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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s response filed March 2, 2026, has been entered.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 17-19, in the reply filed on February 9, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 11 depends from claim 1 and therefore, the groups are linked as a product and process of using the product under 37 CFR 1.475(b)(2). Additionally, Applicant states that the Examiner has failed to establish serious burden because there will be overlapping search between the groups. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature which links Groups I-II, a dishwashing machine cleaning composition, does not provide a contribution over the prior art, and thus, unity of invention is lacking.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-16 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 9, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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 1-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102015215591. See English Language Machine Translation.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘591 teaches a liquid detergent composition containing a) water of from 5 to 35% by weight, preferably from 8 to 30% by weight, more preferably from 10 to 30% by weight, very preferably from 15 to 25% by weight, b) at least one hydroxycarboxylic acid having 2 to 8 carbon atoms or its salt of 5 to 30% by weight, preferably 10 to 30% by weight, in particular 15 to 25% by weight, based in each case on the acid form, c) at least one nonionic surfactant of from 5 to 55% by weight, preferably from 20 to 55% by weight, in particular from 35 to 50% by weight, d) at least one enzyme, e) at least one alkalinizing agent or its salt of from 5 to 20% by weight, preferably from 7 to 15% by weight, based in each case on the basic form, wherein the composition has a pH of between 2 and 6.5, in particular of from 3 to 5.5, particularly preferably of from 4.0 to 6.0. See pages 1 and 2. Suitable nonionic surfactants include fatty alcohol alkoxylates, etc. See para. 20. The alkalinizing agents are preferably selected from (C 2 to C 6 )- alkanolamine, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate or mixtures thereof. See para. 118. Additionally, the compositions may contain additional ingredients such as builders/complexing agents, perfumes, dyes, hydrotropes, etc. See para. 136. Specifically, ‘591 teaches a liquid detergent composition containing 32.3% C13-C15 fatty alcohol with 7 moles of ethylene oxide, 13.78% glycerin, 0.5% hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose (i.e., thickener), 13.85% citric acid, 1.2% protease, 0.4% amylase, 0.35% cellulase, 0.40% lipase, 0.40% mannanase, water, etc., wherein the composition has a pH of 5.1. See para. 165. ‘591 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of ‘591 anticipate the material limitations of instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/March 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights