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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/13/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15, 17, and 19 are pending. Claims 18, 20-21 are canceled and claims 1, 3, 6, and 14 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, with respect to Wilson (EP0850293B1) in view of Giles (US20100191012A1) have fully been considered and are not found persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-15, 17 and 20-21 under 35. U.S.C. 103 over Wilson and the rejection of claims 6, 8-9, and 19 under 35. U.S.C 103 over Wilson in view of are maintained. The rejection of claim 18 is rendered moot because the Applicant has canceled it. Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made below.
The Applicant argues an EDDS adduct in the form of a free-flowing particulate solid is not disclosed or generally suggested by Wilson. The examiner asserts however, a free-flowing particulate EDDS adduct would be obvious over the general teachings of Wilson. Wilson teaches the inventive formulation to be in any of the various commercially desirable forms including granular form, and flakes or powder tablets (see [0059]) which encompasses a solid “adduct” as understood in the art. A person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect Sample A (comprising 69.8wt% EDDS racemic mixture, 16.7 wt% EDMS racemic mixture, and 13.5 wt% fumaric acid) to be formulated in a solid granular form (see [0065]; see also [0067]). Additionally in Examples 1 and 3, Wilson teaches a substantially similar method of preparing the EDDS solid adduct to the method noted in the Applicant’s Specification (see page 15): adjusting the pH of an aqueous solution of EDDS, stirring, allowing the sample to stand for seven days (evaporating the residual water), and then filtering the solidified overheads (see [0064]-[0066]). Thus, a free-flowing particulate solid adduct with EDDS present in molar excess is obvious over the general teachings of Wilson.
The Applicant also argues that Wilson fails to teach an adduct of EDDS excess with a polycarboxylic acid excluding fumaric acid. Although Sample A comprises of EDDS, EDMS, and fumaric acid, the examiner asserts that Wilson generally teaches the use of glycolic acid, lactic acid, malic acid, tartronic acid, methyltartronic acid, gluconic acid, glyceric acid, citric acid, tartaric acid and salicylic acid as suitable polycarboxylic acids as recited stated in the previous office action (see [0039]-[0041]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to formulate a detergent composition with an acid listed above for the benefit of improved chelating ability and complex stability (see [0015]). Therefore, the limitations of the amended claim 1 would have been obvious over the general teachings of Wilson.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 13-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et. al (EP0850293B1) hereinafter Wilson.
With regards to claim 1-2, and 13-15, Wilson teaches a composition comprising of 1.44 mols ethylenediamine-N-N'-disuccinic acid (EDDS), 0.34 mols of (EDMS), and 0.27 mols fumaric acid in Example 4, Sample A relating to chelants (see also Table 4, Page 9). With regard to claims 1 and 14, the composition may be formulated in granular form or in tablet form comprising of flakes or powders (see [0059]). Wilson further teaches a laundry detergent composition comprising of 0.1-15 wt% of at least one polyaminodisuccinic acid chelant (such as EDDS), and chelants such as the water-soluble salts of hydroxycarboxylic acids (such as malic acid, citric acid, and tartaric acid) (see [0011]; see also [0041]).
Although Wilson does not disclose the EDDS excess granular detergent and the polycarboxylic acids listed above in a single embodiment to the point of anticipation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to substitute the 0.27 mols of fumaric acid in Sample A with another carboxylic acid listed above. The combination would lead to a cleaning composition that has the added benefit of improved chelating ability and complex stability (see [0015]).
With regard to claim 3, Wilson does not specifically disclose an embodiment where 60-95 mol% of the carboxylic acid groups in the adduct are provided by the ethylenediamine disuccinic acid and 5-40 mol% of the carboxylic acid are provided by the polycarboxylic acid. However, Example 4 Sample A is comprised of 1.44 mols (70.24 mol%) EDDS, 0.34 mols (16.59 mol%) EDMS, and 0.27 mols (13.17 mol%) fumaric acid. It would have been reasonable for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to expect the 70.24 mol% of the carboxylic acid groups present in Sample A to be provided by the EDDS, and 13.17 mol% of the carboxylic acid groups present in Sample A to be provided by the polycarboxylic acid.
With regards to claim 5, Wilson also teaches the source of succinic acid compounds to be alkali metal salts, preferably potassium or sodium salts (see [0026]).
With regard to claim 7, Wilson specifies the use of hydroxypolycarboxylic acids such as citric acid among others as an organic acid chelant in the detergent formula (see [0041]).
With regards to claim 9, Wilson does not explicitly disclose the detergent to be water-soluble. However, Wilson teaches Sample A were tested for biodegradeability the OECD 301B Modified Sturm Test (see [0065]). It is known in the art that samples are prepared as stock solutions in water for this test, as noted in the Applicant’s Remarks dated 05/13/2026 (see page 2), and hence the sample is necessarily water soluble. It would be reasonable for a person of skill in the art to expect a modified Sample A with malic acid, citric acid, or tartaric acid to also be water soluble as these acids are known in the art to be water soluble.
With regard to claim 17, Wilson teaches his invention to be a chelating agent which degrades faster than ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) or other commonly used chelants (see [0014]). Wilson also teaches the preparation or chelate solutions with mixtures of EDDS and EDMS in Examples 1-3.
Claims 6, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (EP0850293B1) further in view of Giles et. al (US2010/0191012A1) hereinafter Giles.
The teachings of Wilson are discussed above. With regard to claim 6, Wilson does not specifically disclose a trisodium ethylenediamine disuccinate salt as the source of EDDS of claim 6.
Giles, however, teaches the use of solid trisodium EDDS as a hygroscopic, commercially available material in laundry and automatic dishwashing formulations (see [0006]-[0009]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the solid trisodium EDDS taught by Giles with the general teachings of Wilson for the benefit of trisodium EDDS being an effective chelating agent for heavy metals and transition metals (see [0008]).
With regard to claims 8, Wilson does not specifically teach the adduct being non-hygroscopic.
Giles, however, teaches a solid detergent composition comprising magnesium containing salt of ethylenediamine disuccinic acid (MgEDDS preferably Mg2EDDS) which is in the form of a water-soluble, non-hygroscopic solid (see [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to substitute Mg2EDDS into Wilson’s modified Sample A embodiment for the benefit of the free-flowing solid composition being easily granulated (see [0012]).
With regards to claim 19, Wilson does not specifically teach the adduct as an antiscalant.
Giles however, teaches the use of the EDDS salt as an antiscalant material to sequestrate calcium and magnesium salts (see [0050]). EDDS chelating agents are known in the art to have antiscaling properties.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to use the EDDS taught by Giles in Wilson’s modified Sample A, for the benefit of enhancing metal cleaning (see [0052]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights