Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 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 § 112
2 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 indefinites because the limitations in the line above the claimed formula is incomplete. Correction is required.
Based on the previous sets of the claims, the examiner suggests the amendment of claim 1 by reciting the limitation “wt.% of free acid equivalent of hydroxamate”.
Claim 2 and 3 recite the phrases “preferably”, “more preferably”, “even more preferably” and still even more preferably”. The phrase “preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Correction is required.
Claim 9 indefinites because the claim recites the phrase “otherwise”. The phrase “otherwise” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
Claims 12 recites the limitation “comprising from 0.1 to 25 wt. % of bleach”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends upon claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite bleach. Correction is required.
The examiner suggests the amendment of claim 12, by reciting the limitation “further comprises”.
Claims 13 recites the limitation “comprises one or more perfume or a combination thereof”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 depends upon claim 1, wherein claim 1 does not recite one or more colorants of one or more perfumes. Correction is required.
The examiner suggests the amendment of claim 13, by reciting the limitation “further comprises”.
Claims 4-8, 10-11 and 14 are dependent upon a rejected base claim. Therefore, these claims are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3 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.
4 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 1-3 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlabosse et al. (WO 2019162134 A1) in view of Kluesener et al. (US 2017/0327647 A1).
Arlabosse et al. (WO’ 134 A1) teaches a machine dishwashing detergent composition (see 24, line 13), comprising nonionic surfactants in the amounts of from 2.5 to 5.0 wt.% which is within the claimed range as claimed in claims 1 and 8 (see page 21, lines 13-17), free acid equivalent of aminopolycarboxylates in the amount of 25 to 92 wt.% which is overlapped with the claimed range as claimed in claim 1 (see page 2, lines 32-34), wherein the detergent composition also comprises organic acids in the amounts of from 10 to 60 wt., of free acid equivalent and wherein the organic acids comprise di- or tri-carboxylates and wherein the organic acids include citric acid which should have average molecular mass of at most 400 or 500 Dalton as claimed in claims 6 and 7 (see page 9, lines 27-28 and page 10, lines 7-15), wherein the dishwashing detergent composition has a pH of a solution made by dissolving 1 wt. % of the solid composition in water is at least 6.5 and at most 10.0 as measured at 25 degree Celsius as claimed in claim 9 (see page 11, lines 16-24), wherein the dishwashing detergent composition does not comprise phosphonate (phosphate) and non-phosphate, less than 1 wt. % of phosphate or preferably essentially no phosphate as claimed in claims 1, 10 and 11 (see page 18, lines 33-35 and page 19, lines 1-2), wherein the dishwashing detergent composition also comprises bleaching agents in the amounts of at least 10 wt. % as claimed in claim 12 (see page 22, lines 10-11), wherein the dishwashing detergent composition also comprises colorants and perfumes as claimed in claim 13 (see page 23, lines 13-14) and wherein the dishwashing detergent composition is in a form of a unit-does detergent composition as claimed in claim 14 (see page 16, line 13).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Arlabosse et al. (WO’ 134 A1) by reciting a detergent composition comprising from 0.5 to 3.8 wt. % of hydroxamate having a claimed formula recited in claim 1.
Kluesener et al. (US’ 647 A1) in analogous art of detergent formulation, teaches a dishwashing detergent composition (see page 1, paragraph, 0008) comprising hydroxamates having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
78
98
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the reference’s formula is similar to the claimed formula, when in the claimed formula, R1 represents alkyl groups and R2 is a hydrogen atom, and when in the reference’s formula, R1 represents alkyl groups as claimed in claims 1-3 (see page 35, paragraph, 0286), and wherein the hydroxamates present in the detergent composition in the amount of 0.3 wt. % to about 0.6 wt. % which is overlapped with the claimed range as claimed in claims 1 and 2 (see page 35, paragraph, 0289).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Kluesener et al. (US’ 647 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to modify the dishwashing detergent composition of Arlabosse et al. (WO’ 134 A1) by incorporating a hydroxamate as a preferred chelating agent as taught by Kluesener et al. (US’ 647 A1) (see page 35, paragraph 0286) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would have been obvious based on the teaching of Kluesener et al. (US’ 647 A1) that referred to hydroxamate as a preferred chelating agent, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of hydroxamate in a dishwashing detergent composition as taught by Kluesener et al. (US’ 647 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous dishwashing detergent composition taught by Arlabosse et al. (WO’ 134 A1), absent unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
5 Claims 4 and 5 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. The closest prior art of record (WO 2019162134 A1) teaches a dishwashing detergent composition comprising free acid equivalent of aminopolycarboxylates comprising (GLDA), (MGDA) and (EDDS) in the amounts of at least 35 wt., % (see page 7, lines 22-24). However, the closest prior art of record (WO’ 134 A1) does not teach or disclose a dishwashing detergent composition comprising aminopolycarboxylates of the claimed species (GLDA), (MGDA) and (EDDS) present in the dishwashing detergent composition in the amounts of 0.5 to 20 wt., % as claimed in claims 4 and 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761