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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention group I, claims 1-5 and 14-15, in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-13, 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/26/2025.
Applicants further elected oleic acid as specific fatty acid and hydrogen carbonate as gas generation component. For compact prosecution purpose, the election of species requirement is withdrawn.
Claims 1-18 are pending, claims 1-5 and 14-15 are under examination.
Priority
Acknowledge is made that this application is national stage of international patent application PCT/JP2022/023146, filed on 06/08/2022; which claims priority from Japan Patent application JP2021-096114, filed on 06/08/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2023, 01/13/2025 and 06/13/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. (US20180023040).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Schilling et al. teaches sophorolipid may be in acid form or lactone form, and their preferred ratio is 80:20 to 20:80 ([0059-0061]). In one example, a powder detergent comprising sophorolipid (100% acid form), sodium salt of fatty acid and sodium carbonate ([0134]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Schilling et al. is that Schilling et al. do not expressly teach all limitation in one embodiment.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the instant invention.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 14, Schilling et al. teaches a detergent comprising sophorolipid (acid form or acid: lactone form 80:20), sodium salt of fatty acid and sodium carbonate.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. (US20180023040), as applied for the above 103 rejection for claims 1-4 and 15, in view of Meier et al. (US20180044613).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Schilling et al. teaching has already been discussed in the above 103 rejection and is incorporated herein by reference.
Meier et al. teaches A concentrated detergent composition in the form of a solid, a powder, a liquid, a gel, or a paste and diluted with water (claims 1, 10-15). Generally, the present invention is not limited to the case of hard water. In a preferred aspect, however, the water used to prepare the use solution has a hardness of at least 50 mg/l CaCO3, more preferably at least 61 mg/l CaCO3, even more preferably at least 85 mg/l, most preferably at least 121 mg/l ([0067]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Schilling et al. is that Schilling et al. do not expressly teach water with hardness of 30-200 mg/L. This deficiency in Schilling et al. is cured by the teachings of Meier et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schilling et al., as suggested by Meier et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to dilute powder detergent with water having hardness of 30-200 mg/L because diluting a powder detergent with water is known practice and water having hardness of 30-200 mg/L is suitable water for diluting as suggested by Meier et al. Therefore, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to dilute powder detergent with water having hardness of 30-200 mg/L and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12478928. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference patent teaches a composition comprising sophorolipid containing acidic sophorolipid and lactonic sophorolipid in a ratio (mass ratio) of 78:22 to 100:0; a free fatty acid or salt thereof, and a gas generation component, which thus teaches applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613