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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 16 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 recites the limitation "the ester oxygen atoms" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the molar ratio" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sum of diol building blocks and polyol building blocks" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the polyol component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the molar ratio of carboxyl groups…" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sum of hydroxyl groups of diol…" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the molar ratio of hydroxyl groups of diol(s)…" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-604814 to Wamprecht et al. (CA-2111927 will be used for citations) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,021,554 to Padget et al.
As to claims 1-2 and 4-8, Wamprecht discloses a polyester polyol comprising building blocks of diols, dicarboxylic acids, and triols. Wamprecht further discloses reaction of the double bonds with primary amine components resulting in side chain groups derived from the primary amine:
PNG
media_image1.png
108
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wamprecht discloses a polyol component comprising 4.00 mol of hexane-1,6-diol, 1.00 mol of trimethylolpropane, 0.52 mol of adipic acid, 0.52 mol of maleic anhydride (or fumaric acid, Pg. 4, ll. 17), 2.48 mol of isophthalic acid, 0.48 mol of phthalic anhydride (Polyester B, example 2). The molar ratio of dicarboxylic acid groups to the sum of diol and polyol building blocks is 4:5. Wamprecht discloses reacting the polyester polyol intermediate with the primary amine component (Pg. 16, ll.1-11). Wamprecht does not teach the claimed alkylene oxide containing monoamine.
However, within the same field of endeavor Padget discloses unsaturated polyester polyol intermediates comprising neopentyl glycol, itaconic acid and adipic acid building blocks wherein the intermediates are reacted with oxyalkylene oxide containing monoamines comprising at least 40% of oxyethylene residues wherein the oxyalkylene oxide chains are attached as a side chain of the intermediate (3:3-62. 5:1-4, 6:33-40, 7:15-53).
Padget discloses a monoamine represented by the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
228
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the monoamine component of Wamprecht with the monoamine of Padget to provide non-ionic stabilization and prepare polyesters with good colloid stability (Abstract).
As to claim 3, Wamprecht discloses a polyester polyol with a number average molecular weight of 286 to 10,000 and comprising at least 2 structural units corresponding to the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
70
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claims 9-11, Wamprecht and Padget disclose a processes for preparing the polyester comprising reacting 4.00 mol of hexane-1,6-diol, 1.00 mol of trimethylolpropane, 0.52 mol of adipic acid, 0.52 mol of maleic anhydride (“activated maleic acid or fumaric acid, Pg. 4, ll. 17), 2.48 mol of isophthalic acid, 0.48 mol of phthalic anhydride (Polyester B, example 2) at a molar ratio dicarboxylic acid groups to the sum of diol and polyol building blocks of 4:5, followed by reacting with the monoamine Pg. 14,ll. 11-Pg. 16, ll. 11).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,846,599 to Haberecht et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,021,554 to Padget et al.
As to claims 12-14, Haberecht discloses a laundry detergent comprising branched polyesters derived from at least maleic anhydride (activated maleic acid) and trimethylolpropane having a Mn of 1890 (Example 1, 25:1-46), wherein the laundry detergent is in liquid form or gel form (8:19-29) and comprise anionic surfactants such as alkyl benzene sulfonates (9:21-30) and sulfonated fatty alcohols (11:49-64).
Haberecht does not teach modifying the polyester with the claimed alkylene oxide containing monoamine.
However, within the same field of endeavor Padget discloses unsaturated polyester polyol intermediates comprising neopentyl glycol, itaconic acid and adipic acid building blocks wherein the intermediates are reacted with oxyalkylene oxide containing monoamines comprising at least 40% of oxyethylene residues wherein the oxyalkylene oxide chains are attached as a side chain of the intermediate (3:3-62. 5:1-4, 6:33-40, 7:15-53).
Padget discloses a monoamine represented by the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
228
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to react the polyester polyol unsaturated groups with the monoamine component of Padget to provide non-ionic stabilization and prepare polyesters with good colloid stability (Abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,846,599 to Haberecht et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,021,554 to Padget et al. that has been explained above and is applied here as such in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0125610 to Tuerk et al.
As to claim 16, Haberecht discloses a laundry detergent comprising branched polyesters derived from at least maleic anhydride (activated maleic acid) and trimethylolpropane having a Mn of 1890 (Example 1, 25:1-46), wherein the laundry detergent is in liquid form or gel form (8:19-29) and comprise anionic surfactants such as alkyl benzene sulfonates (9:21-30) and sulfonated fatty alcohols (11:49-64).
Haberecht does not teach the addition of 2-phenoxyethanol to the laundry detergent.
However, Tuerk discloses laundry detergent formulations comprising 0.01 to 5 wt% of 2-phenoxyethanol (0213).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to add 2-phenoxyethanol taught in Tuerk to the laundry detergent composition of Haberecht to improve the preservation of the aqueous solution of the final product (0135).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-7450. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:00-4:00.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/MICHAEL L LEONARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights