DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 08/06/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 16-29 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 16 and 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al. (US 2008/0188396 A1, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Holland teaches that amounts of a first aliphatic alcohol and a second aliphatic alcohol are added to a vessel and mixed, that subsequently, potassium hydroxide as a catalyst is added to the vessel and mixed with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol to form a mixture, that the mixture is heated to 85°C and agitated for 1 hour, that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant, that the temperature of the mixture is allowed to increase to approximately 145° C, that after formation of the first surfactant, second surfactant, and polyethylene glycol, the temperature of the vessel is lowered to approximately 80° C, and that the control load is then added and mixed in the vessel to prepare the example, wherein the amounts of the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol are 0.66 and 2.64 parts by weight, respectively, or 2.64 and 0.33 parts by weight, respectively, or 1.98 and 1.32 parts by weight, respectively ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), wherein the first alcohol is 2-propylheptanol [0075], and the second alcohol is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend [0076], which reads on a method of forming a surfactant composition, the method comprising a. combining i. a C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol, and ii. a C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol in a single reaction vessel to provide an alcohol mixture wherein the C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol and the C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol are combined in a weight ratio of 4:1, 0.125:1, or 0.667:1, and b. ethoxylating the alcohol mixture to provide a surfactant composition. The weight ratio is based on the calculations 2.64 / 0.66 = 4 / 1, 0.33 / 2.64 = 0.125 / 1, and 1.32 / 1.98 = 0.667 / 1. Holland teaches that generally, an excess of the first surfactant relative to the second surfactant is combined with the second surfactant to form the cleaning composition [0036], that in one embodiment, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at a weight ratio of about 4:1 [0036], that in other embodiments, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at other weight ratios relative to each other prior to the steps of alkoxylating [0036], that it is believed that properties of the cleaning composition, e.g. the viscosity, can be tailored depending on the ratio of the first and second aliphatic alcohol relative to each other and depending on when the steps of alkoxylating take place, i.e., after the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended [0036], that the first aliphatic alcohol has on average from 10 to 16 carbon atoms [0033], that the first aliphatic alcohol may have 10 carbon atoms [0033], and that the second aliphatic alcohol has on average from 12 to 15 carbon atoms [0035], which suggests modifying the amounts of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol and Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol to be such that the amount of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol is greater than the amount of Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol, which suggests wherein the C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol and the C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol are combined in a weight ratio of less than 1:1. Holland teaches that in addition to the first, second, and optionally, third surfactants, the cleaning composition may also include a polyalkylene glycol [0032], that it is to be appreciated that the polyalkylene glycol is an optional component, i.e., the cleaning composition can exclude the polyalkylene glycol altogether [0032], and that if employed, the polyalkylene glycol generally includes, but is not limited to, polyethylene glycol [0032], which suggests excluding Holland’s polyethylene glycol from Holland’s cleaning composition.
Holland does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol and the C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol are combined in a weight ratio of from about 0.8:1 to 1.4:1. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the weight ratio of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol that is 2-propylheptanol to Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol that is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend to be greater than 1/1 and less than or equal to 1.25/1. The proposed modification would read on wherein the C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol and the C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol are combined in a weight ratio of from about 0.8:1 to 1:1 as claimed. The weight ratio is based on the calculations 1 / 1.25 = 0.8 / 1 and 1 / 1 = 1 / 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing the desired viscosity and cleaning properties of Holland’s cleaning composition because Holland teaches that the amounts of the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol are 0.66 and 2.64 parts by weight, respectively, or 2.64 and 0.33 parts by weight, respectively, or 1.98 and 1.32 parts by weight, respectively ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), that the first alcohol is 2-propylheptanol [0075], that the second alcohol is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend [0076], that generally, an excess of the first surfactant relative to the second surfactant is combined with the second surfactant to form the cleaning composition [0036], that in one embodiment, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at a weight ratio of about 4:1 [0036], that in other embodiments, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at other weight ratios relative to each other prior to the steps of alkoxylating [0036], that it is believed that properties of the cleaning composition, e.g. the viscosity, can be tailored depending on the ratio of the first and second aliphatic alcohol relative to each other and depending on when the steps of alkoxylating take place, i.e., after the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended [0036], that the first aliphatic alcohol has on average from 10 to 16 carbon atoms [0033], that the first aliphatic alcohol may have 10 carbon atoms [0033], that the second aliphatic alcohol has on average from 12 to 15 carbon atoms [0035], and that these embodiments are useful for lowering the cost of the detergent composition while still maintaining desired viscosity and cleaning properties of the detergent composition [0037], which means that the weight ratio of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol that is 2-propylheptanol to Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol that is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend would have affected the viscosity and cleaning properties of Holland’s cleaning composition.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to exclude Holland’s polyethylene glycol from Holland’s cleaning composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for reducing the cost of ingredients for Holland’s cleaning composition and/or for modifying cleaning properties of Holland’s cleaning composition because Holland teaches that after formation of the first surfactant, second surfactant, and polyethylene glycol, the temperature of the vessel is lowered to approximately 80° C, that the control load is then added and mixed in the vessel to prepare the example ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 27, 28), that in addition to the first, second, and optionally, third surfactants, the cleaning composition may also include a polyalkylene glycol [0032], that it is to be appreciated that the polyalkylene glycol is an optional component, i.e., the cleaning composition can exclude the polyalkylene glycol altogether [0032], and that if employed, the polyalkylene glycol generally includes, but is not limited to, polyethylene glycol [0032],
The Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Holland, namely that a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with the surfactant composition exhibits a reflectance at 460 nm that is within 5% of a reflectance observed at 460 nm on a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with a reference composition, that the reference composition comprises a physical mixture of ethoxylated C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol having 5 moles ethoxylate and ethoxylated C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol having 7 moles ethoxylate in a weight ratio of 1:1, that the laundry wash trial comprises laundering of the fabric is deionized water at 40 °C with a dosage of 0.2 % of the surfactant or reference composition in accordance with ASTM-3050-70, that the stained fabric is a cotton polyester blend. However, Holland renders obvious all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the surfactant composition as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the mixture may yield a detergency measured as a reflectance at 460 nm of a laundered stained fabric, which has been treated with the ethoxylated alcohol composition, that is within 5% of a reflectance observed at 460 nm at the stained fabric which has been treated with a reference composition [0032], that the removal of such a deposit would increase the reflectance of light observed at the fabric [0036], that a high reflection of light means the stain has been removed to a greater extent [0036], that a stained fabric treated with an application of the disclosed composition may exhibit higher reflectance values than a fabric treated with an individual alcohol ethoxylate or other combinations of alcohol ethoxylates [0036], that a white fabric included with the stained fabrics in an application of the disclosed solution may also exhibit higher reflection values [0036], and that a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with the surfactant composition may exhibit a reflectance at 460 nm that is greater than the reflectance observed at 460 nm on a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with a reference composition [0040]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the surfactant composition that is rendered obvious by Holland. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 18, Holland teaches that the amounts of the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol are 0.66 and 2.64 parts by weight, respectively, or 2.64 and 0.33 parts by weight, respectively, or 1.98 and 1.32 parts by weight, respectively ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), that the first alcohol is 2-propylheptanol [0075], and that the second alcohol is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend [0076], which reads on wherein the C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol and C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol are combined in a 1.5:1 weight ratio. The weight ratio is based on the calculations 0.66 / 2.64 = 0.25 / 1, 2.64 / 0.33 = 8 / 1, and 1.98 / 1.32 = 1.5 / 1. Holland teaches that generally, an excess of the first surfactant relative to the second surfactant is combined with the second surfactant to form the cleaning composition [0036], that in one embodiment, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at a weight ratio of about 4:1 [0036], that in other embodiments, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at other weight ratios relative to each other prior to the steps of alkoxylating [0036], that it is believed that properties of the cleaning composition, e.g. the viscosity, can be tailored depending on the ratio of the first and second aliphatic alcohol relative to each other and depending on when the steps of alkoxylating take place, i.e., after the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended [0036], that the first aliphatic alcohol has on average from 10 to 16 carbon atoms [0033], that the first aliphatic alcohol may have 10 carbon atoms [0033], and that the second aliphatic alcohol has on average from 12 to 15 carbon atoms [0035], which suggests modifying the amounts of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol and Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol to be such that the amount of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol is the same as the amount of Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol, which suggests wherein the C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol and C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol are combined in a 1:1 weight ratio as claimed.
Holland does not teach that the C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol and C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol are combined in a 1:1 weight ratio. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amounts of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol that is 2-propylheptanol and Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol that is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend to be equal to each other. The proposed modification would read on wherein the C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol and C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol are combined in a 1:1 weight ratio as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing the desired viscosity and cleaning properties of Holland’s cleaning composition because Holland teaches that the amounts of the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol are 0.66 and 2.64 parts by weight, respectively, or 2.64 and 0.33 parts by weight, respectively, or 1.98 and 1.32 parts by weight, respectively ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), that the first alcohol is 2-propylheptanol [0075], that the second alcohol is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend [0076], that generally, an excess of the first surfactant relative to the second surfactant is combined with the second surfactant to form the cleaning composition [0036], that in one embodiment, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at a weight ratio of about 4:1 [0036], that in other embodiments, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at other weight ratios relative to each other prior to the steps of alkoxylating [0036], that it is believed that properties of the cleaning composition, e.g. the viscosity, can be tailored depending on the ratio of the first and second aliphatic alcohol relative to each other and depending on when the steps of alkoxylating take place, i.e., after the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended [0036], that the first aliphatic alcohol has on average from 10 to 16 carbon atoms [0033], that the first aliphatic alcohol may have 10 carbon atoms [0033], that the second aliphatic alcohol has on average from 12 to 15 carbon atoms [0035], and that these embodiments are useful for lowering the cost of the detergent composition while still maintaining desired viscosity and cleaning properties of the detergent composition [0037], which means that the amounts of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol that is 2-propylheptanol and Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol that is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend would have affected the viscosity and cleaning properties of Holland’s cleaning composition.
Regarding claim 19, Holland teaches that amounts of a first aliphatic alcohol and a second aliphatic alcohol are added to a vessel and mixed, that subsequently, potassium hydroxide as a catalyst is added to the vessel and mixed with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol to form a mixture, that the mixture is heated to 85°C and agitated for 1 hour, that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), that the alcohols of Example 25 are alkoxylated with 8 moles (average) of ethylene oxide, that the alcohols of Example 26 are alkoxylated with 8 moles (average) of ethylene oxide, that the alcohols of Example 27 are alkoxylated with 5 moles (average) of ethylene oxide, and that the alcohols of Example 28 are alkoxylated with 9 moles (average) of ethylene oxide [0078], which reads on wherein the ethoxylating comprises combining the alcohol mixture with a catalyst and reacting the resulting mixture with about 5 moles of ethylene oxide, about 8 moles of ethylene oxide, or about 9 moles of ethylene oxide per 1 mole of alcohol as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Holland teaches that amounts of a first aliphatic alcohol and a second aliphatic alcohol are added to a vessel and mixed, that subsequently, potassium hydroxide as a catalyst is added to the vessel and mixed with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol to form a mixture, that the mixture is heated to 85°C and agitated for 1 hour, that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), that the alcohols of Example 25 are alkoxylated with 8 moles (average) of ethylene oxide, that the alcohols of Example 26 are alkoxylated with 8 moles (average) of ethylene oxide, that the alcohols of Example 27 are alkoxylated with 5 moles (average) of ethylene oxide, and that the alcohols of Example 28 are alkoxylated with 9 moles (average) of ethylene oxide [0078], which reads on wherein the ethoxylating comprises combining the alcohol mixture with a catalyst and reacting the resulting mixture with about 5 moles of ethylene oxide, about 8 moles of ethylene oxide, or about 9 moles of ethylene oxide per 1 mole of alcohol. Holland teaches that the cleaning composition has an average degree of alkoxylation of from about 3 to about 8 moles, more typically from about 5 to about 7 moles, yet more typically from about 6 to about 7 moles, more typically about 6 moles [0026], that when the average degree of alkoxylation is lower, e.g. 2 or less, the cleaning composition becomes unstable [0026], and that when the average degree of alkoxylation is higher, e.g. 9 or more, viscosity of the cleaning composition drops, i.e., is too low [0026], which suggests wherein the ethoxylating comprises reacting the resulting mixture with about 6 moles of ethylene oxide per 10 mole of alcohol as claimed.
Holland does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the ethoxylating comprises reacting the resulting mixture with about 6 moles of ethylene oxide per 1 mole of alcohol. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the number of moles (average) of ethylene oxide with which Holland’s alcohols are alkoxylated and the average degree of alkoxylation of Holland’s cleaning composition to be about 6 moles (average) of ethylene oxide. The proposed modification would read on wherein the ethoxylating comprises reacting the resulting mixture with about 6 moles of ethylene oxide per 1 mole of alcohol as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing the stability and viscosity of Holland’s cleaning composition because Holland teaches that the alcohols of Example 25 are alkoxylated with 8 moles (average) of ethylene oxide, that the alcohols of Example 26 are alkoxylated with 8 moles (average) of ethylene oxide, that the alcohols of Example 27 are alkoxylated with 5 moles (average) of ethylene oxide, that the alcohols of Example 28 are alkoxylated with 9 moles (average) of ethylene oxide [0078], that the cleaning composition has an average degree of alkoxylation of from about 3 to about 8 moles, more typically from about 5 to about 7 moles, yet more typically from about 6 to about 7 moles, more typically about 6 moles [0026], that when the average degree of alkoxylation is lower, e.g. 2 or less, the cleaning composition becomes unstable [0026], and that when the average degree of alkoxylation is higher, e.g. 9 or more, viscosity of the cleaning composition drops, i.e., is too low [0026], which means that the number of moles (average) of ethylene oxide with which Holland’s alcohols are alkoxylated and the average degree of alkoxylation of Holland’s cleaning composition would have affected the stability and viscosity of Holland’s cleaning composition.
Regarding claim 21, Holland teaches that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant, that the temperature of the mixture is allowed to increase to approximately 145° C, and that after formation of the first surfactant, second surfactant, and polyethylene glycol, the temperature of the vessel is lowered to approximately 80° C ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), which reads on wherein the ethoxylating proceeds at a temperature of about 110 °C to about 145 °C. Holland teaches that the steps of alkoxylating the first and second aliphatic alcohols may be completed at any temperature and any pressure [0036], that typically, these steps are completed at a temperature of from about 100 to about 150° C and at a pressure of from about 30 to about 100 psig [0036], which suggests wherein the ethoxylating proceeds at a temperature of about 150 °C as claimed.
Holland does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the ethoxylating proceeds at a temperature of about 150 °C to about 170 °C. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the temperature at which Holland’s step of alkoxylating the first and second aliphatic alcohols is completed to be about 150° C. The proposed modification would read on wherein the ethoxylating proceeds at a temperature of about 150 °C as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success and/or because it would have been beneficial for providing a suitable temperature at which Holland’s step of alkoxylating the first and second aliphatic alcohols is completed because Holland teaches that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant, that the temperature of the mixture is allowed to increase to approximately 145° C, that after formation of the first surfactant, second surfactant, and polyethylene glycol, the temperature of the vessel is lowered to approximately 80° C ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), that the steps of alkoxylating the first and second aliphatic alcohols may be completed at any temperature and any pressure [0036], and that typically, these steps are completed at a temperature of from about 100 to about 150° C and at a pressure of from about 30 to about 100 psig [0036], which encompasses about 150° C. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 22, Holland teaches that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant, that the temperature of the mixture is allowed to increase to approximately 145° C, and that after formation of the first surfactant, second surfactant, and polyethylene glycol, the temperature of the vessel is lowered to approximately 80° C ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), which reads on wherein the ethoxylating proceeds at a pressure of about 6.2 bar. Holland teaches that the steps of alkoxylating the first and second aliphatic alcohols may be completed at any temperature and any pressure [0036], that typically, these steps are completed at a temperature of from about 100 to about 150° C and at a pressure of from about 30 to about 100 psig [0036], which suggests wherein the ethoxylating proceeds at a pressure of about 2.1 bar to about 3.5 bar.
