Response to Amendment
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
Claims 16 and 17 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn.
Claim 3, 5 and 12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims recite the broad recitation and the claim also recites “preferably”…., which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Claims 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by WO 2013/150300 is withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Laurent et al (2022/257487) is withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by CN (115109664) is withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO (2024126730).
WO ‘730 discloses a free flowing particulate composition comprising at least 50 wt. % of one or more amphoteric surfactants and at least 0.1 wt% of one or more chelating agents. The amphoteric surfactant may be a betaine surfactant such as cocamidopropyl betaine or may alternatively be a sultaine, amphoacetate or amine oxide surfactant (abstract). Detergent compositions are commonly known for household use, particularly for laundry and dishwashing applications and further suggest sulfate free compositions with low dioxane (page 1, lines 13-35). Such compositions may be provided in loose powder or liquid form where a user measures out a dose each time before use. The detergent formulation of the fourth aspect of the present invention may be useful in laundry, fabric care, kitchen care, personal care and institutional / industrial cleaning (page 24, lines 20-25). Specifically, WO ‘730 discloses a mixture of a hydrocarbyl glucoside. The hydrocarbyl glucoside suitably comprises an alkyl glucoside, an alkenyl glucoside, or a combination thereof. The hydrocarbyl glucoside may comprise a fatty alcohol glucoside. Suitably the hydrocarbyl glucoside comprises a C8 to C30 alkyl or C5 to C30 alkenyl glucoside, such as a C10 to C20 alkyl or C8 to C20 alkenyl glucoside. The hydrocarbyl glucoside may comprise a C5 to C30 alkyl glucoside, such as a C8 to C20 alkyl glucoside. Examples of suitable hydrocarbyl glucosides include octyl glucoside, decyl glucoside, octyldecyl glucoside, undecyl glucoside, lauryl glucoside, myristyl glucoside, cetearyl glucoside, and coco-glucoside. A suitable example of a hydrocarbyl glucoside is lauryl glucoside (page 30, lines 36-page 31, line 6).
The hydrocarbyl glucoside may be present in the detergent formulation (for example solid toilet block) in any suitable amount, such as in an amount of from 0.1 to 5 wt%, such as from 0.25 to 2 wt%, or even from 0.5 to 1 wt%, based on the total weight of the detergent formulation; and one or more ingredients selected from a sodium acyl isethionate (such as sodium lauroyl isethionate or sodium cocoyl isethionate), a sodium acyl alkyl isethionate (such as sodium lauroyl methyl isethionate or sodium cocoyl methyl isethionate) (page 32, lines 21-31). See examples 5-8.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The teaching of WO ‘730 suggest the limitations of the claimed invention, however, the teachings with sufficient specificity to anticipate is not founded. One skilled in the art would be able to arrange the well-known ingredients in their requisite proportions to suggest a laundry composition having the binary components as claimed in solid form. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, one skilled in the art would deem the teachings of WO ‘730 as prima facie obvious in light of the teachings and suggestions disclosed therein.
[W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. [KSR Int'l Co. v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976).]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NECHOLUS OGDEN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1322. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST M-F.
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 571-272-1498. 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.
/NECHOLUS OGDEN JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights