DETAILED ACTION
Claims 18-37 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 § 102
2 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.
3 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18, 21, 26-28 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Ashcroft et al. (WO 2015158638 A1) as evidence by the Patent (DE 102004014612 A1).
Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) teaches a solid oral care composition for use in the cleaning of teeth (see abstract), wherein the cleaning composition comprises Sodium lauryl sulfate (surfactant) in the amount of 3 % wt., and sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (cellulose gum) in the amount of 1% wt., and wherein the solid cleaning composition comprises menthol, Novamint as liquid components in the amounts of 6.5 % by wt., which is less than 7% by wt., as claimed in claims 18, 21, 26-27 and 32 (see page 8, Example 1).
It is known in the art that sodium carboxymethylcellulose, also known as cellulose gum (see English translation of the Patent No. (DE 102004014612 A1) at page 74, last paragraph), and wherein the solid cleaning composition does not comprise water as claimed in claim 33 (see page 8, Example 1), wherein the solid cleaning composition does not comprise Xanthan Gum, Sphingomonas Ferment Extract, Dehydroxanthan gum or hydroxypropyl guar as claimed in claim 28 (see page 8, Example 1) and wherein the solid cleaning composition in in the form of tablet as claimed in claim 34 (see page 2, line 3). Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) anticipates the claims.
4 Claims 18, 21, 26-27 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 20160235634 A1)
Sato et al. (US’ 634 A1) teaches a powder composition comprising Sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (Cellulose gum) in the amount of 10 % wt., and Magnesium stearate (surfactant) in the amount of 0.5 % wt., and the components which are liquid under normal condition are not present in the powder composition as claimed in claims 18, 21, 26-27 and 32-34 (see page 6, Example 11 and 12). Sato et al. (US’ 634 A1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Sato et al. (US’ 634 A1) anticipates the claims.
5 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 18-22, 24 and 26-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al., (US 20200140781 A1).
Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) teaches a solid cleaning product (see abstract), wherein
the solid cleaning product comprises surfactants include sodium coco-sulfate as claimed in claims 18, 19 and 20 (see page 2, paragraph, 0018) and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (NaCMC) (cellulose gum) as claimed in claim 18 (see page 3, paragraph, 0030). The solid cleaning product is not in liquid form as claimed in claim 18 (see page 1, paragraph, 0013), wherein the surfactants present in the solid cleaning product in the amounts of from 1% to about 50% or from about 8% to about 30% by wt., as claimed in claims 21-22 and 24 (see page 2, paragraph, 0019) and wherein carboxymethyl cellulose (Na CMC) presents in the solid cleaning product in the amount of 0.01% to about 2% by wt., as claimed in claims 26 and 27 (see page 3, paragraph, 0031), wherein the solid detergent product does not comprise liquid Xanthan Gum, Sphingomonas Ferment Extract, Dehydroxanthan gum or hydroxypropyl guar as claimed in claims 28 and 32 (see the reference’s disclosure), and wherein the solid cleaning product also comprises maltodextrin in the amount from about 2 to about 5% as claimed in claims 29 and 30 (see page 3, paragraph, 0029) and wherein the solid cleaning product also comprises sodium benzoate as claimed in claim 31 (see page 3, paragraph, 0029), wherein the solid cleaning product comprises water in the amount of less than 0.01% by wt., as claimed in claim 33 (see page 1, paragraph, 0013), wherein the cleaning product may be in a form of powder or tablets as claimed in claim 34 (see page 1, paragraph, 0002) and wherein the solid cleaning product is formulated in water-tight package such a dissolvable film as claimed in claims 35-36 (see page 3, paragraph, 0032).
The teaching of the reference of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) does not exemplify a solid cleaning composition as claimed.
However, Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) clearly teaches a solid cleaning composition comprising solid surfactants and carboxymethyl cellulose (Na CMC) (cellulose gum) as claimed.
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a solid cleaning composition to arrive at the claimed invention based on the teaching of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) that clearly suggests the use of solid surfactants in a combination of carboxymethyl cellulose (cellulose gum) to formulate a solid cleaning composition, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would except such a solid cleaning composition as taught by Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) to have similar property to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
6 Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al., (US 20200140781 A1) in view of Wang Y (WO 2020114679 A1).
The disclosure of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) as described above, does not teach a solid anionic surfactant disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate in the claimed amount as claimed in claim 23. The prior art of record of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) also does not teach or disclose the claimed weight ratio between disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and sodium coco sulfate as claimed in claim 25.
However, Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) as a primary reference, clearly teaches a solid cleaning product comprising more than one surfactant that include sodium coco-sulfate and wherein the surfactants present in the solid cleaning composition in the claimed amounts as claimed in claim 24 (see page 2, paragraphs, 0018-0019).
Wang Y (WO’ 679 A1) in analogous art of a solid cleaning formulation, teaches a solid cleaning composition comprising disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate in the amount of 16 % by wt., as claimed in claim 23 (see page 11, Example 1).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Wang Y (WO’ 679 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 solid cleaning product of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) by incorporating the surfactant disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate as taught by Wang Y (WO’ 679 A1), to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would have been obvious based on the teaching of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) that clearly teaches a solid cleaning product comprising more than one surfactant (see page 2, paragraph, 0018), and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate as taught by Wang Y (WO’ 679 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous solid cleaning product taught by Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), absent unexpected results.
Regarding the limitation of claim 25, the primary reference of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) teaches a surfactant sodium coco sulfate in the claimed amount (see page 2, paragraphs, 0018-0019). Wang Y (WO’ 679 A1) as a secondary reference, teaches and discloses a solid cleaning composition comprising surfactants include disodium Lauryl sulfosuccinate in the claimed amounts (see page 11, Example 1), and therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amounts and to determine the weight ratio between these surfactants in the solid cleaning composition so as to get the maximum effective amounts of these surfactants in the solid cleaning composition, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a solid cleaning composition to have similar property to those claimed, absent unexpected result.
7 Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al., (US 20200140781 A1).
Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) teaches a method for generating a foamed cleaning product
(cosmetic cleaning composition), when a solid cleaning product exposed to added water and agitated by the used or by an instrument method (see page 4, paragraph, 0039) wherein the solid cleaning product comprises surfactants (see page 2, paragraph, 0018) and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (NaCMC) (cellulose gum) (see page 3, paragraph, 0030) and other additives include maltodextrin (see page 3, paragraph, 0029) and sodium benzoate (see page 3, paragraph, 0029).
The instant claim differs from the teaching of the reference of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) by reciting a method for providing a cosmetic composition comprising the step (a) of mixing solid surfactant, cellulose gum and further additive to prepare a cosmetic cleaning concentrate and the step (b) of dissolving the cosmetic cleaning concentrate in water to obtain a cosmetic cleaning composition.
However, in view of the teaching of Harper et al., (US’ 781 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 method of generating a cleaning product as taught by Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious based on the teaching of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) that clearly teaches and discloses cleaning ingredients of solid surfactants (see page 2, paragraph, 0018), sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (NaCMC) (cellulose gum) (see page 3, paragraph, 0030) and other additives include maltodextrin (see page 3, paragraph, 0029) and sodium benzoate (see page 3, paragraph, 0029) in a solid product as described above, which implies and indicates that these cleaning ingredients are mixed together and formulated in a solid product as claimed in claim 37 step (a). Further, Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), refers to the foam generated when the cleaning product is exposed to added water, which implies and indicates that the cleaning product reacts or dissolves when subjected to water to obtain a foam cleaning composition as claimed in claim 37 step (b), and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a method of a generating cleaning composition from a solid product as taught by Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) to have similar property to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
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