Holland does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the ethoxylating proceeds at a pressure of about 2 bar to about 3.5 bar. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the pressure at which Holland’s step of alkoxylating the first and second aliphatic alcohols is completed to be about 30 to about 50.8 psig. The proposed modification would read on wherein the ethoxylating proceeds at a pressure of about 2.1 bar to about 3.5 bar as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success and/or because it would have been beneficial for providing a suitable pressure at which Holland’s step of alkoxylating the first and second aliphatic alcohols is completed because Holland teaches that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant, that the temperature of the mixture is allowed to increase to approximately 145° C, that after formation of the first surfactant, second surfactant, and polyethylene glycol, the temperature of the vessel is lowered to approximately 80° C ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), that the steps of alkoxylating the first and second aliphatic alcohols may be completed at any temperature and any pressure [0036], and that typically, these steps are completed at a temperature of from about 100 to about 150° C and at a pressure of from about 30 to about 100 psig [0036], which encompasses about 30 to about 50.8 psig. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 23, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Holland, namely that the surfactant composition exhibits a cloud point in a 1% aqueous solution that is within 5% of a cloud point observed for a reference composition in a 1% aqueous solution, wherein the reference composition comprises a physical mixture of ethoxylated C10 aliphatic branched chain and ethoxylated C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohols in a 1:1 weight ratio, and when measured in accordance with ASTM D 2024-09. However, Holland renders obvious all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the surfactant composition as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the methods of the present disclosure provide surfactant compositions that may exhibit comparable storage stability to NP9 surfactant because the surfactant compositions formed have a cloud point similar to that of NP9 [0041], that cloud point may refer to the temperature above which an aqueous solution of a water-soluble surfactant becomes turbid [0041], and that surfactant compositions formed according to the methods disclosed herein may have a cloud point within 5 %, within 3%, within 2 %, or within 1% of the cloud point of NP9 at the same given temperature [0041]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the surfactant composition that is rendered obvious by Holland. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 24, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Holland, namely that the surfactant composition has a pH value that is within 3% of a pH observed for a reference composition, wherein the reference composition comprises a physical mixture of ethoxylated C10 aliphatic branched chain and ethoxylated C12 aliphatic straight chain alcohols in a 1:1 weight ratio, when measured in accordance with ASTM D1293-12. However, Holland renders obvious all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the surfactant composition as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the surfactant composition has a pH value that is within 3% of a pH observed for a reference composition, wherein the reference composition comprises a physical mixture of ethoxylated C10 aliphatic branched chain and ethoxylated C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohols, when measured in accordance with ASTM D1293-12 [0076]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the surfactant composition that is rendered obvious by Holland. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 25, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Holland, namely that the surfactant composition exhibits a surface tension that is within 3% of a surface tension measured for a reference composition, wherein the reference composition comprises a physical mixture of ethoxylated C10 aliphatic branched chain and ethoxylated C12 aliphatic straight chain alcohols in a 1:1 weight ratio, when measured in accordance with ASTM D1331-4. However, Holland renders obvious all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the surfactant composition as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the surfactant composition exhibits a surface tension that is within 3% of a surface tension measured for a reference composition, wherein the reference composition comprises a physical mixture of ethoxylated C10 aliphatic branched chain and ethoxylated C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohols, when measured in accordance with ASTM D1331-4 [0077]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the surfactant composition that is rendered obvious by Holland. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 26, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Holland, namely that the stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with the surfactant composition exhibits a reflectance at 460 nm that is within 3% of a reflectance observed at 460 nm on a stained fabric subjected to the laundry wash trial with the reference composition. However, Holland renders obvious all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the surfactant composition as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the mixture may yield a detergency measured as a reflectance at 460 nm of a laundered stained fabric, which has been treated with the ethoxylated alcohol composition, that is within 5% of a reflectance observed at 460 nm at the stained fabric which has been treated with a reference composition [0032], that the removal of such a deposit would increase the reflectance of light observed at the fabric [0036], that a high reflection of light means the stain has been removed to a greater extent [0036], that a stained fabric treated with an application of the disclosed composition may exhibit higher reflectance values than a fabric treated with an individual alcohol ethoxylate or other combinations of alcohol ethoxylates [0036], that a white fabric included with the stained fabrics in an application of the disclosed solution may also exhibit higher reflection values [0036], and that a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with the surfactant composition may exhibit a reflectance at 460 nm that is greater than the reflectance observed at 460 nm on a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with a reference composition [0040]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the surfactant composition that is rendered obvious by Holland. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 27, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Holland, namely that a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with the surfactant composition exhibits a reflectance at 460 nm that is greater than a reflectance observed at 460 nm on a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with a reference composition, wherein the reference composition comprises an ethoxylated mixture of C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol having 5 moles ethoxylate and ethoxylated C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol having 7 moles ethoxylates, or wherein the reference composition comprises an ethoxylated mixture of C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol having 3 moles ethoxylate and C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol having 7 moles ethoxylates, wherein the laundry wash trial comprises laundering of the fabric in deionized water at 50 °C with a dosage of 0.4% of the surfactant or reference composition, and wherein the stained fabric comprises pigment lanolin wfk 20C, pigment sebum wfk 20D, egg yolk 20EG, or lipstick wfk 20 LS. However, Holland renders obvious all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the surfactant composition as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the mixture may yield a detergency measured as a reflectance at 460 nm of a laundered stained fabric, which has been treated with the ethoxylated alcohol composition, that is within 5% of a reflectance observed at 460 nm at the stained fabric which has been treated with a reference composition [0032], that the removal of such a deposit would increase the reflectance of light observed at the fabric [0036], that a high reflection of light means the stain has been removed to a greater extent [0036], that a stained fabric treated with an application of the disclosed composition may exhibit higher reflectance values than a fabric treated with an individual alcohol ethoxylate or other combinations of alcohol ethoxylates [0036], that a white fabric included with the stained fabrics in an application of the disclosed solution may also exhibit higher reflection values [0036], and that a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with the surfactant composition may exhibit a reflectance at 460 nm that is greater than the reflectance observed at 460 nm on a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with a reference composition [0040]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the surfactant composition that is rendered obvious by Holland. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 28, Holland does not teach distillation, and Holland’s method would not inherently comprise distillation, which reads on wherein the method is free of distillation as claimed.
Regarding claim 29, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Holland, namely that the stained fabric comprises a stain of any one of the following stain types: soy sauce pigment, olive oil WFK 20B, pigment lanolin WFK 20C, pigment sebum WFK 20D, eff yolk WFK 20EG, used motor oil WFK 20GM, coffee WFK 20K, red grape WFK 20LIU, lip stick WFK 20LS, makeup WFK 20MU, pigment egg WFK 20N, pigment vegetable fat WFK 20PF, soot mineral oil WFK 20RM, tomato beef sauce WFK 20SG, spinach WFK 20SP, ketchup WFK 20T, curry WFK 20U, soy sauce WFK 20V, chocolate WFK 20Z, blood-milk-C EMPA 117, or a combination thereof, for soiled test fabrics according to WFK Testgewebe GmbH , blood-milk C EMPA 117 according to EMPA of Switzerland standard stain type. However, Holland renders obvious all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the surfactant composition as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the mixture may yield a detergency measured as a reflectance at 460 nm of a laundered stained fabric, which has been treated with the ethoxylated alcohol composition, that is within 5% of a reflectance observed at 460 nm at the stained fabric which has been treated with a reference composition [0032], that the removal of such a deposit would increase the reflectance of light observed at the fabric [0036], that a high reflection of light means the stain has been removed to a greater extent [0036], that a stained fabric treated with an application of the disclosed composition may exhibit higher reflectance values than a fabric treated with an individual alcohol ethoxylate or other combinations of alcohol ethoxylates [0036], that a white fabric included with the stained fabrics in an application of the disclosed solution may also exhibit higher reflection values [0036], and that a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with the surfactant composition may exhibit a reflectance at 460 nm that is greater than the reflectance observed at 460 nm on a stained fabric subjected to a laundry wash trial with a reference composition [0040]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the surfactant composition that is rendered obvious by Holland. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al. (US 2008/0188396 A1, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Behler et al. (DE 4004379 A1, cited in IDS, machine translation in English used for citation).
Regarding claim 17, Holland renders obvious the method of claim 16.
Holland does not teach that the ethoxylating proceeds until a hydroxyl value of 122-132 in the ethoxylated alcohol mixture is obtained when determined in accordance with ASTM E1899-08. However, Behler teaches a product with an OH number of 131.0 that is obtained by reacting dodecanol, caprolylcyanamide base salt, and ethylene oxide [0025]. Holland and Behler are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a method of a method comprising ethoxylating an alcohol. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to carry out Holland’s step in which ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol until the product of the reaction has an OH number of 131.0, as suggested by Behler. The proposed modification would read on wherein the ethoxylating proceeds until a hydroxyl value of 131 in the ethoxylated alcohol mixture is obtained when determined in accordance with ASTM E1899-08 as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Behler teaches that reacting dodecanol, caprolylcyanamide base salt, and ethylene oxide can obtain a product with an OH number of 131.0 [0025], which means that the proposed modification would have been beneficial for modifying an extent of reaction in Holland’s step in which ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, which would have been desirable because Holland teaches that ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s argument that the Office Action has misconstrued the teachings of Holland as including a C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol, and that instead Holland actually teaches away from the use of a C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol (p. 5), the Office has not misconstrued the teachings of Holland. Holland explicitly teaches the use of a C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol in their method. Holland teaches that amounts of a first aliphatic alcohol and a second aliphatic alcohol are added to a vessel and mixed, that subsequently, potassium hydroxide as a catalyst is added to the vessel and mixed with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol to form a mixture, that the mixture is heated to 85°C and agitated for 1 hour, that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant, wherein the amounts of the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol are 0.66 and 2.64 parts by weight, respectively, or 2.64 and 0.33 parts by weight, respectively, or 1.98 and 1.32 parts by weight, respectively ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), wherein the first alcohol is 2-propylheptanol [0075], and the second alcohol is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend [0076]. Also, Holland teaches that the first aliphatic alcohol has on average from 10 to 16 carbon atoms [0033], and that the first aliphatic alcohol may have 10 carbon atoms [0033]. Holland therefore does not teach away from the use of a C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol in their method.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Holland does not actually teach the use of a C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol but instead a C12-C15 alcohol because Holland teaches that the second surfactant is of the general formula R2-O-(B)nH, that B is formed from an alkylene oxide reacting with a second aliphatic alcohol after the second aliphatic alcohol is alkoxylated, and that the second aliphatic alcohol may include any alcohol having 12 to 15 carbons (p. 5), the rejection of the claims that is set forth in this Office action is not based on Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol reading on the claimed C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol. The rejection is based on Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol that is 2-propylheptanol reading on the claimed C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol and is based on Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol that is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend reading on the claimed C12-14 aliphatic straight chain alcohol. Specifically, Holland teaches that amounts of a first aliphatic alcohol and a second aliphatic alcohol are added to a vessel and mixed, that subsequently, potassium hydroxide as a catalyst is added to the vessel and mixed with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol to form a mixture, that the mixture is heated to 85°C and agitated for 1 hour, that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant, wherein the amounts of the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol are 0.66 and 2.64 parts by weight, respectively, or 2.64 and 0.33 parts by weight, respectively, or 1.98 and 1.32 parts by weight, respectively ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), wherein the first alcohol is 2-propylheptanol [0075], and the second alcohol is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend [0076]. Also, Holland teaches that the first aliphatic alcohol has on average from 10 to 16 carbon atoms [0033], that the first aliphatic alcohol may have 10 carbon atoms [0033], and that the second aliphatic alcohol has on average from 12 to 15 carbon atoms [0035].
