DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged.
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 8 is 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 8 contains the trademark/trade name Laureth-23. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe non-ionic surfactants and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man (US 2014/0287980).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 16 and 17, Man teaches a composition which can be in the form of a solid, such as a powder or flakes, which is dissolvable (0066-0067). The composition can comprise up to tri-esters of ethoxylated sorbitol esters (0103). The composition can also contain polyethylene glycol esters (106), non-ionic surfactants in an amount of 1-75% (0011), anionic surfactants in an amount of 1-75% (0083) and amphoteric surfactants in an amount of 0.01% to 75% (0013). Man thus teaches overlapping amounts of nonionic, anionic and amphoteric surfactant, thus rendering the claimed percentages obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). Man differs in not specifically teaching the claimed percentages of ethoxylated sorbitol ester or polyethylene glycol esters, however given the teaching that nonionic surfactants may be present at a level up to 75%, one of ordinary skill would vary the amount of ethoxylated sorbitol ester and polyethylene glycol esters, including within the claimed percentages, in order to produce an effective cleaning composition.
Regarding claim 5, man teaches that PEG-150 distearate may be used as a thickener (0072).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Man teaches the use of fatty acid amides and ethoxylated fatty alcohols as non-ionic surfactants (0116-0117). Laureth-23 comprises compounds within the scope of paragraph 0117-0118 of Man.
Regarding claim 9, Man teaches sulfated fatty alcohols and alkyl sulfonates as anionic surfactants (0076-0077).
Regarding claim 10, Man teaches that the anionic surfactant may be present at levels of 1-75% (0083).
Regarding claim 13, Man teaches that the amphoteric surfactant may be amine oxides, betaines or sultanes (0013).
Regarding claim 14, the teaching of C12-14acylamidopropyl betaine by Man (0092) would render the use of Cocoamidopropyl betaine obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such comprises mainly the C12 structure.
Regarding claim 15, Man teaches that other components such as enzymes, dyes and fragrances may be added to the composition. Man teaches that such may be added in any amounts (0096), thus rendering the claimed 1-25% obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 is distinguished from Man which fails to teach or suggest that the ethoxylated sorbitol ester is a tri or tetra sorbitol stearate having 300 to 500moles of EO per mole of sorbitol.
Claim 11 is distinguished from Man, which fails to teach the composition comprising the sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium lauryl ether sulfate and alkyl benzene sulfonate in the amounts specified.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745