Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-13, 15-16, 18-19, 21, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015199941A.
JP ‘941 discloses he liquid detergent composition of the present invention contains the compound (A) represented by the general formula (1) and the protease (B). According to the liquid detergent composition of the present invention, it is possible to clean stains on tableware or cooking utensils.
<Compound (A) Represented by General Formula (1)>
The compound (A) in the liquid detergent composition of the present invention is represented by the following general formula (1). This compound (A) moves to the vicinity of the protein in the oil phase together with a cleaning base such as protease (B), and is presumed to have a function of improving the cleaning performance for the protein in the soil substance. More specifically, the compound (A) enters the oil phase in the composite soiled substance from the aqueous phase with the cleaning base, and transports the cleaning base to the protein in the soiled material for cleaning. It is presumed that the effect of the base is more easily generated. ##STR2## (In the formula, R .sup.1 and R .sup.2 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 5 to 18 carbon atoms, and at least one of R .sup.1 and R .sup.2 is an alkyl group having 5 to 18 carbon atoms. A .sup.1 and A .sup.2 each independently represent an alkylene group having 2 or more and 4 or less carbon atoms, x and y each independently represents an integer of 0 or more and 6 or less, and M .sup.1 is: Represents a hydrogen atom or a cation.)
R .sup.1 and R .sup.2 in the general formula (1) are each independently a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 5 to 18 carbon atoms.
The number of carbon atoms of R .sup.1 and R .sup.2 is 5 or more, preferably 6 or more, from the viewpoint of improving the cleaning performance and from the viewpoint of improving the transfer performance from the aqueous phase to the oil phase in the composite dirt substance.
Specific examples of R .sup.1 and R .sup.2 include various pentyl groups, various hexyl groups, various heptyl groups, various octyl groups, various nonyl groups, various decyl groups, various undecyl groups, various dodecyl groups, various tridecyl groups, and various tetradecyl groups (pages 2-3).
Specific examples of the compound (A) include, for example, di (2-ethylhexyl) sodium sulfosuccinate, di (1,3-dimethylbutyl) sodium sulfosuccinate, dicyclohexylsodium sulfosuccinate, di (1- Methylheptyl) sodium sulfosuccinate, di (monooxyethylene-2-ethylhexyl) sodium sulfosuccinate, diisodecylsodium sulfosuccinate and the like. Among these, at least one selected from di (2-ethylhexyl) sodium sulfosuccinate and di (monooxyethylene-2-ethylhexyl) sodium sulfosuccinate is preferable, and di (2-propylheptyl) sodium sulfosuccinate is more preferred in the examples.
The content of the compound (A) in the liquid detergent composition is preferably 0.05% by mass or more, more preferably from the viewpoint of improving the cleaning performance and from the viewpoint of improving the transfer performance from the aqueous phase to the oil phase. (pages 3-4).
JP ‘941 further disclose an enzyme component (B), the protease (B) in the liquid detergent composition of the present invention is used for degrading proteins contained in dirt and improving cleaning performance. As the protease (B), a protease (alkaline protease) having an optimum pH from neutral to alkaline side is preferable.
The content of the protease (B) in the liquid detergent composition is preferably 0.01% by mass or more, more preferably 0.05% by mass or more, and still more preferably 0.1% from the viewpoint of improving the cleaning performance. % By mass or more, more preferably 0.12% by mass or more, and preferably 0.5% by mass or less, more preferably 0.4% by mass or less, more preferably from the viewpoint of the balance between production cost and effect. Preferably it is 0.3 mass% or less, More preferably, it is 0.2 mass% or less. In the present invention, the content of protease (B) in the liquid detergent composition is the amount of enzyme protein, and the ratio of protease (B) described below to other components is based on the amount of enzyme protein. See also para 0010, 0012 and 0037; examples.
As the surfactant (D), a nonionic surfactant can be used. The content of the surfactant (D) in the liquid detergent composition is preferably 0.1% by mass or more, more preferably 0.5% by mass or more, still more preferably 1% by mass or more, and still more preferably 2%.
As a solvent constituting the liquid detergent composition, water, ethanol, polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, ethylene glycol and mixtures thereof.
From the viewpoint of improving the stability of the composition, the amount of the solvent in the liquid detergent composition is preferably 10% by mass or more.
In a liquid cleaning composition, the other component which can be used for a normal cleaning agent can be mix | blended. Examples include pH adjusters, alkali agents, enzyme stabilizers such as calcium salts and formic acid, fragrances, antibacterial agents, antifungal agents, and dyes.
Moreover, the washing | cleaning method of the tableware or cooking utensil of this invention is a method of wash | cleaning without applying mechanical force using the said liquid detergent composition. According to the cleaning method of the present invention, it is not necessary to manually wash the dishes using a flexible material such as sponge, or even if it is hand-washed, it can be washed with the degree of light rinsing.
In the present invention, “without applying mechanical force” means not applying mechanical force by a dishwasher or hand washing. That is, according to the cleaning method of the present invention, it is possible to perform cleaning with a force sufficient to bring rinsing water into contact with tableware or cooking utensils.
(see entire document for precise line numbers due to translation).
JP ‘941 disclose the specific sulfosuccinic branched alkyl ester (a); enzyme (b) and additional components such as nonionic surfactant and solvent (see above). The ratio of components are broadly defined and would readily be optimized to suggest the claimed proportions given that optimization is within the level of ordinary skill. The method of accelerating an enzyme reaction by contacting said enzyme on a substrate is suggested by broadly including said composition on hard surfaces as suggested by JP ‘941 where the skilled artisan would envision said enzymes and sulfosuccinic alkyl ester contacting dishware to suggest said reaction (see examples). One skilled in the art would further expect the compositions and methods of JP ‘941 to adhere to said articles and further suggest utilizing fibrous articles as an option to cleanse said articles (see above).
With respect to the limitation of claim 25, where contacting said composition in a method of dishwashing, JP ‘941 is clear in their attempt to utilize said composition for non-mechanical cleansing, however, as the specification and teachings suggest and direct that said dishwashing and hand cleansing with sponges are optional and therefore would suggest to the skilled artisan that it is possible to cleanse by non-mechanical force but other methods are permissible.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim(s) 20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015199941A in view of Okamura et al WO 2017204149.
JP ‘941 is relied upon as set forth above. Specifically, JP ‘941 lacks a teaching of citric acid chelating agent.
Okamura et al disclose a cleaning composition and a cleaning surfactant used therein. In particular, the present invention relates to a dishwashing detergent composition and a dishwashing surfactant used therein. The present invention relates to a cleaning composition and a cleaning surfactant used in the cleaning composition, which are excellent in cleaning power for oily soil containing solid fat, which is attached to a hard surface of a hard article such as plastic, in particular, tableware. Specifically, the component (a) used in the present invention is a surfactant represented by the following general formula (a1), which is a compound of a sulfosuccinic acid ester or a salt thereof. The component (a) is a cleaning surfactant and a cleaning agent. The carbon number of R .sup.1a and R .sup.2a may be the same or different, and 7 or more, preferably 8 or more, more preferably 9 or more, from the viewpoint of the detergency of solid fat (hereinafter also simply referred to as detergency). The cleaning composition of the present invention may optionally contain a salt as component (c). The salt is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include inorganic salts formed with metal ions and halide ions, and organic salts such as lactic acid and citric acid. The salt contributes to the improvement of the oil dirt cleaning performance when used in combination with the component (a).
It would have been obvious to the skill artisan to utilize the dishware cleansing component, citric acid of Okamura et al to the compositions of JP ‘941, since JP ‘941 invites optional salts to his dishware cleansing compositions. One skilled in the art would have been inclined to include the salt since Okamura et al teach they have improvement in cleansing dirt and oils when used with sulfo fatty acid esters and since both references utilize said esters as the main cleansing component, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to include said salt with the expectation of increasing the cleansing proficiency of JP ‘941.
As stated in KSR Int'l Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007):
"[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claimwould have been prima facie obvious] need not seek out preciseteachings directed to the specific subject matter of thechallenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferencesand creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the artwould employ."
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-18-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the R1 and R2 in JP ‘941 examples is a branched alkyl 9-12 as previously amended and not 9-10 as amended.
The examiner contends that the broad teachings of JP ‘941 disclose R1 and R1 from 8 or more or 9 or more and exemplify branched alkyls at 8. One skilled in the art would look to the broad teachings to recognize and guide the artisan to try branched alkyl 9 or 10, absent a showing to the contrary, commensurate in scope with the claims since 9 and 10 branched alkyl groups are suggested but not exemplified and it is held that non-preferred embodiments are indicative of obviousness.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Applicant argues that Tables 1 and 3 show better result of sulfosuccinates with branched alkyls at 9 or 10 versus those exemplified in JP ‘941.
The examiner contends that the working examples of applicants specification are not commensurate in scope with the claims to proffer criticality against the prior art and the prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, Tables 1 and 3 show a specific sodium bis 2-propylheptyl sulfosuccinate; protease; adjunct ingredients and additional surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate. The most comprehensive claims 1 is drawn to a binary composition to accelerate a reaction. Criticality cannot be established since the claims are not commensurate in scope.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights