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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is based on the 18/566044 application originally filed November 30, 2023.
Amended claims 1-19, filed April 03, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-6 and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US 2006/0199750) hereinafter “Berger”.
Regarding Claims 1-6, 10-16 and 18-19
Berger discloses in the abstract, a method of preventing corrosion of metals (including aluminum) such as stainless steel, carbon steel and chrome plated flatware in automatic dishwashers through the use of a corrosion inhibitor in an automatic dishwashing detergent composition.
Berger discloses in paragraph 0008, a method of preventing corrosion of stainless steel, carbon steel and chrome plated flatware via the use of an automatic dishwashing composition comprising an effective amount of a corrosion inhibitor. The automatic dishwashing composition may be in any acceptable form. The automatic dishwashing composition may be in the form of a through-the-wash formulation, a through-the-rinse formulation or may be released during the drying stage. The automatic dishwashing composition also includes a composition that is used as an additive in addition to one or more other automatic dishwashing compositions.
Berger discloses in paragraph 0009, cooking utensils and tableware which are cleaned in automatic dishwashing machines pass through various washing cycles or, as is encountered in a commercial type automatic dishwashing machine, stages of the machine. The cycles or stages usually include a pre-rinse of warm water, followed by one or more spray washings of an aqueous solution of a detergent composition. A final step in each of the types of machines includes a water rinse to wash away residual detergent composition and loosened soil. Optionally, a separate dispenser is provided in the final rinse cycle or stage to deliver a rinse aid composition to the rinse water. This rinse aid composition contains a nonionic detergent to promote wetting and to produce a sheet flow, thereby reducing water spotting. Additionally the rinse aid composition increases the run-off speed of the water and reduces the drying time during the drying phase.
Berger further discloses in paragraph 0016, the corrosion inhibitor should be formulable and safe for use on eating and cooking surfaces such as tableware, cookware, flatware, glasses, and similar cooking or eating surfaces. Suitable materials for the corrosion inhibitor for use in the compositions herein include: a mixture of benzoic acid, ethanolamines and di-fatty acids (e.g. sebacic acid) sold under the commercial name of Cortec® S-69 available from the Cortec Corporation; a mixture of cyclohexylamine, benzoic acid, ethanolamines and di-fatty acids (e.g. sebacic acid) available from Cortec Corporation and any combinations of the above mentioned corrosion inhibitors.
Berger discloses in paragraph 0017, the corrosion inhibitor is present in the automatic dishwashing composition from about 0.1% to about 50% by weight of the automatic dishwashing composition. If a “through-the-wash” composition then the corrosion inhibitor is present from about 0.25% to about 3% by weight of the automatic dishwashing composition. If a “through-the-rinse” composition then the corrosion inhibitor is present from about 0.5% to about 50% by weight of the automatic dishwashing composition.
Berger discloses in paragraph 0055, the following examples of automatic dishwashing compositions are provided for purposes of showing certain embodiments, and as such are not intended to be limiting in any manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Berger shows in Table 1, the addition to the dishwashing detergent composition comprises sodium silicate and sodium benzoate (salt of benzoic acid (ring-containing organic acid compound)).
It is to be noted, the amount of sodium silicate and sodium benzoate in Table 1 of Berger falls within the claimed amount of 20mg to 5000mg sodium silicate and 50mg to 10,000mg ring-containing organic acid compound (sodium benzoate) due to Berger further disclosing in paragraph 0030, any suitable builder system comprising any suitable builder in any suitable amount or form may be used. In one embodiment a builder system may be present from about 5% to about 50% by weight of the automatic dishwashing composition. Any conventional builder is suitable for use herein. For example, suitable builders include, but are not limited to: citrate, phosphate (such as sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP), potassium tripolyphosphate (KTPP), mixed sodium and potassium tripolyphosphate (SKTP), sodium or potassium or mixed sodium and potassium pyrophosphate), aluminosilicate materials, silicates, polycarboxylates and fatty acids, materials such as ethylene-diamine tetraacetate, metal ion sequestrants such as aminopolyphosphonates, ethylenediamine tetramethylene phosphonic acid and diethylene triamine pentamethylene-phosphonic acid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the optimum range of sodium silicate and sodium benzoate as effective builders in the dishwashing composition. The applicant is reminded that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17
Berger further discloses in paragraph 0051, any suitable product form may be used. Suitable product forms include, but not limited to: solids, granules, powders, liquids, gels, pastes, semi-solids, tablets, water-soluble pouches, and combinations thereof. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention the composition forms part of a multi-phase unit dose product, preferably a dual compartment water-soluble pouch, wherein one of the phases comprises a main wash detergent composition.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US 2006/0199750) hereinafter “Berger” in view of Jain (WO 2019/058398 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8
Berger discloses the claimed additive composition for a dishwashing composition as presently claimed but fails to further disclose the addition of an antioxidant.
However, it is known in the art to add antioxidants to a dishwashing composition in order to aid in producing a liquid with disinfecting properties, as taught by Jain.
Jain discloses in paragraph 0088, a hand sanitizer composition, wherein the composition is in form of a dish-wash liquid.
Jain further discloses in paragraph 0038, there is provided a composition comprising: (a) ajwain oil; (b) at least one surfactant; (c) at least one base; (d) at least one mineralizing agent; (e) at least one antioxidant; (f) at least one pH adjusting agent; (g) at least one fragrance; (h) at least one skin conditioner; and (i) at least one colorant, wherein the at least one anti-oxidant is selected from the group consisting of butylated hydroxy anisole, butylated hydroxy toluene, ascorbic acid, ascorbyl palmitate, beta carotene, tocopherol, tocopheryl acetate, isoflavones, polyphenols, propyl gallate, dodecyl gallate, kojic acid, manganese dioxide, acetyl cysteine, tetrahydrodiferuloylmethane, quercetin, tertiary butylhydroquinone, ascorbyl palmitate, potassium metabisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and combinations thereof, and the at least one anti-oxidant has a weight by volume percentage in the range of 0.01 - 5% with respect to the composition.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the antioxidants of Jain to the dishwashing composition of Berger in order to aid in producing a dish-wash liquid with disinfecting properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “Berger fails to address the claimed ratio of silicate source to organic acid compound between 4:1 and 1:4. No rationale to experiment or optimize. In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of "routine optimization", the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. But the Examiner has failed to make a prima facie case because there is no articulated rationale or explanation as to why the person having ordinary skill would have sought to optimize a ratio of sodium silicate to sodium benzoate in Berger so that it would fall within the claimed range. The person of ordinary skill in the art when seeking to provide an automatic dishwashing composition with advantageous metal corrosion properties, starting from the disclosure of Berger, would not see any advantage to be gained in selecting the narrow ratio (by parts) of silicate source to ring-containing organic acid compound of between 1:4 to 4:1. Rather, Berger discourages this currently claimed ratio by only providing specific examples of a ratio much higher than this. Indeed, in the Examples, the ratios of sodium silicate to sodium benzoate provide values of 6.47:1 and 9.865:1. There is simply no suggestion in Berger that a specific ratio between sodium silicate and sodium benzoate is result-effective or has any particular technical effect. Nothing in Berger would lead the person of ordinary skill in the art to consider significantly reducing this ratio with any expectation of maintaining, let alone improving, the metal corrosion characteristics of a dishwashing detergent composition.”.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. First, as stated in the above rejection, Berger discloses a builder system (includes silicates and ring structures) may be present from about 5% to about 50% by weight of the automatic dishwashing composition, which overlaps the claimed ratio. It is maintained, Berger is not relied upon for only Examples but rather its entire teachings. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Second, it is maintained it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the discovered optimum range of sodium silicate and sodium benzoate as effective builders in the dishwashing composition. It is maintained, the compounds of silicates and ring compounds aid in builders of the composition. It is to be noted, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. There-fore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, Berger has met the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
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 LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/Latosha Hines/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights