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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blokzijl et al. (US 5,789,367).
The instant claims are drawn to a product alkyl sulfate composition and a product alcohol alcoholate composition; the alkyl sulfate and alcohol alcoholate being derived from a mixture of C8-C36 alcohols.
Blokzijl et al. teach a laundry detergent composition that may comprise anionic surfactants, like C8-C15 primary and secondary alkyl sulfates; nonanionic surfactants, line C8-C20 primary and secondary alcohol ethoxylates. The composition may also contain surfactants line alkylpolyglycosides, glycerol monoethers, and glucamide (col. 5, lines 35-56).
It is noted that the instant claims are product-by-process claims; however, the product is not limited to the recited steps for preparing the product alkyl sulfate and alcohol alkoxylate compositions recited in the instant claims, but only to the structure/product implied by the steps. To that end, the instant claims are rendered obvious by the detergent composition taught by the reference, since it would have reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to expect that the composition comprising C8-C15 primary and secondary alkyl sulfates, and C8-20 primary and secondary alcohol alkoxylates, would have a content of 2-methyl and 2-ethyl branching that is within the limitations recited by the instant claims.
Double Patenting
Claims 14-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-20 of copending Application No. 18/266,039 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to a product ester composition produced by a particular process. The difference is that in the instant claims, a mixture of C8-C36 carboxylic acids is reacted with a compound having an alcohol functionality, while in the reference application, the ester composition is produced by reacting a mixture of C8-C36 alcohols with a compound having one or more carboxylic acid functionalities. In either case, the results is the same; a product ester composition is made. Moreover, the instant claims are product-by-process claims; however, the product is not limited to the recited steps for preparing the product alkyl ester composition recited in the instant claims, but only to the structure/product implied by the steps. Therefore, the instant claims are rendered obvious by the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIKARL A WITHERSPOON whose telephone number is (571)272-0649. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-9pm IFP.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/SIKARL A WITHERSPOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights