomannan properties known in the art as being predictably suitable for such applications.
Although the prior art combination does not appear to specifically teach measuring the viscosity with a #3 or #4 spindle, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the viscosity measurement set forth in the prior art reasonably correlate to the claimed measurements. Alternatively, since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed viscosity when measured as claimed would naturally flow from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding the claimed ranges, note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberstar in view of Pfeiffer, as applied to claims 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0213139 to Chan.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the prior art combination teaches that the polygalactomannan can be a guar gum or locust bean gum, which are natural. Additionally, the prior art combination appears to teach the claimed weight average molecular weight. The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed depolymerized natural guar. However, Chan teaches polysaccharide products with improved performance and clarity in surfactant-based aqueous formulations, such as for cationic derivatized polysaccharide products used in personal care or household care products (Chan, Abstract), such as laundry detergents (Id., paragraph 0050). Chan teaches reacting the polysaccharide polymer or derivatized polysaccharide polymer from natural sources, such as polygalactomannan, with an oxidizing agent such as hydrogen peroxide, that reduce the molecular weight of the polysaccharide or galactomannan polymer (Id., paragraphs 0021, 0024). Note that such a reaction would predictably result in a depolymerized guar. Chan teaches that the polygalactomannan has a weight average molecular weight in the range of from about 5,000 to about 10,000,000 (Id., paragraph 0024). Chan teaches combining the polysaccharide with a nonionic, anionic, cationic, or amphoteric surfactant (Id., paragraphs 0049-0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composition of the prior art combination, wherein the polygalactomannan reacts with hydrogen peroxide and comprises a weight average molecular weight, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Chan, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composition suitable for personal care and fabric detergents, comprising a polygalactomannan known in the art as predictably providing high clarity in similar surfactant-based compositions.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberstar in view of Pfeiffer, as applied to claims 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of USPN 6,593,288 to Aubay.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art combination teaches that that other additives are added to the compositions such as preservatives, dyes, perfumes, antibacterials, and the like. The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed adjuvants. However, Aubay teaches a detergent composition comprising at least one surfactant, including cationic, anionic, nonionic and amphoteric surfactants (Aubay, column 5 line 45 to column 7 line 64), and polymers used to control the viscosity of the mixture such as guar derivatives (Id., column 9 lines 35-40). Aubay teaches that common additives forming part of the formulation of the detergent compositions includes detergent adjuvants for improving the surface properties of surfactants, wherein the adjuvants are present from 0% to 50 relative to the weight of the formulation (Id., column 8 line 3 to column 9 line 49, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the composition of the prior art combination, wherein the composition includes adjuvants, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Aubay, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional composition suitable for detergents, comprising common additives known in the art as predictably improving the surface properties of surfactants in similar surfactant-based compositions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights