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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Typo 1: On page 2 line 13-15, these lines are the same as lines 1-3
Typo 2: On page 6 line 9, “m, n, x, y, z” should read “m, n, x, y, and z”
Typo 3: On page 7 line 5, “m, n, x, y, z” should read “m, n, x, y, and z”
Typo 4: On page 10 line 26, “homologues” is repeated
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms SOE-N-60, Levenol F-200, Levenol V501/2, and Levenol C201, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claim 14 and claim 15 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.
Claim 14 and claim 15 recite “by”. The claims require a transitional phrase. Hereafter, “by” is interpreted to mean “comprising”.
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 1-10 and claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 5571459 A).
With regard to claims 1-6, Thomas discloses a composition comprising 0.1-8wt% of an anionic sulfate surfactant, 1-50wt% of a cosurfactant, and 1-20wt% of an ethoxylated glycerol type compound (see Abstract). The overall concentration of surfactant in the composition is from 2.1wt% to 78wt%. Further, Thomas discloses Levenol V-501/2 and Levenol F-200 as suitable (see Col 7 line 18-24). Levenol V-501/2 and Levenol F-200 are both listed in the instant specifications as suitable alkoxylated glyceryl esters.
While Thomas fails to specify the precise ratios of alkoxylated glyceryl ester to alkyl sulfate, Thomas teaches 1-20wt% of an ethoxylated glycerol type compound and 0.1-8wt% of an anionic sulfate surfactant. Optimization or even simply varying of the relative amounts within the prior art’s general conditions amounts to routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F,2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, the determination of the optimum ratio of alkoxylated glycerol ether to alkyl sulfate of at least 2:1 would have been a matter well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, through no more than routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 7 and claim 8, Thomas teaches C8-C18 alkaline earth metal salts of alkyl sulfates comprising sodium, ammonium, and magnesium (see Col 6 line 6).
With regard to claim 9, Thomas discloses a composition comprising 0.1-8wt% of an anionic sulfate surfactant, 1-50wt% of a cosurfactant, and 1-20wt% of an ethoxylated glycerol type compound (see Abstract).
While Thomas fails to specify the precise ratios of alkoxylated glyceryl ester to alkyl sulfate, the teachings of Thomas nevertheless encompass the claimed ratio. For example, Thomas teaches 1-20wt% of an ethoxylated glycerol type compound and 0.1-8wt% of an anionic sulfate surfactant.
Optimization or even simply varying of the relative amounts within the prior art’s general conditions amounts to routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F,2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, the determination of the optimum ratio of alkoxylated glycerol ether to alkyl sulfate of at least 2:1 would have been a matter well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, through no more than routine experimentation
With regard to claim 10, Thomas discloses a composition comprising 0.1-8wt% of an anionic sulfate surfactant, 1-50wt% of a cosurfactant, and 1-20wt% of an ethoxylated glycerol type compound (see Abstract). The overall concentration of surfactant in the composition is from 2.1wt% to 78wt%.
With regard to claim 12, Thomas teaches the composition may be a liquid cleaning composition (see Col 3 line 35-36).
With regard to claim 14, Thomas discloses that the composition may be prepared by simple liquid mixing procedures (see Example II, Col 11 line 66-67).
With regard to claim 15, Thomas discloses the composition as placed on a sponge and saturated with tap water then wrung out (see Example I, Col 11 line 39-46).
Claim 11 and claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 5571459 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sadlowski (US 20060122088 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Thomas discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Thomas fails to disclose linear alkyl benzene sulfonates.
Sadlowski discloses a unit dose liquid detergent package comprising a liquid detergent, an analogous art (see Abstract). Sadlowsk further discloses linear alkyl benzene sulfonates (LAS) as anionic surfactants well known in the art (see [0023]), particularly in liquid detergent products (see [0022]).
Thomas discloses a liquid detergent composition (see Col 1 line 21-22). Thomas further discloses a composition comprising an anionic sulfate surfactant (see Abstract) and ethoxylated glycerol type compounds (see Col 7 line 18-24). Sadlowski discloses a liquid detergent composition (see Abstract). Sadlowski further discloses the composition may comprise alkoxylated or non-alkoxylated sulfate materials (see [0022]) and nonionic surfactants (see [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the LAS of Sadlowski in the composition of Thomas. As disclosed by Sadlowski, LAS are well known in the art as anionic surfactants and anionic surfactants are typically used in liquid detergents.
With regard to claim 13, Thomas discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Thomas fails to disclose the composition in unit dose format.
Sadlowski discloses a unit dose liquid detergent package comprising a liquid detergent, an analogous art (see Abstract). Sadlowski further discloses water-soluble unit dose packages containing liquids as known in the art (see [0003]). Sadlowski further discloses water-soluble unit dose packages containing liquid laundry detergent in two layers as providing an interesting product appearance (see [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the water-soluble unit dose packages of Sadlowski with the composition of Thomas as water-soluble unit dose packages are known in the art, as disclosed by Sadlowski. Further, such a package, if comprising two layers, would provide an interesting product appearance, as disclosed by Sadlowski.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761