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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernhardt et al, WO 2009/094336.
Bernhardt et al, WO 2009/094336, discloses a laundry detergent comprising sulfonated estolides and other derivatives of fatty acids (i.e., anionic surfactants; see abstract). It is further taught by Bernhardt et al that the sulfonated estolides include sulfo-estolides (SE), partially hydrolyzed sulfo-estolides (PHSE) and hydrolyzed sulfo-estolides (HSE) (see paragraph 31). Specifically, note Example N in Table 21 on page 85 which discloses a composition comprising 46% by weight of SE, PHSE, HSE, 24% by weight of a nonionic surfactant, 10% by weight of C12EO3 (which results in 70% by weight of surfactants), 4.5% by weight of monoethanolamine (which meets the hydroxyl amine structure (I) of the instant claims when R1-3 are hydrogen and R4 is CH2OH), and adjunct ingredients. Therefore, instant claim 1 is anticipated by Bernhardt et al, WO 2009/094336.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oberlin, WO 2017/139184.
Oberlin, WO 2017/139184, discloses a detergent formulation in Example 1 comprising 17% by weight of sodium lauryl ether sulphate, 37.9% by weight of the nonionic surfactant ECOSURF SA7, 11,9% by weight of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (which results in 66.8% by weight of surfactants), 3.3% by weight of monoethanolamine (which meets the hydroxyl amine structure (I) of the instant claims when R1-3 are hydrogen and R4 is CH2OH), and adjunct ingredients. Therefore, instant claim 1 is anticipated by Oberlin, WO 2017/139184.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernhardt et al, WO 2009/094336.
Bernhardt et al, WO 2009/094336, discloses a laundry detergent composition comprising sulfonated estolides and other derivatives of fatty acids (i.e., anionic surfactants; see abstract) in an amount of 5-90% by weight (see paragraph 20). It is further taught by Bernhardt et al that the sulfonated estolides include sulfo-estolides (SE), partially hydrolyzed sulfo-estolides (PHSE) and hydrolyzed sulfo-estolides (HSE) (see paragraph 31), that the detergent composition further contains diethanolamine salts of alkyl ester sulfonate surfactants (see paragraph 86), nonionic surfactants, such as C9-15 primary alcohols ethoxylated with 3-12 moles of ethylene oxide (see paragraphs 106-108), and 0.53-4.5% by weight of monoethanolamine (which meets the hydroxyl amine structure (I) of the instant claims when R1-3 are hydrogen and R4 is CH2OH; see Examples J-S in Table 21 on page 85), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples A-S in Table 21 on pages 83-85. Although Bernhardt et al generally discloses a detergent composition containing greater than 75% by weight of a surfactant, the reference does not require such detergent compositions containing greater than 75% by weight of a surfactant with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a detergent composition, as taught by Bernhardt et al, which contained greater than 75% by weight of a surfactant, because such detergent compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Bernhardt et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a detergent composition containing greater than 75% by weight of a surfactant is expressly suggested by the Bernhardt et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberlin, WO 2017/139184.
Oberlin, WO 2017/139184, discloses a detergent formulation comprising 0-30% by weight of water, 60-90% by weight of surfactants, and 0.5-10% by weight of an acrylic polymer (see abstract). It is further taught by Oberlin that the detergent formulation contains nonionic surfactants, such as alkoxylated alcohols that contain at least 6 carbon atoms in the alkyl chain and at least 5 moles of ethylene oxide and/or propylene oxide (see page 3, lines 15-32), and diethanolamine in an amount to achieve a pH of 4.5-9 (see page 4, lines 7-15), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Example 1 on page 6 that contains 17% by weight of sodium lauryl ether sulphate, 37.9% by weight of the nonionic surfactant ECOSURF SA7, 11.9% by weight of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (which results in 66.8% by weight of surfactants), 3.3% by weight of monoethanolamine (which meets the hydroxyl amine structure (I) of the instant claims when R1-3 are hydrogen and R4 is CH2OH), and adjunct ingredients and Example 2 on page 12 that contains the nonionic surfactant ECOSURF EH 6 (CAS # 64366-70-7) which corresponds to the surfactant of Formula (III) of the instant claims, as disclosed by applicant on page 6 of the instant specification. Although Oberlin generally discloses a detergent formulation containing greater than 75% by weight of a surfactant, the reference does not require such detergent formulations containing greater than 75% by weight of a surfactant with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a detergent formulation, as taught by Oberlin, which contained greater than 75% by weight of a surfactant, because such detergent formulations fall within the scope of those taught by Oberlin. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a detergent formulation containing greater than 75% by weight of a surfactant is expressly suggested by the Oberlin disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
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 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/576,448. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/576,448 claims a similar surfactant composition containing 60% by weight or greater of a surfactant, such as the surfactants of structures (II) and (III), 0.01-1% by weight of an antioxidant, such as sodium bisulfate, and 0.001-5% by weight of a hydroxyl amine, such as diethanolamine (see claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/576,448), as required in the instant claims. Therefore, instant claims 1-10 are an obvious formulation in view of claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/576,448.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
January 2, 2026