In response to the applicant’s argument that the examples highlighted by the Office action, Example 27 and Example 28 in Table IV, which use 2-propylheptanol, a C10 alcohol, which has a carbon count out of the range for a second aliphatic alcohol, are merely provided by Holland for comparative purposes, and that the presence of the second surfactant, which uses a second aliphatic alcohol that may include any alcohol having 12 to 15 carbons, is specifically to increase viscosity of the cleaning composition (p. 6), the rejection of the claims that is set forth in this Office action is not based on Holland’s Examples 27 and 28 alone and unmodified. The rejection is based on Holland’s Examples 25, 26, 27, and 28 that have been modified by modifying the weight ratio of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol that is 2-propylheptanol to Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol that is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend, and by excluding Holland’s polyethylene glycol from Holland’s cleaning composition. Also, Holland’s Examples 25, 26, 27, and 28 are not comparative examples. They are inventive examples of Holland. Additionally, Holland’s 2-propylheptanol is not Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol. Holland’s 2-propylheptanol is Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol. Specifically, Holland teaches that the first alcohol is 2-propylheptanol [0075], that the first aliphatic alcohol has on average from 10 to 16 carbon atoms [0033], and that the first aliphatic alcohol may have 10 carbon atoms [0033]. Also, Holland’s C12-C14 linear alcohol blend is Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol. Specifically, Holland teaches that the second alcohol is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend [0076], and that the second aliphatic alcohol has on average from 12 to 15 carbon atoms [0035].
In response to the applicant’s argument that Hollands teaches detergent compositions with viscosities higher than water having a second surfactant, which uses a second aliphatic alcohol that may include any alcohol having 12 to 15 carbons, that Examples 27 and 28 are clearly comparative examples, and that Holland teaches away from the use of a C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol (p. 6), Holand’s Examples 27 and 28 are not comparative examples. They are inventive examples. The rejection of the claims in this Office action is not based on Holland’s Examples 27 and 28 alone and unmodified. The rejection is based on Holland’s Examples 25, 26, 27, and 28 that have been modified by optimizing the weight ratio of Holland’s first aliphatic alcohol that is 2-propylheptanol to Holland’s second aliphatic alcohol that is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend to be greater than 1/1 and less than or equal to 1.25/1, and by excluding Holland’s polyethylene glycol from Holland’s cleaning composition. Holland does not teach away from the use of a C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol in their method because Holland explicitly teaches using a C10 aliphatic branched chain alcohol in their method. Specifically, Holland teaches that amounts of a first aliphatic alcohol and a second aliphatic alcohol are added to a vessel and mixed, that subsequently, potassium hydroxide as a catalyst is added to the vessel and mixed with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol to form a mixture, that the mixture is heated to 85°C and agitated for 1 hour, that subsequently the mixture is heated to 110°C and adjusted to a pressure of approximately 90 psig, and that then, ethylene oxide is added to the mixture to react with the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol, thereby forming the respective first surfactant and the second surfactant, wherein the amounts of the first aliphatic alcohol and the second aliphatic alcohol are 0.66 and 2.64 parts by weight, respectively, or 2.64 and 0.33 parts by weight, respectively, or 1.98 and 1.32 parts by weight, respectively ([0074], TABLE IV, Examples 25, 26, 27, 28), wherein the first alcohol is 2-propylheptanol [0075], and the second alcohol is C12-C14 linear alcohol blend [0076], that generally, an excess of the first surfactant relative to the second surfactant is combined with the second surfactant to form the cleaning composition [0036], that in one embodiment, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at a weight ratio of about 4:1 [0036], that in other embodiments, the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended at other weight ratios relative to each other prior to the steps of alkoxylating [0036], that it is believed that properties of the cleaning composition, e.g. the viscosity, can be tailored depending on the ratio of the first and second aliphatic alcohol relative to each other and depending on when the steps of alkoxylating take place, i.e., after the first and second aliphatic alcohols are blended [0036], that the first aliphatic alcohol has on average from 10 to 16 carbon atoms [0033], that the first aliphatic alcohol may have 10 carbon atoms [0033], and that the second aliphatic alcohol has on average from 12 to 15 carbon atoms [0035].
In response to the applicant’s argument that Holland fails to destroy the patentability of independent claim 16, that claims 18-29 depend from and further limit claim 16 or an intervening claim, and that Holland fails to destroy the patentability of these claims as well (p. 6-7), claims 16 and 18-29 are unpatentable over Holland as explained in the rejection of claims 16 and 18-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al. (US 2008/0188396 A1, cited in IDS) in this Office action.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Holland fails to render obvious claim 16, that Behler fails to cure the deficiencies of Holland, and that therefore, the combination of Holland and Behler also fails to render obvious claim 16
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights