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 8, 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 8, it is suggested that “further” be added before “comprises” in line 2;
b) in claim 10, line 2, the comma “,” after “18 wt.%” should be deleted
c) in claim 13, it is suggested that “further” be added before “comprises” in line 2;
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 6-7 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, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “from 0.5 to 20 wt. % free acid equivalent of aminopolycarboxylate in lines 2-3, and the claim also recites “from 1.0 to 15 wt. %” in line 3 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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. It is suggested that “, from 1.0 to 15 wt. %” in line 3 be deleted.
Claim 7, being dependent from claim 6, inherits the same rejection as in claim 6 above.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittner et al. (US 2010/0305018), hereinafter “Bittner.”
Regarding claim 1, Bittner teaches washing and cleaning compositions which comprise low-foam surfactant mixtures comprising esters and alcohols thereof (see abstract), which are nonionic surfactants (see paragraph [0062]), and can be used as machine dishwashing detergents, among other uses (see paragraph [0060]). The low-foam surfactant mixtures above is used, for example, in an amount of 5 wt% ( i.e., 1 gram of the surfactant mixture plus 19 g of a base dishwasher detergent, 1/(19 + 1) x 100 = 5 wt%) (see paragraph [0165]). The low-foam surfactant mixtures above can also be used with other nonionic surfactants like alcohol alkoxylates (see paragraph [0062]), in an amount of 0.01 to 30% by weight (see paragraph [0071]). Bittner also teaches that the surfactant mixtures above are combined with builders like inorganic builders based on carbonate or phosphate, however, preference is given to using sodium, lithium or magnesium carbonate (see paragraph [0086]), hence, the composition is phosphate free. It is well settled that the term “up to” or “at most” includes 0 as the lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ CPA 1974. The washing and cleaning compositions also comprise from 0.05 to 20% by weight, and especially from 1 to 10% by weight of organic co-builders in the form of low molecular weight oligomeric or polymeric carboxylic acids, especially polycarboxylic acids or phosphonic acids or salts thereof, i.e., phosphonates (see paragraph [0088]) and mixture thereof (see paragraph [0086]). Low molecular weight carboxylic acids suitable as organic co-builders are, for example: C4-C20 -di-, -tri- and -tetracarboxylic acids, for example, butanetetracarboxylic acid; and aminopolycarboxylic acids, among others (see paragraphs [0089]-[0090]). It is noted that butanetetracarboxylic acid has a chemical formula of C8H10O8, hence, its molecular weight is 234 g/mole, and does not contain N and P atoms, nor cyclic moieties. Bittner, however, fails to specifically disclose a machine dishwash detergent composition comprising from 0.1 to 20 wt% nonionic surfactants, from 0.5 to 40 wt% of free acid equivalent of aminocarboxylate, i.e., aminocarboxylic acid, from 0.5 to 4.0 wt% of free acid equivalent of tetracarboxylic acid, and at most 1.0 wt% phosphonate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have prepared the washing and cleaning composition comprising nonionic surfactant, aminocarboxylic acids, tetracarboxylic acid like butanetetracarboxylic acid and phosphonate in their optimum proportions, for use as machine dishwashing detergent because the teachings of Bittner encompass these ingredients and use thereof. With regards to the respective proportions of the nonionic surfactants, aminocarboxylic acid, tetracarboxylic acid like butanetetracarboxylic acid and phosphonate, considering that Bittner teaches low-foam surfactant mixture in an amount of 5 wt% and other nonionic surfactants in an amount of 0.01 to 30% by weight, from 0.05 to 20% by weight, especially from 1 to 10% by weight organic co-builders which include polycarboxylic acids or phosphonates, wherein the polycarboxylic acids include tetracarboxylic acid like butanetetracarboxylic acid, and aminopolycarboxylic acids, 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., 0.1-20 wt% total nonionic surfactants; 0.5 to 10 wt% aminocarboxylic acids; 0.5 to 4 wt% butanetetracarboxylic acid; and at most 1.0 wt% phosphonate) 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 2, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Bittner teaches that the co-builders comprise C4-C20 -di-, -tri- and -tetracarboxylic acids, for example, butanetetracarboxylic, among others (see paragraphs [0089]-[0090]), in an amount from 0.05 to 20% by weight, and especially from 1 to 10% by weight (see paragraph [0088]). Bittner, however, fails to specially disclose from 0.7 to 3.5 wt% tetracarboxylic acid.
Considering that Bittner teaches co-builders like tetracarboxylic acid in an amount from 0.05 to 20% by weight, 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., 0.7-3.5 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 3, Bittner teaches the features as discussed in claim 2 above. As discussed above, Bittner teaches butanetetracarboxylic acid (see paragraph [0090]) which is known to have an alkane backbone which is unbranched.
Regarding claim 4, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Bittner teaches butanetetracarboxylic acid (see paragraph [0090]) which has a molecular weight of 234 g/mole.
Regarding claim 5, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Bittner teaches butanetetracarboxylic acid (see paragraph [0090]) which has a backbone comprising 4 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 6, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Bittner teaches that the co-builders comprise aminocarboxylic acids, among others (see paragraphs [0089]-[0090]), in an amount from 0.05 to 20% by weight, and especially from 1 to 10% by weight (see paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 7, Bittner teaches the features as discussed in claim 6 above. In addition, Bittner teaches aminopolycarboxylic acids, for example, N,N-bis(carboxymethyl)-glutamic acid (i.e., GLDA), ethylene-diaminedisuccinic acid (i.e., EDDS), and methylglycine-diacetic acid (i.e., MGDA) (see paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Bittner teaches that the washing and cleaning compositions which comprise from 0.05 to 20% by weight, and especially from 1 to 10% by weight of organic co-builders also include C4 to C20 hydroxycarboxylic acids, for example, citric acid (see paragraphs [0088]-[0090]), also known as 2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid having a molecular weight of 192 g/mole.
Regarding claim 10, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Bittner teaches that the low-foam surfactant mixtures is used, for example, in an amount of 5 wt% (see paragraph [0165]); and the low-foam surfactant mixtures can also be used with other nonionic surfactants like alcohol alkoxylates (see paragraph [0062]), in an amount of 0.01 to 30% by weight (see paragraph [0071]). Bittner, however, fails to specifically disclose the nonionic surfactants in a total amount from 1 to 18 wt%.
Considering that Bittner teaches low-foam surfactant mixture in an amount of 5 wt% and other nonionic surfactants like alcohol alkoxylates in an amount of 0.01 to 30% by weight, 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., 1-18 wt% total nonionic surfactants) 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, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Bittner teaches that the washing and cleaning compositions also comprise from 0.05 to 20% by weight by weight of organic co-builders in the form of low molecular weight oligomeric or polymeric carboxylic acids, especially polycarboxylic acids or phosphonic acids or salts thereof, i.e., phosphonates (see paragraph [0088]). Bittner, however, fails to specifically disclose at most 0.5 wt% phosphonate.
Considering that Bittner teaches from 0.05 to 20% by weight by weight of organic co-builders which include phosphonic acids or salts thereof, i.e., phosphonates, 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., at most 0.5 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 12, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Bittner teaches that the washing and cleaning compositions additionally comprise from 0.5 to 30% by weight, in particular from 10 to 23% by weight of bleaches (see paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 13, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Bittner teaches that the washing and cleaning compositions comprise further customary additives (see paragraph [0138]), like perfumes and dyes, i.e., colorants, among others (see paragraph [0139]).
Regarding claim 14, Bittner teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Bittner teaches that the washing and cleaning compositions may be present in the form of a tablet (see paragraphs [0144] and [0147]), i.e., unit dose composition.
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